Nevada court ruling gives state authorities trouble with tracking sex offenders

December 22, 2016 Nevada:

RENO, Nev. (News 4) — The state is having a hard time keeping track of its most heinous sex offenders because of a new Nevada Supreme Court ruling.

Parole and Probation tracks 6,000 sex offenders in the state, with 1,000 on lifetime supervision. Staff make sure they're registered as required by law -- they confirm their address and make sure the offenders have no contact with their victims.

Officers who monitor sex offenders on lifetime supervision previously would go into the offenders' houses to see if there are children present or drugs and alcohol.

"Drugs or alcohol, they inhibit you from making good judgement, and a lot of our sex offenders know because they were under the influence of drugs or alcohol and they did make poor choices. So if we're unable to enforce those, it puts them at a higher risk to re-offend," said Lt. Brian Zana, with Parole and Probation with the Nevada Department of Public Safety.

Staff also had offenders come to the state office and sometimes take polygraphs.

Those would be personal contact with the offender. Gives an officer an opportunity to see how they're doing, body language, ask them questions," said Zana.

But now they can't do in-home or office visits. No polygraphs either. They can only verify addresses, that there's no contact with the victim and that they keep a certain distance from children. They can use GPS tracking on some offenders.

Last summer, the Nevada Supreme Court reversed the conviction of Steve McNeill, a sex offender from Las Vegas. He was convicted of not complying with conditions that included curfews, counseling and maintaining employment. But none of those requirements are listed in the state law regarding lifetime supervision, and the state Supreme Court ruled the parole board can't impose those restrictions.

Parole and Probation officers said they're concerned that they now don't have enough tools to track sex offenders.

"We feel that there's very limited supervision that we can provide. The division feels that it's a high liability for our division because the public is looking at us to supervise these sex offenders," Zana said.

News 4 went along with Parole and Probation officers as they checked sex offenders' addresses in Reno. Several of them were not home.

"Instances just like we just found out. We knocked on the door and they're not there, so we can't verify that they're living where they're registered with," said officer Laurie Vela.

The state has not been able to track child sex offender Gene Roper. He's been in and out of jail for not following his lifetime supervision requirements. He's been on the run and did not register with the state as required.

"We lost complete control of him," Zana said.

His last known address was in Las Vegas, but just last month Reno Police arrested him in town.

Parole and Probation believes officers could have tracked him better if the Nevada Supreme Court didn't restrict officers' contact with these offenders. Any additional supervision the office wants to do would have to be changed in the legislature.

"We're not looking to jam them up; we're looking to keep them honest and hold them accountable," Zana said. ..Source.. by Kim Burrows

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Ruling approves stricter sex offender registration

1-24-16 Nevada:

CARSON CITY — A ruling by the Nevada Supreme Court on Friday gave the go-ahead for the state to implement stricter registration requirements for sex offenders.

Justices, in a unanimous ruling, denied a petition sought by 24 unnamed, previously convicted sex offenders to block the nearly decade-old law from being implemented while a lower court considers constitutional challenges. Justices said the judicial record of facts was insufficient for the high court's review.

"It's a really short order without any real information other than we lose," said Maggie McLetchie, one of the lawyers for the men.

Monica Moazez, spokeswoman for the Nevada attorney general's office, said lawyers received the ruling late Friday and are reviewing it.

Assembly Bill 579 was passed by lawmakers in 2007 to make Nevada compliant with the Adam Walsh Act, a federal law named after 6-year-old Adam Walsh who was kidnapped and murdered in 1981. It would require many offenders who judges have said are not dangerous and with convictions dating back to 1956 to register as sex offenders, making their names, photos and addresses available to the public.

Nevada currently has about 8,000 registered sex offenders. Of those, 4,600 are not subject to public notification because they are considered low risk for recidivism.

The law in Nevada has never been enforced and would create a classification system for sex offenders that places them into one of three risk tiers based solely on their crime of conviction without consideration of age or circumstances. A bill to fix some of the problems was passed by the state Legislature last year but was vetoed by Gov. Brian Sandoval because it also eliminated a requirement that certain sex offenders stay at least 500 feet away from schools, parks and other places frequented by children.

McLetchie said one of her clients was convicted of statutory rape as a teenager. He's now a grandfather.

"We have two clients that we think are being improperly subjected to registration and notification as sex offenders for things that aren't even crimes now," she said.

Nevada's "infamous crimes against nature" law, now repealed, used to make it illegal for same-sex partners over the age of consent but under the age of 18 to engage in consensual sex acts.

During oral arguments before the Supreme Court in October, Kimberly Buchanan, a senior deputy attorney general, argued that many of the constitutional claims raised by the men were resolved in prior cases, including a challenge made by the ACLU of Nevada in 2008. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2012 ruled in that case that the law was constitutional, including the retroactive registration requirement.

McLetchie said she hopes the state hold off implementing the law while the case proceeds in District Court.

"The case is certainly not over and we don't intent to give up," she said. "This is going to open a floodgate of litigation." ..Source.. by Sandra Chereb

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Lawyer for 24 sex offenders says Nevada registration law is unconstitutional

10-5-15 Nevada:

CARSON CITY — An attorney representing 24 unnamed previously convicted sex offenders told the Nevada Supreme Court on Monday that a state law that would change the way such individuals are classified is a "one size fits all' approach that is inappropriate and unconstitutional.

Alina Shell argued that Assembly Bill 579, passed by lawmakers in 2007 to make the state compliant with the federal Adam Walsh Act, should be prohibited from taking effect until the constitutional claims can be resolved in court. The law was named after Adam Walsh, the 6-year-old son of TV personality John Walsh, who was abducted and murdered in Hollywood, Fla., in 1981.

Shell was appealing a January 2014 ruling by Clark County District Judge Douglas Smith that denied a request for a temporary restraining order to stop enforcement of the law while the constitutional claims are litigated.

The law has not yet been enforced. An effort to fix what critics said were flaws in the original law was successful in the 2015 session of the Legislature. But that measure, Senate Bill 99, was vetoed by Gov. Brian Sandoval because it also eliminated a requirement that certain sex offenders stay at least 500 feet away from schools, parks and other places frequented by children.

AB579 would create a classification system for sex offenders that places them into one of three risk tiers based solely on their crime of conviction.

Shell said the new rules will treat all convicted sex offenders the same whether or not they are rehabilitated, and subject them to onerous and humiliating reporting requirements.

"That is not the way sentencing and registration should work," she said.

Shell said the law violates the separation of powers doctrine because it usurps judicial decision making by a sentencing court. That, she said, is a constitutional argument that needs to be litigated.

Other issues raised include due process and equal protection violations.

But Kimberly Buchanan, a senior deputy attorney general, argued that many of the constitutional claims raised by Shell on behalf of the 24 "John Does" have been resolved in prior cases, including a challenge to the law made by the ACLU of Nevada in 2008. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2012 ruled in the ACLU challenge that the law was constitutional, including a retroactive application covering sex offenders who have already been convicted.

The Nevada Supreme Court also denied a challenge to the law in 2013, Buchanan said.

But Shell said the separation of powers argument, while raised in U.S. District Court, was not addressed in the 9th circuit opinion.

The court took the case under submission and will rule later. ..Source.. by Sean Whaley

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Sex offenders challenge Nevada supervision law

8-26-15 Nevada:

More than a dozen sex offenders are challenging the Nevada Parole Board's authority to impose conditions on their lifetime supervision.

The offenders, identified only as Does 1-16, filed a federal lawsuit Tuesday against several state and local officials, including Nevada Attorney General Adam Laxalt.

According to the lawsuit, the Parole Board has relied on an unconstitutional Nevada law to place movement and residency restrictions on convicted sex offenders who are under its supervision. In some cases, those restrictions have prevented the plaintiffs from attending religious services or associating with certain people in certain areas.

"The state of Nevada should not be allowed to violate the Constitution," attorney Robert Draskovich said. "It doesn't matter whether a person has been convicted of an offense that the public may hate. No one is above the law, and it should be followed."

Draskovich and two other Las Vegas attorneys, Gary Modafferi and Allen Lichtenstein, are representing the plaintiffs in the case.

The plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction to prohibit enforcement of the law, officially known as Nevada Revised Statute 213.1243. The statute, passed in 1995, gives the Parole Board authority to establish a program of lifetime supervision. Residency and movement restrictions were added to the law in 2007.

According to the complaint, the law:

• Violates the First Amendment by infringing on the plaintiffs' freedom of religion and right to assemble.

• Violates the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment because it imposes multiple punishments for the same crime.

• Violates the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, because violating a condition imposed by the Parole Board subjects an offender to another felony and a mandatory sentence of one to six years in prison.

"The sentence received for a violation of a condition inflicts a sentence disproportionate to the actual condition violated," according to the document.

• Violates the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.

• Violates the ex post facto clause, because "these punitive conditions did not exist in law when the plaintiffs committed their offenses."

• Violates the contract clause, because it "substantially impairs the terms of plaintiffs' plea agreements by imposing conditions that did not and do not exist in any statute."

• Violates the separation of powers doctrine "by delegating the power to legislate to an executive agency without any intelligible standards and allowing the executive agency to interpret and apply the law," thereby infringing on the powers of both the legislative and judicial branches.

• Violates the bill of attainder clause by allowing the Parole Board "to inflict further punishment without a judicial trial."

Among the plaintiffs in the case is "Doe 7," a Las Vegas man who pleaded guilty in 1997 to sexual assault and battery with the intent to commit sexual assault. He received a prison term of 10 to 25 years and was released on Nov. 30, 2010. He is now on lifetime supervision with more than 21 conditions imposed by the Parole Board.

"Doe 7 had difficulties finding a job due to the conditions that he is subject to," the complaint alleges. "Doe 7 also incurred expenses for computer monitoring on his work and personal computers, which can be faulty and corrupt his work files by no fault of his own. This has created a financial burden to Doe 7 considering that he also has a family he needs to provide for. Furthermore Doe 7 has family out of state and has difficulty seeing them due to movement conditions imposed on him."

Another plaintiff, "Doe 13," is an Arizona resident who committed a sexual offense in 2006 and accepted a plea agreement the following year. He was sentenced to probation with lifetime supervision.

According to the lawsuit, the conditions of his supervision "have had a disabling impact" on his life, including forcing him to stop working as a phone line splicer because of travel restrictions.

"He has not been able to engage in any relationships with the women he has met because they have children and he cannot be near children," the document claims. "He cannot go to a movie without getting prior permission. Recently, his best friend died but he was unable to attend the funeral because of the travel restrictions."

Among the officials named as defendants in the case are Clark County Sheriff Joe Lombardo and Clark County District Attorney Steve Wolfson. Neither could be reached for comment. Patty Cafferata, spokeswoman for Laxalt, said in an email that the attorney general's office does not comment on pending litigation. ..Source.. by Carri Geer Thevenot

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Debate on Nevada’s version of Adam Walsh Act goes to state’s high court

7-1-15 Nevada:

An injunction against Nevada’s version of the Adam Walsh Act, a sex offender registration plan passed in 2007 but never enacted, was debated before the Nevada Supreme Court on Tuesday morning.

Assembly Bill 579 has been mired in litigation since it was signed into law, with prior constitutional challenges at the Nevada Supreme Court and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. A court order barring the state from enacting the law was dissolved in district court in Dec. 2013 and that was appealed to the state’s high court.

Previous hearings on the injunction were postponed to give the Legislature a chance to address concerns about the law.

Las Vegas attorney Robert Langford, on behalf of plaintiff M.W., argued that the state’s high court must reverse the ruling to dissolve the injunction, because the law violates the Nevada constitution. Senior Deputy Attorney General Kimberly Buchanan countered that previous cases have already ruled against Langford’s complaints.

The case is centered on a man, identified only as M.W., who was convicted of attempted incest in Colorado in 1996, when he was 21 years old. Before moving to Nevada, the man was registered as a low-risk sex offender and was not required to notify the community or appear on an online registry.

Langford told the full panel of justices that the injunction was required because his client had a likelihood of success based on the merits of the case, and that allowing the law to go into effect would do irreparable harm to him. Langford’s opening brief asserted that the Adam Walsh Act violated the state constitution in several ways.

While the justices expressed skepticism about Langford’s constitutional arguments, they also appeared open to giving the case a more thorough vetting in district court.

Justices Christina Pickering and Michael Cherry asked how there could be problems with the separation of powers doctrine and the contracts clause, considering the man was convicted in Colorado.

Langford said the state’s judicial powers were still being subverted by the executive branch because the department of public safety was going to overrule a court’s decision about the tier and length of time for which M.W. had to register as a sex offender.

“One could still argue that even though his judicial determination was outside of Nevada, there still was a judicial determination,” he said.

Buchanan refuted Langford’s argument that previous opinions on the law didn’t apply to this case, saying that the issues had all been resolved. The 9th Circuit decided in 2012 that the law could be applied retroactively, and the Nevada Supreme Court said in 2013 that the law could be applied to juveniles.

The state won when it had a much higher burden of proof in the juvenile context, she said.

Buchanan said the Adam Walsh Act registration plan, which would force M.W. to register and appear on public registries for life if enacted, was not a punishment.

The man, who was supposed to have completed his obligation to register by about 2008, may face challenges finding employment and housing if subjected to community notification, according to his lawyers.

But types of public shaming are “collateral consequences” and not an intended punishment. And there’s no need to remand the case for trial, because there are not any additional facts to produce during discovery, Buchanan said.

It’s a “broad constitutional challenge” on its face and not as enacted, she said, adding that no one has actually been harmed by the law.

Justices said the issue of irreparable harm might need to be explored further. Someone could recognize him from an online registry and follow him to a meeting “like they did in South Carolina” and attack.

“Why shouldn’t we return this to the district court for a thorough vetting for constitutional problems?” Pickering said.

The court recognized problems with the Adam Walsh Act in the 2013 case, noting that the bill seemed to have been rushed through a Legislature afraid of losing federal grant funding. This year, Senate Bill 99 addressed critics’ problems with how sex offender laws applied to juveniles, but Gov. Brian Sandoval vetoed the measure.

“Some of the issues here may be something that the trial court needs to know about,” Chief Justice James Hardesty said. ..Source.. by Wesley Juhl

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Death Without Parole

3-10-15 Nevada:

First: Nevada Receives low Marks in Inmate Rehabilitation While Denying Human Rights

Third in a Series Exposing Nevada’s Negligent Prison System and Parole Board

A Public Slate Exclusive

The first two articles in this series exposed a failed branch of the department of correctional facilities in Nevada. Lack of intelligent and just decisions by the parole board forced inmates whose sentences had concluded the date dictated by the court system to remain incarcerated beyond their release dates. This inaction is inhumane and also results in tens of millions of dollars in expenditures paid for by Nevada taxpayers. The worst consequence has not been discussed until now.

Mercedes Maharis, who provided much of the information for these articles, continues to fight for the human rights of those who have unfairly and immorally received prolonged sentences in Nevada’s state prisons. As I write this she is attempting to work with the legislature to reverse unfair treatment of a group which is singled out by the parole board.

There is little doubt that the title sex offender immediately attaches a stigma to the individual and conjures horrid images of unspeakable acts. This is where it begins. The reality is that sex offenses have a wide range of degree and content. The tragedy occurs when they die while incarcerated without receiving basic human rights.

Nevada is one of many states which fails to differentiate between those who commit crimes of intent with those who have mental problems. Statistics are unavailable or simply obscured by the prison system revealing the number of inmates convicted of sexual offenses who have died in a mysterious fashion while incarcerated. Without proper mental treatment, they can come in mentally ill and leave mentally ill to offend again without understanding why they offended in the first place. The system continues a culture of punishment, too often of death, not a culture of rehabilitation. An eye for an eye and a tooth.

California has released its own statistics, and its records are expected to be indicative of prisons across the nation. California’s inmate percentage of sexual offenders is estimated to be 15 percent. This relatively small percentage of the general population accounts for 30 percent of homicides inside prison walls.

California began releasing information defining the identities and crimes of those who were murdered while serving their sentences in the general population in 2007. In that year 23 out of 78 deaths were convicted sex offenders. California designated special areas for confinement of those who were considered vulnerable to attacks by other inmates. This only appeared to clearly define those who were subsequently murdered.

Prison officials defended the statistics by diverting the attention of authorities to overcrowded prisons. Lower level criminals remained in jails, while violent prisoners and sex offenders dominated the prison population.

Nevada has no separate facilities in its correctional system for sex offenders. At present Idaho and Iowa are the only two states who have addressed the problem seriously. Both states offer programs to identify the root cause of sexual crimes and present solutions for rehabilitation and therefore diminishing recidivism percentages.

Between 2007 and 2014, Nevada State Prisons witnessed 316 deaths of the total inmate population. The number of deaths of sex offenders was 103, or one-third of the total number. Yet sex offenders comprise less than one-fifth, (19.5 percent), of the total prison population in Nevada.

During that same time period a disproportionate number of first time sex offenders died compared to those with prior convictions. 68 first time sex offenders were murdered or died from natural causes; 35 deaths had prior convictions. The question arises; were those with prior convictions more able to protect themselves?

This situation is the direct result of Parole Board inefficiency and the stigmata they have placed upon any and all sex offenders. The Board expressed little concern for the conduct or physical condition of these specific inmates who rightfully expected to be released after completion of their court ordered sentences.

With a lack of programs directed at first time sex offenders, Nevada’s recidivism rate is nearly 25 percent; Iowa’s is under four percent. Sex offenders have been forced to seek parole multiple times; too many denied until death, which was a sentence that the judge or judge and jury did not give to them. One inmate appeared before the parole board 32 times.

Static-99R is intended to be an actuarial tool to aid interviewers in a parole hearing for sex offenders. Here is a list of its considerations.

Prior sexual offenses
Prior sentencing dates
Any convictions for non-contact sex offenses
Current convictions for non-sexual violence
Prior convictions for non-sexual violence
Unrelated victims
Stranger victims
Male victims
Young
Single

The final instruction states: “The Static-99 is administered in an interview setting by probation/parole officers, correctional case managers, as well as mental health professionals.”

The truth is that there are parole board hearings with only two members of the parole board in attendance, and low risk to re-offend sex offenders have been denied parole multiple times.

When constitutional rights are violated there should be a public uproar. These individuals are intentionally subjected to incarceration far beyond the intent of the court system.

Nevada’s legislature is in session this year. Proposals have been offered which would change our state’s present failed parole system. There is no way to predict what action Nevada’s legislators will take; if any. It is paramount that each person reading this expose contact their representatives and demand fair treatment for these forgotten men. ..Source.. For the Public Slate: James Turnage

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Bill would repeal Adam Walsh sex-offender act in Nevada

2-28-15 Nevada:

After years of languishing in Nevada courts, legislators are reconsidering sex-offender laws affecting juveniles and the way criminals are ranked and registered.

State Sen. Richard “Tick” Segerblom, D-Las Vegas, and Assemblywoman Michele Fiore, R-Las Vegas, introduced Senate Bill 99 in February to repeal the state’s version of the federal Adam Walsh Act. Critics have said the law disenfranchises juveniles who could be reformed, and many think the way the law categorizes offenders — based on the crimes committed rather than risk of re-offending — might not really serve the public interest.

The law has been challenged in Clark County courts, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and the Nevada Supreme Court, which placed an emergency injunction against the law in October, the day before it was supposed to finally be enacted.

The Nevada Legislature passed Assembly Bill 579 in 2007 to make the state compliant with the Walsh Act, signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2006. The law was named after Adam Walsh, the 6-year-old son of TV personality John Walsh, who was abducted and murdered in Hollywood, Fla., on July 27, 1981.

Las Vegas attorney Maggie McLetchie has been litigating the issue since 2008. She said the Legislature was wrong to think that the federal government could compel Nevada to follow its guidelines.

McLetchie was scheduled to challenge the law in the state’s high court in early February, but oral arguments were canceled to give the Legislature another chance to work on it.

SEXUAL DELINQUENTS

One problem with the Walsh Act is that community notification and lifetime registration applies to youths convicted of sex crimes as long as they’re over 14. But opponents of the law say juveniles should be treated differently than adult offenders.

Las Vegas attorney Donna Coleman has been serving on a committee evaluating the Walsh Act for the state attorney general’s office. She said she would testify in favor of the bill to repeal it.

The fragile minds of juveniles might not be able to cope with the pressures of community notification and appearing in online sex offender registries, Coleman said.

“We are at a very high suicide rate for juveniles,” she said. “We don’t want to push them over the edge.”

A 2014 study by the Illinois Juvenile Justice Commission found that most juveniles convicted of a sexual offense were not motivated by “deviant sexual arousal or a focused intent to harm others,” which would indicate a risk of future sexual offenses. Youths usually commit sexual crimes due to developmental or social issues, or because they were abused themselves.

Most juveniles respond well to therapy, the report said, so they will not become adult sex offenders.

The proposed law would ensure that juveniles would not be subjected to community notification, though schools would continue to get the information. When youths reach age 21, a court hearing would assess whether they were a risk to the public, Coleman said.

Juveniles who commit particularly heinous sexual crimes likely would be tried as an adult and thus be subjected to adult registration rules, she added.

Sgt. Brian Zana with the Nevada Division of Parole and Probation’s sex offender unit compared publishing youth offenders on the public register to branding them with a “Scarlet Letter.” He said the division supports the idea of holding hearings when a juvenile offender turns 21.

“You have to remember children make mistakes,” he said.

Treatment of juvenile sex offenders was addressed in the first Walsh Act case to reach the Nevada Supreme Court. Justices upheld a lower court ruling that said the law did not violate the state constitution. But in an opinion penned by Justice Michael L. Douglas, the court acknowledges problems with the law.

“We share the juvenile court’s concerns regarding the wisdom of this legislation. Nevertheless, we are bound to follow the law,” the opinion reads. “Of utmost concern, it does not appear from the legislative history that the Nevada Legislature ever considered the impact of this bill on juveniles or public safety.”

Another problem is that the statute applies to offenders retroactively, and some people could end up on Internet sex offender registries for crimes that happened as long ago as 1956. In a worst-case scenario, the law could even be applied to people convicted long ago under Nevada’s voided and unconstitutional criminalization of consensual homosexual acts, McLetchie said. SB 99 would not repeal that, too.

RATING RISKS

The old sex offender law was pretty simple: Offenders individually were rated by specially trained mental health professionals from low to high according to their risk of re-offending. But how long people have to register as sex offenders is not based on this risk rating under the Walsh Act.

The current law categorizes offenders into tiers based on the crime they committed and might not truly be in the public’s interest, according to a 2012 multi-state study sponsored by the National Institute of Justice. Researchers found that many with the highest risk of re-offending often ended up on lower tiers with shorter registration terms under the Walsh Act.

“It’s not that cut and dry,” Zana said of categorizing offenders based on convictions.

Many first-time offenders automatically would be rated on the lowest tier under the Walsh Act but would be ranked higher if considered individually based on their risk of re-offending. This includes crimes such as lewdness with a child under 14 and incest, he said.

Under Walsh Act standards, the lowest registration tier is assigned to those convicted of a crime against a child or a sexual crime. Offenders have to register for 15 years.

Tier II offenders committed a sexual crime or one involving a child if it is punishable by imprisonment for more than a year. Those who re-offend after being assigned Tier I graduate to this level and have to register for 25 years. Tier II crimes include felony luring of a child, sexual abuse against children, sex trafficking and child pornography.

Those in the highest tier, which applies to people convicted of crimes including kidnapping and sexual abuse against a minor under 13, must register for life. Top-level crimes also include sexual assaults and murders involving rape.

All of the tiers also include attempts or conspiracies to commit those crimes and similar convictions from other states.

The Legislature said during the 2008 special session that more than 2,000 parolees would move from a low-risk rating under the old law to the highest tier under the Walsh Act.

“You get a needle-in-the-haystack problem,” McLetchie said.

Zana said he has been studying the proposed repeal for a couple weeks, and that while it’s not perfect, he said it’s heading in the right direction.

He said the current law is confusing and a handful of sexual offenses aren’t included, such as peeping and taking secret “up-skirt” photos. “Those are entry-level sex offenses,” Zana said.

Like so-called gateway drugs, Zana said people committing these offenses often get bored and move on to worse crimes.

Nevada was one of the first states to pass the Walsh Act, Segerblom said, adding that the Legislature rushed to comply with federal guidelines out of fear of losing criminal justice grants.

But the cost to implement it — estimated at $4 million in 2009 — far exceeds the less than $200,000 Nevada would have lost. To Segerblom’s knowledge, the state never has received federal funds to help with implementation of the Walsh Act.

LIFETIME MONITORING

Assemblyman Phillip O’Neill, R-Carson City, requested a separate bill draft to change laws about the lifetime monitoring of offenders and the system for dealing with violations. For the proposed changes, O’Neill has been working with the Nevada Department of Parole and Probation, which has been trying to change lifetime registration laws for years with no success.

The complexity of the legislation is one reason it hasn’t gained momentum in the past, according to parole department Lt. David Helgerman. Many hesitate because on the surface the bill seems to remove lifetime supervision altogether, but Helger­man said the department is actually trying to replace it with an extended probation period.

“We would not recommend something we thought would be a detriment to public safety,” Helgerman said.

Currently, lifetime registration begins for sex offenders after they have finished parole. And to punish violations would require an offender to be charged with an additional felony in the jurisdiction in which they were first charged. If they have moved to another city, officers must scramble to meet the 72-hour deadline to get the violator to court, where they could then be released on bail.

“There’s a long list of problems,” he said about the law.

O’Neill’s bill would replace lifetime registration by extending the maximum probation terms and giving courts more deference in sentencing sex offenders. Rather than new charges, violators would face a parole hearing. The proposed changes also would make it easier to hold hearings for violators in other jurisdictions and would make it easier to transfer probationers and parolees out of state, Helgerman said.

Helgerman said the majority of the sex crimes an ex-convict would have to register for come with life sentences in prison, so lifetime supervision requirements are “redundant.” The four charges that don’t carry maximum sentences of life in prison right now — battery to commit sexual assault, child pornography, incest and exploiting people with mental illnesses — would all get extended prison sentences under the new bill.

O’Neill’s bill also would prevent sex offenders from being released on bail after violating the terms of their registration.

Helgerman said the state has 783 offenders on lifetime supervision.

“This bill would give our current law more teeth,” Helgerman said.

LEGISLATIVE SOLUTIONS

Segerblom said that the current law unnecessarily “lumps everyone together” and burdens local law enforcement agencies. Nine years after the federal Walsh Act passed, most states have rejected it. Only 17 states have enacted it, and the count might include other states, like Nevada, where the law was approved but not fully enforced because of lawsuits.

“We had a really good sex offender law before the Adam Walsh Act,” Segerblom said. “Sometimes you just need to say, ‘I’m sorry.’ A bad law is a bad law.”

SB 99 addresses some of what opponents point to as the Walsh Act’s problems. The current draft of the bill gives offenders a way to appeal tier designations and lifetime monitoring after 15 years, and it calls for individual assessments of juveniles based on their risk of reoffending. The bill also would give juvenile courts the ability to exempt youths from community notification and registration.

The state attorney general’s office has defended the Walsh Act through every legal challenge, and Attorney General Adam Laxalt plans to continue to do so. When asked if Laxalt would support efforts to repeal the Walsh Act, Assistant Attorney General Brett Kandt said there’s no reason for the attorney general’s office to change course “unless and until the Legislature says so.”

Kandt said that he hasn’t seen any studies about problems with the Walsh Act, and the attorney general only engages with the Legislature on bills that would affect public safety, which he did earlier this session. Laxalt’s office sent a memo in January urging lawmakers to support Assembly Bill 45, which would allow the Department of Corrections to give sex offenders risk ratings of moderate-low and moderate-high in addition to low, moderate and high.

This risk ratings system would have no effect on the length of time an offender has to register under Walsh Act standards.

Gov. Brian Sandoval’s office did not return repeated calls to ask whether he would sign a bill to repeal Nevada’s version of the Walsh Act. ..Source.. by Contact Wesley

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

GOP lawmaker: Arm ‘hot little girls’ to stop college sex assault

2-19-15 Nevada:

A Nevada lawmaker is sponsoring a bill to legalize guns on college campuses in her state, a measure she said could prevent men from sexually assaulting “young, hot little girls.”

Many gun rights advocates argue that arming female college students around the country would help reduce sexual assaults. One of those advocates, Republican Assemblywoman Michele Fiore of Nevada, said in a recent telephone interview with The New York Times: “If these young, hot little girls on campus have a firearm, I wonder how many men will want to assault them. The sexual assaults that are occurring would go down once these sexual predators get a bullet in their head.”

After publication of the Times report on Wednesday, Fiore issued a statement seemingly clarifying her remarks: “That may not be the most eloquent way to phrase it; however, I stand wholeheartedly by that sentiment because I want every citizen, whether they’re on a college campus or not, to have the right to defend him or herself from sexual assault.”

“So I ask: ‘What’s your point? Are you opposed to the right to self defense or are you arguing that rape is the new normal of attending college?’” she added.

Nevada law currently bans concealed weapons at colleges and universities, unless an individual gets permission from the institution’s president, a rare occasion.

The bill introduced by Fiore last Friday would change that, and also allow individuals with concealed weapon permits to carry their guns in public buildings and in unsecured areas of airports. Two previous attempts to pass the so-called “campus carry” bill, which was opposed by university officials, failed in both 2011 and 2013. But now that Republicans control both chambers of the Nevada state legislature, Fiore allegedly is confident her measure will become law. ..Continued.. by Michele Richinick

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Judge advises Dunfield to register

9-3-2014 Nevada:

The Republican candidate for Vernon County prosecutor in the November general election, Dustin Dunfield, was advised Friday, after a four-and-a-half hour bench trial, to register within three business days with the Vernon County Sheriff as a sex offender.

Dunfield had filed two suits July 23 in Cedar County Circuit Court: one to exempt him from filing as a sex offender and a second suit to remove from his closed record his 1996 felony plea to statutory rape.

Dunfield didn't return a phone call to his law office and a residence isn't listed in the phone directory. A previous home number has been disconnected. Emails sent to his law office weren't returned.

Dunfield has maintained that he was never convicted, never pleaded guilty to and was never found guilty of a felony. In an earlier Daily Mail story, he said he has never committed statutory rape. He has also maintained that he is eligible to run for county prosecutor.

For Friday's hearing, Circuit Judge Tim Perigo, out of McDonald County, was assigned to Cedar County on a change of judge.

Duane Cooper of Pineville was the special prosecutor in the case, assigned to replace Vernon County Prosecutor Lynn Ewing, who asked to have a special prosecutor appointed since he has a conflict of interest, as he is the Democratic candidate for Vernon County prosecutor in the November general election.

Ewing said the matter came to his attention in July after a member of the public saw a "Dunfield for Prosecutor" sign in a yard while the person was visiting garage sales in Nevada. That person contacted Ewing, who said he was duty-bound to look into the matter. Ewing said he was required by law to contact various law enforcement agencies once he determined the merits of the claim.

As the opposing candidate, Ewing was the only one who could file the now pending lawsuit to have Dunfield removed from the ballot because, he said, it is a felony for a person who has pleaded guilty or been found guilty of a felony to run for public office.

In the hearing, Dunfield said it was on the advice of his court appointed attorney that he accept an Alford Plea to the felony charge because she told him that if he went to trial and was found guilty, he would be sent to prison.

He said his attorney told him that because of the charge and his physical limitations (he is partially paralyzed from a spinal cord injury from a broken neck); he would be raped by fellow prisoners. He said she advised him to take the Alford Plea, which would result in a suspended imposition of sentence and two years probation, then his record would be closed and he would not have to get on the sex offender registry.

Dunfield called retired Cedar County Associate Circuit Judge Joe Burl Phillips as a defense witness. Judge Phillips said, "I'm the judge that took the plea."

Dunfield asked, "Did I ever say I accepted an Alford Plea?"

Phillips said, "No."

The prosecutor, Duane Cooper, told the court that under the law in effect since Jan. 1, 1995, in order to file to get off the sex offender registry, the subject must be in compliance.

Dunfield said he was never told he had to register as a sex offender. Dunfield said that when the Board of Missouri Bar Examiners investigated him for his law license, he told them about the case's circumstances and that he was allowed to continue with his legal practice.

He said he told them he had never been convicted of a felony, pleaded guilty to a felony or been found guilty of a felony. He said no one ever explained an Alford Plea to him.

Dunfield called Vernon County Associate Circuit Judge Neal Quitno as a defense witness. Quitno was the prosecutor during Dunfield's 1996 trial. He said he has no independent recollection of prosecuting Dunfield.

Dunfield asked Quitno, "As a former prosecutor and as a judge, would you have a problem with me not being on the sex offender list?"

Quitno said, "No."

Prosecutor Cooper asked Quitno, "Did it (that court) find Dustin Dunfield guilty?"

Quitno said, "They found him guilty, absolutely."

Judge Perigo had Quitno read out of the transcript of the 1996 trial. Quitno read that the defendant admitted that the crime occurred in Vernon County and that his attorney had discussed the Alford Plea with him.

Dunfield's former court appointed attorney, Lorna Huber, who was contacted by phone during the trial, said she had no independent recollection of the case and could not recall if she ever discussed the Alford Plea with Dunfield.

(In an Alford Plea, the defendant says he or she is not guilty but realizes there is likely sufficient evidence for a conviction and takes the plea bargain. If the judge accepts the Alford Plea, the judge finds the defendant guilty and it goes on the record as a guilty plea and a finding of guilt.)

Prosecutor Cooper referred to the transcript of the original trial. He had Dunfield read the questions Judge Joe Burl Phillips asked Dunfield before he accepted the Alford Plea. One of the questions was whether Dunfield was guilty. Dunfield said he was guilty.

In the transcript of the 1996 trial, Judge Phillips asked Defendant Dunfield, "Is this a straight up guilty plea or an Alford Plea?"

Dunfield's attorney asked if she could have a moment to talk with her client and it was granted.

In that 1996 trial transcript, after the break for Dunfield to talk with his attorney, the judge then proceeded with questioning Dunfield.

Prosecutor Cooper entered into evidence the affidavit Dunfield signed when he declared himself a legal candidate for Vernon County prosecutor.

Before the judge let Dunfield answer, Judge Perigo warned him about self-incrimination. The judge said, "So there is a possibility of you being prosecuted."

Dunfield said, "I didn't realize that I was ever found guilty."

Dunfield told the court that he has an almost photographic memory.

He said, "I still don't believe I was ever found guilty."

Later Dunfield repeated his belief, saying, "I didn't realize that I was ever found guilty."

He said, "I don't remember anything about an Alford Plea or anything else. I don't remember the Alford Plea."

Dunfield said that if the court decided it did not have jurisdiction or if the ruling went against him, he would file an appeal the next week (week of Sept. 1) with the Court of Appeals.

Prosecutor Cooper, in his closing, told the court, "Once an SIS (suspended imposition of sentence) is completed, it can't be modified."

He also told the court, "You have to be compliant with the regulation before you can get off the sex offender registry."

Cooper summarized, "He really did plead guilty. He really was found guilty."

Judge Perigo said, "I will make entries in writing," and ended the trial.

In the ruling posted on Case.Net, the judge wrote, "Plaintiff moves this court to exempt him from sex offender registration under Section 589.400.7 RSMo. Said section states any person currently on the sexual offender registry. Petitioner is not currently on the registry, having never registered as a sex offender. Accordingly, petition is denied. Under Section 589.405 petitioner is advised to register in Nevada, Vernon County, Missouri, within three business days. Register with chief law enforcement of said area."

The judge's ruling on Dunfield's suit to have his 1996 guilty plea set aside is closed because it involves a closed record.

Still to be determined is if the Missouri Supreme Court Board of Law Examiners will revisit the issue of whether Dunfield should be licensed as an attorney.

Judge Perigo has been assigned to the suit to have Dunfield's name removed from the November Vernon County ballot but a trial date has not been set.

During the trial, Prosecutor Cooper told the court that law enforcement is looking into whether Dunfield filed an improper affidavit stating he is eligible to run, which is a felony with a fine and jail term upon conviction. ..Source.. by Nevada Daily Mail

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Officials push to amend Nevada’s controversial sex offender law

See earlier: Nevada Supreme Court blocks tough sex offender registration law, asks for further legal briefs and Nevada Supreme Court orders delay in enforcement of sex offender registration law

5-2-2014 Nevada:

Nevada Assemblywoman Michele Fiore on Thursday said she would use one of her bill drafts in the next legislative session to rework the state’s controversial sex offender law that was adopted to comply with a federal act.

In 2006, Congress approved the Adam Walsh Act as a guideline for state laws on sex crimes. The act was intended to toughen punishment for sex offenders and make their photos, names and addresses available to the general public.

Nevada lawmakers in 2007 adopted most provisions of the federal law. The state law, proposed in Assembly Bill 579, was set to go into effect Feb. 1, but the Nevada Supreme Court put a temporary stop to it following a lawsuit filed on behalf of 24 unnamed clients.

It was not the first legal challenge the law had faced since 2007.

“I just don’t think that AB579 is fitting nor (is) appropriate for the state of Nevada,” Fiore, R-Las Vegas, said during a meeting of the Advisory Committee to Study Laws Concerning Sex Offender Registration. “I really, truly believe that we have very intelligent legislators and judges, that could bring forth this next legislative session much more comprehensive guidelines than what’s implemented in this” legislation.

The state law applies to anyone convicted of a felony sex crime involving children and is retroactive to 1956. There are about 3,000 registered sex offenders in Nevada, and that number is expected to dramatically increase under the law.

Susan Roske, an attorney with Clark County’s juvenile public defender’s office, said if the committee doesn’t make a recommendation to the Legislature to repeal the law entirely, an alternative could be to amend parts of the law that address juveniles.

In response to various states concerned about the federal act’s impact on juvenile offenders, the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering and Tracking has said juvenile courts can have discretion in keeping juvenile offenders off the public website that would display their personal information, Roske said.

The committee could ask the state Legislature to acknowledge those changes and grant juvenile court judges that discretion, she said. The change wouldn’t apply to juveniles being charged as adults.

“I would strongly urge that this change be made,” she said Thursday.

Tod Story, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada, said he would recommend the state suspend the implementation of the law and examine why lawmakers rushed to adopt it in 2007.

Thus far, only 17 states have passed laws which “substantially implement” the federal act, Story said. The remaining 33 states are either unable or unwilling to comply with the requirements.

“It’s a bad law and it wasn’t thought through,” Roske said. ..Source.. by Yesenia Amaro

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Nevada Supreme Court blocks tough sex offender registration law, asks for further legal briefs

Another reporter with the correct explanation of what is happening. Hummm, notice my highlight below...

2-3-2014 Nevada:

CARSON CITY, Nevada — The Nevada Supreme Court has temporarily blocked a tough sex offender registration and public notification law enacted by state lawmakers in 2007 that opponents say will subject even low-level offenders from decades ago to undue ridicule.

In an order issued Jan. 30, three justices granted a stay of the law that was to take effect Feb. 1.

Justices James Hardesty, Michael Douglas and Michael Cherry said the opponents' petition raises "issues of arguable merit," and said a temporary injunction was warranted. The court ordered further legal briefs on the issue.

Nevada legislators enacted AB579 to comply with the 2006 federal Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act. It was named after 6-year-old boy who was kidnapped from a Florida shopping mall in 1981 and later found dead.

The Nevada law applies sexual offender and public notification requirements retroactively to convictions dating back to 1956, even if the person has been assessed as a low risk for re-offending.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the constitutionality of Nevada's law in 2012 and lifted an injunction that had been in place for three years.

But a Las Vegas law firm in January filed a petition on behalf of 24 unnamed plaintiffs in state court seeking to stop the law from taking effect. A Clark County judge denied the request in late January, prompting the emergency appeal to the state Supreme Court.

"There are a whole bunch of policy reasons why this law is a terrible idea," Maggie McLetchie, one attorney handling the case, said Tuesday.

The petition argues the law will replace Nevada's risk-based assessment on who needs to register with a system totally tied to conviction.

Prior risk assessments will be "tossed out the window," and anyone who committed a crime with a sexual element since 1956 would be subject to the law, the petition said.

"For people who have already paid their debt to society, even people whose crimes are in the distant past, this means that they will not only have to register regularly, they will have to do so every time they change jobs or, for a homeless person, every time they stay at a different shelter," the petition said. "Almost all sex offenders — and by default, their families — face being subjected to community notification and danger."

The state monitors about 3,000 registered sex offenders, and it's not immediately known how many will be added to the list if the registration requirements are expanded.

Because of the court's order, the Nevada Board of Parole Commissioners withdrew a funding request to hire one new position to help implement the law. ..Source.. by SANDRA CHEREB

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Nevada Supreme Court orders delay in enforcement of sex offender registration law

This reporter has the correct explanation of what is happening.

2-3-2014 Nevada:

A new legal challenge has delayed the start of stricter registration requirements for sex offenders in Nevada.

The law, modeled after the federal Adam Walsh Act, would require many offenders who judges have said are not dangerous — including some who were as young as 14 at the time they committed a sex crime — to make their names, photos and addresses available to the public. Since Nevada lawmakers approved the law in 2007, pieces of it have gone before courts from the district to federal levels.

It was set to go into effect Feb. 1, but the Nevada Supreme Court put a temporary stop to it Thursday following a lawsuit filed by Las Vegas firm Langford McLetchie on behalf of 24 unnamed clients. The lawyers filed suit Jan. 16 in Clark County District Court to stop enforcement of the law, but on Jan. 28 Judge Douglas Smith rejected their request. So they went to the state’s high court.

Supreme Court justices said the lawyers raised more questions that deserve a second look. Among them: Is it constitutional for sex offenders who have already served their court-ordered time to have the rules changed at this point? And did Nevada legislators overlook public safety voting in this law?

The law applies to anyone convicted of a felony sex crime or crimes involving children since 1956. About 3,000 are on Nevada’s sex offender rolls now, and the Walsh Act is expected to dramatically increase that number. There’s no state estimate on how many more names could be added, or how much tracking them will cost.

Maggie McLetchie, one of the lawyers for the plaintiffs, said Nevada’s version of the Walsh Act “is a mess.”

“Nobody really knows what to do with it,” she said. “We don’t have the resources to enforce it.”

Legislative records show state lawmakers signed off on the federal standards because they were worried Nevada might lose grant money for law enforcement. But they never discussed how much was at stake.

A 2008 report from the Justice Policy Institute, a Washington think tank, said it would cost more than $4 million to enforce the toughened registration requirements. The penalty for not doing that: the federal government could withhold about $180,000.

The latest suit to stop the Walsh Act in Nevada is against the agencies responsible for enforcing it, including the state attorney general and Division of Public Safety, the Clark County district attorney, the Metropolitan Police Department and the Henderson Police Department.

A spokeswoman for Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto’s office pointed to previous court rulings, including one from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco that upheld Nevada’s law requiring sex offenders to be retroactively classified according to their crimes, not by their risk of re-offending.

“The Nevada Supreme Court entered a stay of enforcement so they have an opportunity to review this law and determine whether it should be implemented,” spokeswoman Jennifer Lopez said.

Under Nevada’s existing system, judges help determine whether sex offenders present a risk to the public or have been rehabilitated – particularly juvenile offenders.

The Walsh Act’s requirements can’t be changed. Beyond having their names listed on searchable websites, offenders must check in with police or probation officers more often and must register for 15 years, 25 years or for life, depending on the crime. They also cannot knowingly be within 1,000 feet of a place designated primarily for children. That won’t apply retroactively to the new class of offenders who already live near sites such as schools, but it will come into play if they move.

Opponents of the Walsh Act say it endangers those who appear on state websites and also puts their families at risk. It can also make it more difficult for offenders to find jobs.

In October, the Nevada Supreme Court upheld the law as constitutional, but justices questioned whether lawmakers gave any thought to its effects on juveniles and public safety. ..Source.. by Adam Kealoha

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Nevada Supreme Court upholds classification and registration of juvenile sex offenders

7-26-2013 Nevada:

The Nevada Supreme Court, in a split decision, has upheld the constitutionality of a law that requires certain juvenile sex offenders to register with law enforcement and for the registration information to be shared with community groups.

The majority 48-page opinion written by Justice Michael Douglas overturned the ruling of Clark County Juvenile District Judge William Voy, who said the 2007 law was invalid because it did not bear any relationship to public safety or rehabilitation of the juveniles.

Both the four justices in the majority and the three in the minority said Thursday the law probably is not effective in preventing crime and was passed only to get federal money.

Douglas wrote that he, like the juvenile judge, is concerned about the wisdom of the law but that the court is bound to follow it and that, in this case, it “easily passes rational basic review.”

The law defines a sex offender as one who, after July 2006, was judged a delinquent for sexual assault, battery with intent to commit sexual assault, lewdness with a child, or an attempt or conspiracy to commit any of these offenses as long as the offender was 14 years or older at the time of the act.

Prior to the passage of the law, juvenile judges had the authority to decide whether the delinquent should be required to register and if there should be limited community notification.

The majority rejected the argument that the law was punitive and said it was passed to protect the public. The justices denied the claims that children declared delinquent prior to the law could also be forced to register.

While declaring the law constitutional, Douglas wrote, “Of upmost concern, it does not appear from the legislative history that the Nevada Legislature ever considered the impact of the bill on juveniles.”

He said the motivation of the Legislature appeared to be loss of federal money.

The Clark County Public Defender’s Office and the ACLU — which backed the decision of the juvenile judge to invalidate the law — said juveniles are subject to registration for 25 years to life.

Douglas said Nevada has a long tradition of public protection and this law does not conflict with the juvenile justice system.

Justice Michael Cherry, who wrote the seven-page dissenting opinion, said this 2007 law was unconstitutional because it applied to juveniles declared sex offenders before the law was passed. He called the law “akin to the historical punishments of branding and shaming.”

Cherry objected to the wider disclosure of the information to community groups. He wrote that even juveniles who have successfully completed treatment and have been certified as low risks are subject to the registration and community notification.

Cherry, joined by Justices James Hardesty and Nancy Saitta in the dissent, said the Legislature should reconsider this law. Joining Douglas in the majority were Chief Justice Kristina Pickering and Justices Mark Gibbons and Ron Parraguirre. ..Source.. by Cy Ryan

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Families of two men who died in encounters with Las Vegas police file civil lawsuits

9-19-2012 Nevada:

The families of two men who died during encounters with Las Vegas police filed separate federal lawsuits Tuesday against the agency and its officers, alleging negligence that proved fatal.

One lawsuit was filed on behalf of the mother and father of Anthony Jones, 44, who died in December 2010 after he ran from police during a traffic stop and two officers used a Taser on him several times. Taser International Inc., the manufacturer, also was named as a defendant.

...

Lawyer Peter Goldstein is representing both families.

The Clark County district attorney's office cleared officers in both cases of any criminal wrongdoing. In Brenes' case, officers didn't violate any internal policies, Las Vegas police said. But policies restricting Taser use were adapted after Jones' death.

In the Jones family lawsuit, four officers were named as defendants. The lawsuit alleges unreasonable search and seizure, excessive force, false arrest, battery and negligence.

The lawsuit said Tasers were used on Jones for more than 100 seconds. It said that before the encounter got physical, Jones was detained without probable cause and without reasonable suspicion.

On Dec. 11, 2010, police stopped Jones' Lexus sedan about 1 a.m. near Martin Luther King and Lake Mead boulevards because its headlights were off. During the stop, an officer noticed Jones acting erratically and asked him to step out of the vehicle.

After an altercation, the officer drew his gun, and Jones ran. Jones fell in a nearby dirt lot, and the officer jumped on his back and fought with him.

According to internal police reports, officer Mark Hatten fired his Taser 10 times for about 92 seconds. Officer Timothy English used his Taser twice for about 10 seconds. It was unclear how many of the Taser shots struck Jones, the reports said.

Because of this incident, the department changed its Taser policy to stop multiple officers from using the weapon on someone at the same time.

Also, policy was changed to restrict Tasers from being used for more than three five-second cycles.

The Clark County coroner's office listed Jones' cause of death as cocaine and ethanol intoxication, with police restraining procedures and an enlarged heart as contributing factors. He was a registered sex offender on parole.

...

Both lawsuits seek damages for wrongful death, attorney fees and funeral expenses.

The lawsuits also state that the department was negligent in its practices, such as the use of Tasers in Jones' death and excessive use of force in Brenes' death. The lawsuits allege police also failed to provide prompt medical care for Jones and Brenes. ..Source.. by Antonio Planas

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

18th Annual Psychopharmacology Update: Speakers

8-20-2012 Nevada:

NPA 18th Annual Psychopharmacology Update
February 13-17, 2013
Paris Las Vegas Hotel & Casino | Las Vegas, Nevada

Friday, February 15, 2013 1:30 - 2:30 PM
Diagnosing Sexual Disorders and Pharmacological Treatment

Fred S. Berlin, MD

Fred S. Berlin, M.D., Ph.D., has been educated at a variety of centers including McGill University in Canada and the Maudsley Institute in England. He is currently an Associate Professor in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and an Attending Physician at The Johns Hopkins Hospital. He is also the Founder of The Johns Hopkins Sexual Disorders Clinic and the Director of the National Institute for the Study, Prevention and Treatment of Sexual Trauma. That program has been designated by the United States Department of Justice as a national resource site.

As a consequence of his work with sexual disorders, he has been invited to address a White House Conference on Childhood Sexual Abuse; the Juvenile Justice Subcommittee of the United States Senate; various seminars sponsored by the United States Department of Justice; a Special Invited Conference sponsored by the New York Academy of Sciences; a number of educational seminars conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation; and Colleges of Judges in several states. He has also served as an invited member of the Cardinals’ Commission for the Protection of Children in Boston, Massachusetts, and as a consultant to the European Parliament. He has written numerous professional publications, and he has performed peer reviews for a number of professional journals including the Journal of the American Medical Association and the American Journal of Psychiatry. He has been the recipient of a contract from the National Institute of Mental Health to prepare an annotated bibliography on sex offender etiology and treatment, and of a grant from the Guggenheim Foundation to study the activity of brain neurotransmitters during sexual arousal. He was also a member of the subcommittee on the paraphilias (the sexual deviation disorders) for the 3rd revision of The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. For a list of other speakers: ..Source..

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

'Complete stranger' suspected of killing family with hammer

4-29-2012 Nevada:

LAS VEGAS (AP) -- Using a hammer as a weapon, a "complete stranger" with no significant criminal history allegedly chose a family at random and attacked them in their home, killing a woman and her daughter, in a brutal crime that left investigators both baffled and aghast.

Bryan Clay, 22, was arrested Friday in the April 15 rape and bludgeoning deaths of 38-year-old Ignacia Martinez and 10-year-old Karla Martinez. He had no connection to the family of five, Lt. Ray Steiber said Saturday.

"This was a complete stranger killing a mother and daughter and attacking the father," Steiber said. "I've been doing this (police work) 24 years, and you don't see cases like this. I can't even put this into words."

Police were notified about the case when a 9-year-old boy, who was not injured by the attacker, came to school the next day and informed a counselor that his mom and sister were dead.

Nothing was taken from the house, and investigators were unsure of the motive for the attack.

"There's no rhyme or reason to why (it happened)," he said, adding Clay doesn't have a "significant" criminal history.

Clay also was booked in the beating and rape of a 50-year-old woman in the same west Las Vegas neighborhood hours before the slayings.

Steiber said he didn't know why the two boys, 9 and 4, were spared in the home invasion attack.

Arturo Martinez, 39, the husband and father, was critically injured in the attack and remains hospitalized with head injuries.

He has been unable to talk to investigators. Both the mother and daughter were sexually assaulted, Steiber said.'

In the earlier attack, the 50-year-old woman was walking near an intersection when an assailant forced her into a nearby desert area and violently sexually assaulted her April 15.

"(She was) chased, beaten and raped," Steiber said.

DNA results linked Clay to both attacks, investigators said. A baseball cap left behind by the woman's attacker turned out to be a key piece of evidence, KLAS-TV reported.

Authorities found the bodies of the girl and the mother in separate bedrooms. The two boys remained in the home for at least 24 hours with the bodies and their severely injured father, Steiber said.

The boys were placed in protective custody with the Clark County Department of Family Services after the attack, and police declined to say where they now are.

"They're safe and OK," Steiber said.

Police made the case a top priority as up to 60 investigators were involved.

"Our goal was to get this guy into custody, and we weren't going to stop until we did," Steiber said.

Steiber said he didn't know if Clay had a lawyer, and attempts to reach a police spokeswoman were unsuccessful.

Clay was being held without bail Saturday pending an initial court appearance. He was booked on various charges, including murder, battery with a deadly weapon and sexual assault. ..Source.. by The Reporter

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Prison Officials Say Computer Adds Crimes to Inmates Records

3-3-2012 Nevada:

Some Nevada prison inmates tell us computer errors have added crimes to their records they never committed -- and prison officials confirm that's it happened hundreds of times in recent years.

Our Fact Finder report found the prison system switched over to a new computer program in 2007 which it turns out regularly added false convictions and even additional life sentences to inmates records.

Prison spokesman Steve Suwee told News 4 there's a glitch in the system because its designed to process sentences of specific durations...Say 10 or 20 years. But when an inmate has a life sentence the glitch may add additional crimes to that inmate's record.

Suwee says it may have happened as many as 1,300 times since 2007. Those are the cases they know about.

One former prison inmate who was serving a life term told News 4 the system added multiple life sentences which his case worker spotted and corrected before he went to the parole board.

In addition, Don Helling, the former deputy director of the Nevada Department of Corrections indicated there were problems when he testified in a lawsuit last year about discrepencies in inmates' records. Helling's sworn testimony stated, " Speculating, we converted over to a new system in
'07, and when all of the information was flipped over into the new system errors occurred."

Prison officials say the problem continues to happen once or twice a month. And now that we've brought it up they are going to try to run the numbers and find out exactly how many mistakes have been caught since 2007. We'll follow up next week as we learn more about this glitch and its possible impact on prison sentences. ..Source.. by Joe Hart

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

ALERT: Nevada's Attorney General Masto announces 9th Circuit's decision to UPHOLD previously STRICKEN Nevada Adam Walsh Act

See also previous story (Note: Only SB 471 is not retroactive, that pertained to residency laws and travel restrictions)

2-15-2012 Nevada:

Las Vegas, NV – Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto announced today that the Ninth Circuit United States Court of Appeals issued an opinion today in ACLU v. Masto, granting the state’s request to overturn an injunction against enforcement of Nevada’s Adam Walsh Act.

Masto had appealed to the Ninth Circuit from a federal district court’s permanent injunction prohibiting the implementation of two Nevada laws: Assembly Bill 579, expanding the scope of sex offender registration and notification requirements, and Senate Bill 471, which required Nevada courts to include movement and residency restrictions upon sex offenders.

“My office has been working on the Adam Walsh legislation and this court case for over five years. It has been a long but necessary fight,” said Masto. “It creates a system that requires sex offenders to be subject to rigorous reporting requirements. We owe it to our community to do our best to protect our citizens – particularly those most vulnerable – from adult sex offenders.”

The State of Nevada passed AB 579 into law on June 13, 2007 to bring Nevada into compliance with the federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (“SORNA”), which was enacted as part of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006.

The purpose of AB 579 is to protect the public by establishing a comprehensive national system to register sex offenders. The legislation created a classification system based solely on the crime they were convicted of.

The new system expands the category of individuals required to register; expands the time period during which sex offenders are required to register; and requires sex offenders to register in person.

The Ninth Circuit’s decision reversed the injunction of AB 579 by the Federal District Court. The Ninth Circuit also held that the appeal of SB 471 was moot because the State’s long held position that the law was not retroactive. ..Source..: by Nevada's AG Press Release

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Sex Offender Rules for Nevada Upheld by 9th

2-10-2012 Nevada:

(CN) - Nevada can retroactively apply tough new registration rules for sex offenders, the 9th Circuit ruled Friday.

The appeals court in San Francisco joined several of its sister circuits in finding that the retroactive application of the federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act is "constitutionally sound."

The Nevada Legislature passed its version of the federal child-protection legislation - which encourages states to adopt uniform, expanded rules for sex offenders, and withholds federal law-enforcement funds from those who don't - in 2007. But the state law exceeded Washington's mandate in a few areas.

The Legislature supplemented the law by requiring police to provide public notice of the status of some sex offenders, and notify youth groups and religious organizations about some offenders. In other areas, the state provisions largely mimicked those in the federal law.

Several anonymous sex offenders teamed up with the American Civil Liberties Union Nevada to fight the legislation in Las Vegas. The federal complaint said retroactive application of the new rules would violate the ex-post facto and double jeopardy clauses of the U.S. Constitution.

U.S. District Judge James Mahan agreed, and he permanently barred the state from applying the rules retroactively in 2008.

A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit reversed unanimously on Friday, joining the five other circuits (the 11th, 10th, 8th, 7th and 5th) that upheld retroactive application of the act's requirements against constitutional scrutiny.

"We have not explicitly ruled on the constitutionality of retroactive application of SORNA-inspired requirements," Judge Stephen Trott wrote for the panel. "Many of our sister circuits, however, have considered this issue. Unanimously they have concluded that retroactive imposition of SORNA requirements is constitutional ... We join them in concluding that the requirements of [the law] do not constitute retroactive punishment in violation of the ex post facto clause or double jeopardy clause."

The few differences in the Nevada law are not enough to disrupt such unanimity, the panel found.

Nevada's law was intended not to impose further criminal punishment but "to create a civil regulatory regime with the purpose of enhancing public safety." Thus it can be applied retroactively under precedent set by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2003's Smith v. Doe, which upheld Alaska's sex-offender law.

But ACLU Nevada's general council Allen Lichtenstein told Courthouse News that there are "significant differences" between the Nevada law and those approved in other circuits. He said the group is still evaluating its next step.

"We feel that there are some important distinctions between Nevada and those other jurisdictions," he said in a phone interview on Friday.

ACLU Nevada had also challenged the retroactive application of a separate law passed by the state Legislature that puts tough new residency restrictions on sex offenders. The District Court enjoined that law as well, but the 9th Circuit found that the issue was moot on appeal. Nevada has already admitted in court filings that it "will not retroactively impose residency and movement restrictions," the panel said.

The 9th Circuit remanded that portion of the case back to the lower court, urging a settlement. If that fails, however, the District Court injunction will remain in place. ..Source.. by Court House News

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

ACLU says laws unfair toward sex offenders

12-9-2011 Nevada:

A pair of Nevada laws that toughened sex offender registration requirements are unconstitutional, a civil rights lawyer told a federal appeals court panel Wednesday.

Maggie McLetchie, a lawyer arguing for the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada, told judges with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco that the new laws re-punish sex offenders by upping their tier classifications, in some cases forcing them to move because they lived too close to a school or other place prohibited under the laws.

"It was being applied retroactively," McLetchie said. "We needed an injunction because parole and probation officers were telling our clients they had to move."

Deputy Nevada Attorney General Binu Palal countered that the law as written does not require offender tiers to be changed and that state officers who said as much were wrong.

"They never should be applied retroactively," Palal said.

The case arises from two state laws passed in the 2007 Legislature to comply with the Adam Walsh Act passed by Congress in 2006.

The federal law required states to comply or risk losing 10 percent of a federal criminal justice grant.

The ACLU said Nevada would have lost about $300,000 a year.

A key part of the state laws reclassified sex offenders based on their original crimes, not their likelihood to offend again.

The laws also imposed stricter travel and residency requirements on the most serious Tier 3 offenders. For example, they would be barred from knowingly being within 1,000 feet of a school bus stop.

The ACLU and lawyer Robert Langford filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of sex offenders to stop the laws from taking effect. In the lawsuit filed in June 2008, just before the laws were to take effect, the lawyers argued that the laws unconstitutionally re-punished sex offenders for years, and in some cases decades, after they had completed their sentences and probation.

The laws would reclassify many Tier 1 offenders as Tier 3 offenders, subjecting them to stricter registration and living requirements.

Extreme residency requirements would make "it impossible for offenders to live or go anywhere," they said in the lawsuit.

In October 2008, U.S. District Judge James Mahan issued an injunction to stop the new laws from going into action.

"The application of these laws retroactively is the equivalent of a new punishment tacked on to the original sentence," the judge wrote in the injunction.

The Nevada attorney general's office appealed the injunction, which led to Wednesday's hearing. ..Source.. by Brian Haynes, LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...