New Jersey Upholds Lie Detector Tests for Sex Offenders

5-8-17 New Jersey:

A unanimous New Jersey Supreme Court has upheld the administering of lie detector tests to paroled sex offenders.

TRENTON, N.J. (AP) — Paroled sex offenders must submit to lie detector tests as part of the conditions of their release but must be made more clearly aware of their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination, New Jersey's Supreme Court ruled Monday in rejecting a challenge to the tests.

Several convicted offenders had argued the tests are unconstitutional, amount to interrogations, and violate their rights against self-incrimination and to have a lawyer present.

The offenders, identified by their initials in court documents, have served their prison sentences and are under parole or community supervision for life. The polygraph tests are used to monitor whether they are complying with their parole conditions.

The 7-0 ruling Monday upheld lower court findings that the tests aren't the same as interrogations and, therefore, don't give the offenders the right to have a lawyer present. The justices noted the machine-generated test results by themselves can't be used to support the filing of criminal charges.

"We conclude that polygraph examinations further the State's interest in ensuring that parolees adhere to the conditions of their PSL or CSL sentence and protect the community from recidivism," Justice Faustino Fernandez-Vina wrote. "We find that this interest outweighs the parolees' limited right to privacy."

The court took issue with the manner in which parolees were informed of their right to remain silent during the tests and what the consequences might be, however.

The court instructed the state Parole Board to revise its regulations to clarify that offenders can invoke their Fifth Amendment rights without consequence if the answer to any question during the examination process could form the basis of an independent criminal investigation. ..Source.. by AP

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Sex offender wrongly banned from Internet, court rules

3-21-17 New Jersey:

A sex offender under lifetime supervision was wrongly banished from the Internet, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.

In a unanimous decision, the high court ruled that the state Parole Board went too far when it imposed a total “Internet blackout” on a man who was convicted in 2003 of sexually molesting his young daughters and served two prison terms. The man is identified only by his initials, “J.I.”

The Internet has become a “basic need” in modern life, the justices found, and barring people – even recovering sex offenders – from going online could unduly suppress a “liberty interest” protected by the constitution. People shop, read news, communicate with others, take classes, hunt for jobs and manage their bank accounts on the Internet these days, the court said.

“Access to the Internet is considered to be a basic need and one of the most meaningful ways to participate in the essentials of everyday life,” Justice Barry Albin wrote for the court, adding later that “legitimate concerns about J.I.’s potential abuse of the Internet could have been addressed through less restrictive means.”

The Supreme Court’s ruling was a breakthrough for J.I., who had been rebuffed by an appeals court and multiple times by the Parole Board.

“Essentially, the court really for the first time is recognizing that access to the Internet is a protected interest,” said his attorney, Michael C. Woyce. “His offense was serious – there’s no disputing that – but it had nothing to do with the Internet. This case boiled down to: Having been convicted of a serious crime, may the state take away all your rights to community and the Internet? That’s really what the Parole Board did.”

Woyce had argued that J.I., who is about 66 years old, had a free speech right to access the Internet, but the justices ruled on different grounds. The court said New Jersey’s parole board did not give J.I. enough opportunity to make his case before banning him from the Internet in 2013, a violation of his due process right under state administrative law.

“Internet conditions should be tailored to the individual [sex] offender, taking into account such factors as the underlying offense and any prior criminal history, whether the Internet was used as a tool to perpetrate the offense, the rehabilitative needs of the offender, and the imperative of public safety,” Albin wrote.

Because a state law gives the Parole Board several options for restricting sex offenders’ use of the Internet, “the Legislature evidently did not intend that a total ban on Internet use should be deployed when less restrictive alternatives can achieve the goal of public safety and personal rehabilitation,” the court said, adding that the Parole Board could have required J.I. “to submit to periodic unannounced examinations of any Internet-capable device; to install a software monitoring system at his own expense; and to accede to any other appropriate restrictions concerning the use of an Internet-capable device.”

“The parole authorities do not have unbridled discretion to impose unnecessary or oppressive Internet conditions that do not advance a rational penological policy,” Albin wrote, suggesting the total ban had been “arbitrary and unreasonable.”

A spokesman for the state Attorney General’s Office, which represented the parole board, declined to comment.

The state Supreme Court did not outlaw total bans on Internet access for former sex offenders. It noted that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which includes New Jersey, has allowed such bans under federal law for offenders who “have used or have clearly demonstrated a willingness to use the Internet as a direct instrument of physical harm.”

“This guy, obviously, no one is condoning his conduct at all,” said Ronald K. Chen, the co-dean of Rutgers Law School in Newark, who argued in support of J.I.’s position for the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey. “He committed his offenses in his own household. There’s a difference between those who are in their households and those who are predatory and use the Internet to victimize strangers."

Chen added, “You cut them off from discourse with society, from practical ways to find a job. Any of us, if we were cut off from the Internet – he couldn’t even have a smartphone – how would we be able to function and reintegrate to society?”

J.I.’s ban was imposed after he requested access to the job-networking site LinkedIn at a time when he was seeking employment. A parole official initially restricted J.I. to using the Internet only for his job search, but after it was discovered that he had gone online to his church’s and therapist’s websites, he was banned outright.

Years earlier, before the total Internet ban was imposed in 2013, J.I. served a prison term from 2003 to 2009 for sexually molesting his daughters, and then another 16-month term from 2011 to 2012 after authorities discovered he had accessed images of nude minors online and acquired a cellphone with Internet capabilities. He is registered as a sex offender under Megan’s Law. The Supreme Court ordered the Parole Board to reconsider his Internet ban.

In a separate case from 2013, the state Appellate Division ruled that the Parole Board could ban registered sex offenders under its supervision from accessing social networking sites such as Facebook, where minors often post biographical details. ..Source.. by Salvador Rizzo

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Sex Offenders Challenge Constitutionality of Mandatory Lie Detector Tests

1-19-17 New Jersey:

A trio of paroled sex offenders from New Jersey, is challenging state Parole Board rules that require them to submit to periodic polygraph examinations to determine whether they are properly complying with terms of their release.

The state Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the issue Tuesday on the regulations, which were issued by the Parole Board in 2006.

The state Appellate Division, as well as state and federal courts across the country, have upheld requirements that paroled sex offenders submit to polygraph examinations.

The three paroled sex offenders in New Jersey are arguing that mandatory polygraph exams violate their constitutional rights. They were convicted of unrelated sex crimes and are currently on parole and subject to the polygraph tests, in which they are asked about their routines and whether they may have been involved in illicit activities. The parolees were not identified by name.

Gordon Vaughan, of the Colorado Springs, Colorado, office of Vaughan & DeMuro and the general counsel to the American Polygraph Association, said nearly every state and federal jurisdiction has issued similar regulations. "Polygraph tests are authorized either by statute, regulation or post-conviction relief condition," Vaughan said.

The New Jersey Appellate Division, while upholding the Parole Board to administer polygraph tests, has ruled that the results cannot be used to impose further restrictions on parolees. The results can be used, however, to institute further investigations into a parolee's behavior.

"For centuries, humans have sought to detect lies. That continues today," said the parolees' lawyer, Michael Woyce. Polygraph tests, however, remain "inaccurate and unscientific," he said. "They are used as a fishing expedition," said Woyce, of Murphy & Woyce in Ringwood, during the hearing.

Woyce said a parolee who fails a polygraph test can be held until a parole violation hearing is held, which could stretch from one to three months.

Justice Faustino Fernandez-Vina asked if polygraph tests should be barred for paroled sex offenders.

"Yes, unless they are accompanied by counsel" and are allowed to invoke Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination," Woyce said, adding that parolees can be held pending violation hearings if they refuse to answer questions.

"Are these custodial hearings?" asked Justice Barry Albin. In a custodial hearing, a defendant can refuse to answer questions or demand to be represented by counsel.

"Yes. They are meant to extract information," Woyce said in response.

The Office of the Public Defender is not directly involved in the case since all three parolees have private counsel. The office did, however, receive permission to act as an intervenor. Deputy public defender Fletcher Duddy said the office objects to the use of the tests.

"They are historically inaccurate," he said, but added that the results often have an impact on a parolee's liberty interests.

At the least, Duddy argued, parolees should be allowed to be represented by counsel and be allowed to not answer questions without being charged with violating the terms of their parole.

Often, he said, the questions amount to: "Have you raped anybody today?" he said.

Deputy attorney general Daniel Vannella urged the court to uphold the regulations.

The use of the polygraph tests, he said, is intended to assist with the sex offender's therapy, not as a means to violate his or her parole.

"These challenges were properly rejected," Vannella said. "The questions asked [by a polygraph examiner] are no different than those asked by a parole officer, which [a parolee] is required to answer truthfully."

The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey, while not involved in the case, believes that paroled sex offenders should be afforded the right to counsel, and be warned that any answer they give to a polygraph examiner could be used against them at any further proceedings, said senior staff attorney Alexander Shalom. ,,Source.. by Michael Booth, New Jersey Law Journal

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Justices Consider Appeal of Sex Offender's Total Internet Ban

11-7-2016 New Jersey:

The New Jersey Supreme Court is considering whether parole rules totally prohibiting internet access for sex offenders on lifetime parole are constitutional.

A lawyer representing a convicted sex offender asked the court on Nov. 7 to strike down the state parole board's total internet ban for his client, identified only as J.I., arguing that it violates the offender's free speech rights under the U.S. and state constitutions.

J.I.'s attorney, Michael Woyce, said the parole board has banned J.I. from owning or using any device capable of accessing the internet.

"He's banned from our century," said Woyce, of Ringwood's Murphy & Woyce.

In October 2003, J.I. was convicted of two counts of second-degree sexual assault and two counts of second-degree endangering the welfare of a child for molesting his two daughters, who at the time were 6 and 14 years old. A judge sentenced him to seven years in prison, required him to register as a sex offender and put him on community supervision for life.

Woyce told the court that given today's near-total reliance on internet technology, ranging from phones to cars, the sentence makes it almost impossible for J.I. to live his life.

Justice Anne Patterson noted that parole officials, in deciding to impose the ban, had accused J.I. of attempting view child pornography sites on the internet.

Woyce denied that he was trying to do that, but admitted that J.I. had been looking for "barely legal" pornography, meaning that he was attempting to view sites that contained adults who looked like juveniles engaged in sexual activity. ..Continued.. by Michael Booth, New Jersey Law Journal

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

NJ Court Sets Polygraph Limits for Sex Offenders

1-21-16 New Jersey:

TRENTON, N.J. (CN) - Polygraph testing is par for the course when New Jersey releases sexual offenders on permanent supervision, but the state's parole board is barred from using such tests as evidence, a state appeals court ruled today.

The decision comes in answer to a lawsuit five convicted sex offenders brought in 2013. Linking the tests to parole-status changes in 42 percent of New Jersey cases, the offenders called parole board's use of lie-detector tests tantamount to pursuing thought crimes.

Though the New Jersey Appellate Division upheld the validity of polygraph examinations today, it did so with restrictions.

The court called the tests a "therapeutic tool" when used to help treat sex offenders but "incompetent evidence" when used to punish them.

The five convicted sexual offenders, all of whose names have been redacted from court filings, condemned the polygraph tests as unconstitutional and ineffective.

Parole board officials meanwhile presented their own experts who spoke to recent test revisions and decreasing reliance on the tests.

A lower court ruled in early 2015 that polygraphs were fine for the supervision and treatment of sex offenders, but the court declined to answer the constitutional question of whether the tests as conducted violated prisoner rights.

In its 72-page ruling, the New Jersey Appellate Division rejected the offenders' attempts to invalidate all polygraph testing by the parole board, saying the tests "assist parole officers and treatment professionals in making better-informed decisions as to supervision and treatment."

In addition to barring New Jersey from using the test results to impose sanctions or increased restrictions on monitored sex offenders, the appeals court ordered the parole board to beef up regulations protecting offenders from incriminating themselves.

The parole board's use of the tests to increase restrictions on monitored sex offenders - such as travel bans or restrictions on where a sex offender an live - "clashes with our judiciary's systemic aversion to the evidential use of polygraphs," Judge Jack Sabatino wrote for the court.

Courts in New Jersey and elsewhere have for years shied away from taking polygraph test results as gospel, noting the proven ability for certain individuals to "beat" the test and the degree of unreliability test results can have.

While most states have banned the use of lie detector test results as evidence, nearly all states use the test for post-conviction screening.

Polygraph tests typically rely on muscle and pulse sensors attached all over the subject's body. The tests are thought to have an accuracy rate as high as 90 percent, though critics have argued the error rate can be as high as 29 percent.

New Jersey's parole board has used three types of polygraphs for sexual offenders: those who proclaim their innocence; those who require so-called maintenance exams to verify that their activities outside prison comply with the terms of their supervision; and those under scrutiny by the state when it needs information about their sexual history, interests, and behaviors. After each test, the test administrator is required to go over the results with the offender.

The appellants in the case mainly objected to the maintenance exams, saying the parole board has arbitrarily tightened limitations on offenders' activities. The parole board has countered that it administers those tests only when it has a reasonable belief that the offender has been noncompliant.

Judge Sabatino said policymakers "must not lose sight of this state's long-standing judicial aversion to polygraph evidence."

But "there is a fundamental difference between the evidential use of a polygraph to prove or dispute facts in a court where a person's rights are adjudicated versus a therapeutic context," the ruling continues.

The court also ruled that the polygraph tests did not equal "custodial interrogation" - cases in which a prisoner is queried about crimes without first being warned about his right not to incriminate himself - because the parole board instructs its test examiners to administer Miranda warnings at the beginning of each session.

Another part of the ruling allows the parole board to continue its practice of disallowing offenders from having an attorney present during the test. ..Source.. by NICK RUMMELL

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Court urges leniency for some child abusers

Note: These are 2 different registries, leniency applies to ONLY the Central Registry cases.

7-17-15 New Jersey:

TRENTON – An appeals court Friday urged the state to offer potential relief from a lifetime penalty for people found to have abused or neglected children.

The three-judge panel said the state’s Central Registry may impose “a harsh and unjust punishment” because it does not allow “rehabilitated and reformed” offenders to clear their names.

In contrast, the state allows expungement of some criminal offenses and permits sex offenders to request removal from the Megan’s Law registration after 15 years of good behavior, the judges noted.

The panel addressed the issue while upholding a finding of neglect against a young mother from Burlington County, identified only as K.N.S.

The woman left her 7-month-old son in the care of a boyfriend, then returned from a fast-food job to find the baby “blue, shivering and cold” in December 2012. She took the child to a hospital, where it was found to have a fractured skull and other injuries, as well as signs of earlier injuries.

The ruling said the woman was grossly negligent because she was aware the child had hurt his head weeks earlier after being left alone in a tub by the boyfriend. It also noted her knowledge of the boyfriend’s “impatience and lack of attention to the child’s safety,” as well as “other negative character traits” for the convicted sex offender.

The court also faulted the mother’s decision to try to warm her baby with a heater for 20 minutes, then to return to her workplace briefly before taking the baby to the hospital in a taxi, rather than an ambulance.

But the judges also noted K.N.S., who gave birth at age 19, “proved after the incident that she was capable of being a good parent. She complied with the counseling and services that the (state) arranged for her and the child was returned to her custody in August 2013.”

It said inclusion of the woman’s name on the Central Registry will “permanently stain the reputation of this remorseful and rehabilitated mother.” It said she would be barred from certain jobs, volunteer positions and even serving as a guardian for her future grandchildren.

A spokesman for the Department of Children and Families, which maintains the Central Registry, could not be reached for comment. ..Source.. by Jim Walsh

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Incest Exception Cited in Reversal for Sex Offender

7-8-15 New Jersey:

TRENTON, N.J. (CN) - A 19-year-old indicted for sexually assaulting his half-sister several times when he was a juvenile should be treated as if he molested her only once, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled today.

Identifying the offender by his initials, the court said N.B. was indicted in 2011 on several counts of first- and second-degree sexual assault, as well as endangering the welfare of a child.

N.B. eventually pleaded guilty to one count of sexual assault with a child less than 13 years old, and admitted he had molested his half-sister when they were living together.

Though indicted at age 19, N.B. was a minor at the time of the molestation. Facing mandatory registration with local police, N.B. also received a three-year suspended sentence.

Convicted sex offenders are classified under a three-tier system, and the court later classified N.B. as a Tier-2 offender, which is defined as a "moderate risk of re-offense." Tier 1 offenders are considered low risk, while Tier 3 offenders are considered high risk.

In New Jersey, Megan's Law requires certain Tier-2 offenders to publicly register unless they fall under the "sole sex offenses" exemption.

A series of amendments to state registry law in 2004 clarified the "sole sex offense" definition to mean a single sex act involving a single victim resulting in a single conviction.
The amendments also specified that exclusionary offenses involve "members of no more than a single household," essentially covering most sex offenses involving incest.

A 2014 report on Megan's Law implementation by the New Jersey Administrative Office of the Courts notes that the incest exception was the most frequently raised objection by defense attorneys in cases involving child molesters.

During N.B.'s trial, prosecutors sought to keep the incest exclusion off the table by noting that he had assaulted his sister over several years.

Prosecutors also pointed to allegations that N.B. made a sexual comment to one of his half-sister's friends.

The trial court had agreed, and so did New Jersey's appellate court, ruling that nearby schools and community organizations be notified.

The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed today, however, based on the "sole sex offense" definition in a 2004 law.

N.B.'s registration may still become public, the ruling notes.

"The legislature intended the household/incest exception to apply ... [but] even if one of the exceptions [to the New Jersey statute] applies to a given offender, that offender's registration record may nonetheless be made available to the public through the Internet if certain statutory requirements are met," Chief Justice Stuart Rabner wrote for the court.

Citing the 2004 amendments, Rabner wrote that N.B. should be included in the Megan's Law public registry if the trial court finds the sexual assaults were "characterized by a pattern of repetitive, compulsive behavior" and that N.B.'s comments to the half-sister's friend could be indicative of a greater risk to the public than another offender included in the incest exclusion.

Megan's Law was passed in 1996 by New Jersey after seven-year-old Megan Kanka was led into tall weeds in a nearby park by a twice-convicted pedophile in her Hamilton, N.J., neighborhood. She was then raped and murdered. Variations of the law have since passed in other states, most of which include a public online registry. ..Source.. by NICK RUMMELL

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Out of Prison, Out of Luck

5-27-15 New Jersey:

When the test of innocence is withheld.

Dion Harrell was released from New Jersey state prison nearly two decades ago, but he still maintains that he was not the man who raped a 17-year-old on her way home from work in 1988. Three days after the assault, the victim saw Harrell in the parking lot of the McDonald’s where she worked and called the cops. Police arrested him, and she told police he was the stranger who had attacked her that night. Based largely on the victim’s identification, Harrell was convicted of second degree sexual assault in 1992 and given eight years in prison. He was paroled after serving four, but he is sentenced to remain on the sex offender registry and under community supervision for the rest of his life.

In November 2014, the Innocence Project petitioned the Superior Court of New Jersey in Monmouth County to analyze the contents of the rape kit again, using DNA technology that was unavailable at the time of Harrell’s trial. But Monmouth County Prosecutor Christopher Gramiccioni initially refused. Under the New Jersey statute, only those who are currently in prison have access to DNA testing. “Defendant’s sexual assault conviction is 22 years old,” Gramiccioni wrote in January. “The State believes the conviction is entitled to finality.”

Thirteen other states have similar laws, declaring that only those still serving time are eligible for post-conviction testing. But cases like Harrell’s have spurred defense attorneys and some state lawmakers to call for a change in policy, claiming that the consequences of a wrongful conviction continue long after a prisoner is set free. In late April, Montana signed a new law extending DNA testing to those already released. State legislators in New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Oregon are considering similar measures.

“Because [Harrell] has been released from prison he no longer has the right to demand testing of evidence that might clear his name – and possibly identify the true perpetrator,” said New Jersey state Assemblyman Declan O’Scanlon, one of the bill’s co-sponsors, in a statement. “That is an awful contradiction that our laws present to prosecutors.”

In states with such “incarceration requirements,” it is not impossible for someone already released to obtain DNA testing, but it is far more difficult. Prosecutors can always choose to grant tests; but in states like New Jersey, they can also refuse on the grounds that an already freed offender is ineligible.

In February, Monmouth County Prosecutor Gramiccioni changed his mind and ultimately agreed to test the sperm sample in Harrell’s case, after local media attention and an appeal by Harrell’s lawyers. “While Dion Harrell was released from prison more than a decade ago and is no longer serving a term of imprisonment, it is nonetheless in the interest of justice to consent to Mr. Harrell's motion for post-conviction DNA testing due to the unique facts and circumstances of his particular conviction,” prosecutor Gramiccioni said in a statement. The Monmouth County Prosecutor’s Office did not respond to a request for comment. Test results are pending.

Those in favor of changing the law say offenders released from prison need to be explicitly granted the right to request a new DNA test. “[The law] has to be clear...You cannot just rely on the goodwill of prosecutors,” said Innocence Project senior staff attorney Vanessa Potkin, who is representing Harrell. “The people who really need DNA testing to prove innocence are people convicted in the 70s, 80s, and early 90s, before the current DNA technology existed.”

Some prosecutors disagree with the proposed change and say that expanding access to testing will overburden the courts. In a testimony before the Oregon state legislature, district attorney Rod Underhill said that the current law was a “reasonable limitation.” In Oregon, only those convicted of aggravated murder or a sex crime may currently request DNA testing after getting out of prison. “The proposed expansion...creates a net result of significantly greater expense, more significant time demands and also represents an unjustified assault upon conviction finality,” he wrote.

In many states, the defendants themselves must pay for DNA testing unless they are indigent. Roughly 42 percent of the post-conviction DNA tests requested by the Innocence Project confirmed guilt, 43 percent proved the defendant’s innocence, and 15 percent were inconclusive.

The only physical evidence used to convict Harrell in 1992 was the blood type of the semen recovered after the attack, which matched his own. But it also matched the victim’s — information that was not presented to the jury in the original trial. The two kinds of DNA analysis that could identify a perpetrator in the case became available in New Jersey in 1999 and 2006, years after Harrell was released from prison.

Harrell wrote to the Innocence Project in 2002. But because of their backlog (they are currently evaluating 6,000 to 8,000 cases), it was more than a decade before attorneys took on his claim. While he waited, Harrell’s lawyer, Potkin, said he struggled to find a job because of his conviction and was temporarily homeless. He is now unemployed. Harrell’s attorneys said he was unavailable for comment because of his pending case.

Of the Innocence Project’s current 244 cases, 12 involve people who are no longer in prison. And across the country, only 23 people have been exonerated by DNA testing after their release. “We’re really talking about a small universe of people, but it’s an important group that deserves the opportunity to clear their name,” said Rebecca Brown, policy director for the Innocence Project. It is particularly important, she said, for those on the sex offender registry.

Ted Bradford was exonerated of rape and burglary based on DNA evidence in 2010, five years after he was released from prison. Because he was convicted in Washington State — which does not require someone to be in prison to access DNA testing — he was still able to prove his innocence after he completed his sentence.

Bradford said he did not know about the Innocence Project’s Northwest Clinic until five years into his 10-year sentence. Even after they took on his case in 2002, it took until 2007 for them to identify available evidence and complete multiple rounds of advanced testing. While there was no physical evidence presented at Bradford’s initial trial, lawyers ultimately discovered sweat cells on a mask worn by the attacker that were not Bradford’s.

In prison, Bradford maintained his innocence and refused to participate in sex offender therapy. That meant he was released as a level 3 sex offender, the most restrictive tier. Flyers with his name and conviction were posted at every school and daycare center in his hometown of Yakima, Wash., including the schools where his two children were enrolled. The local newspaper ran several stories about the convicted rapist returning to the neighborhood.

“If it wasn’t for my ability to get the testing done after my release... I would still have to register as a sex offender, I would still have to report my address, I would still have this conviction on my record,” Bradford said. “The nightmare would have continued.” by Christie Thompson

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Morris sex offender’s conviction tossed for cursing at boy

2-3-2015 New Jersey:

The conviction of a Megan’s Law registrant for debauching the morals of a juvenile in Morris County by cursing at him has been overturned by the state Supreme Court, which reinstated an indictment that charges defendant John Tate with aggravated sexual assault.

A former Morris Township resident who now lives in Hopatcong, Tate, 64, had pleaded guilty in 2009 in Superior Court, Morristown, to a 1915 state statute of child neglect by using profane language that debauched the morals of a child, a 13-year-old boy.

The Morris County Prosecutor’s Office in 2009 had extended a plea offer to Tate, a former Passaic County Technical School instructor, to resolve a far more serious charge of aggravated sexual assault, child endangerment, and aggravated criminal sexual contact of the boy between September and Nov. 30, 1999. Tate had been indicted on the sexual abuse charges by a Morris County grand jury in October 2003.

Even though he pled, Tate appealed the conviction on grounds the 70-year-old statute about cursing in front of a child was vague and violated the First Amendment on free speech. He also argued that the factual basis he provided in pleading guilty to child neglect did not satisfy the elements of the statute.

The Appellate Division upheld Tate’s child neglect conviction. The Supreme Court, in its opinion released Monday, reversed the conviction. The result, however, is that the aggravated sexual assault indictment is reinstated against Tate. The alleged victim of the 1999 abuse would now be at least 27 years old.

Tate is a frequent presence at the Morris County courthouse, where, though he is not an attorney, he assists families of criminal defendants in understanding procedures of the criminal justice system.

Tate could not immediately be reached Tuesday.

The state’s highest court first focused on the allocution provided by Tate in pleading guilty. In finding the allocution, or factual basis, was inadequate to support a guilty finding by the judge, it reversed the conviction and therefore declined to address whether the 1915 violates free speech rights.

The American Civil Liberties Union had gotten involved in the case, arguing that the 1915 statute was overly broad and criminalized profane speech so that even parents who were overheard by their children swearing at a television during a sports program could theoretically be charged.

Prior to the 13-year-old coming forward, Tate had been charged with sexually assaulting four juvenile boys while working as a counselor for the then-Morris County Youth Advocate Program. He simultaneously was a teacher at Passaic County Vo-Tech. Tate pleaded guilty in May 2001 to two counts sexual assault on minors and two counts of sexual contact. He was sentenced to five years at the state’s Adult Diagnostic and Treatment Center at Avenel, the state hospital for convicted sex offenders.

At some point upon his release from Avenel, Tate was lodged in the Morris County jail on the charge of molesting the 13-year-old and could not immediately post bail. On the child neglect case (cursing) to which he pled, he was sentenced to 1,231 days he already had spent in custody.

In tossing the conviction on cursing, the Supreme Court noted that Tate was asked at the time of his plea: “Did you curse in (the boy’s) presence to and in a way that would debauch his morals?” He agreed and reiterated that he used “off-color” language, and he confirmed to the court that he wanted the judge to accept his plea, the Supreme Court opinion said.

Before Tate was sentenced, he tried to withdraw his guilty plea but the judge refused.

The Supreme Court ruled that Tate gave an inadequate factual basis because he did not specify nor was asked the exact language he used. The 1915 statute, which says the language must be “profane, indecent or obscene,” also specifies that the profane language be “habitual.” In Tate’s case, he also was not asked to explain how frequently he used profane language in the presence of the 13-year-old.

With social changes, words that are considered profane or obscene at one time may not be at another time, the court said. In Tate’s case, he was never asked to repeat the language he allegedly used in front of the child, the Supreme Court said.

“The words profane and indecent, and even obscene, are not susceptible to neat and fixed definitions,” the court wrote.

The court said: “Curse words and off-color language many times will be synonymous with profane, indecent, or obscene language, but not always. Therefore, it is not possible to determine whether defendant’s use of a curse word or off-color language is the equivalent of the language proscribed by the child-abuse statutes. Conceptions of what constitutes a curse word -- even ones that would debauch the morals of a minor -- and off-color language may differ among reasonable people. What is profane or indecent may depend on social norms that are fluid.”

The opinion continued: “The flaw in the plea colloquy was the failure to elicit the... actual words and language uttered by defendant in the presence of (the boy) Only then would the court have been in a position to make an independent determination whether the purportedly offending language constituted child abuse.” ..Source.. by Peggy Wright

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

After 20 Years, New Jersey’s Megan’s Law Has Accomplished Little

11-4-2014 New Jersey:

It has been 20 years since New Jersey enacted Megan’s Law, which require convicted sex offenders to register with local authorities in the community where they live. Whether and to what extent the law has accomplished anything remains a hotly debated subject.

Briefly, the law requires, among other things, that convicted sex offenders undergo an assessment that is supposedly geared towards determining their risk of re-offending. Offenders in the lowest tier (one) are placed under what is considered to be the most lenient level of supervision. Offenders in tiers two and three are supervised more strictly, and appear on the New Jersey State Police Internet Sex Offender Registry. The other States and the Federal system have enacted similar laws.

A State-wide army of parole officers are charged with supervising convicted sex offenders throughout New Jersey. Once an offender is placed under parole supervision, the parole officer responsible for their case has tremendous latitude over where they can live and work and what kind of job they can have. An offender’s parole officer can also restrict their ability to socialize with minors, even if the latter are members of the offender’s own family. It is extremely difficult to challenge the actions of a parole officer. Typically, the offender must receive a determination from the parole board that denies their request to adjust the terms or conditions of their supervision. That determination must then be appealed to the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court. The overall process of challenging restrictions can easily take a year or more.

The experience of the last 20 years has demonstrated that the value of the system created by Megan’s Law is, at best, highly questionable. First, parole officers have tremendous latitude over the manner in which they supervise offenders. My experience representing convicted sex offenders has shown repeatedly that while many of the parole officers conduct themselves like law enforcement professionals, others act in a manner that can only be described as sadistic. I had one client (a tier one offender) who threatened to commit suicide because of the number of truly needless restrictions his parole officer placed upon him. Upon hearing this, his parole officer laughed at him and told him to go right ahead. (I probably still have the name of the officer in my file, if anyone at the parole board is really interested.) The incident highlights one of the primary problems with Megan’s Law. Who is supervising the parole officers? At least some of them clearly realize that they are overseeing the conduct of some of least sympathetic offenders in the justice system, that nobody will seriously question their requirements, and that they can therefore do whatever they want. A system that makes it needlessly difficult for an offender to maintain a decent job, live in a decent home and, where possible, have regular contact with a family support network, only increases the likelihood of re-offense. Additionally, while many sex offenders clearly require ongoing supervision, there is something fundamentally unfair about telling this group of offenders that we expect them to live in the community, while at the same time overburdening them with restrictions that make it impossible for them to do just that.

Further, the overwhelming majority of offenders are in tier one, and their likelihood of re-offending is therefore very low. In fact, given their respective cases and their personal situations, many of these individuals will never re-offend. The law really should target offenders that are at a greater risk of re-offending in a more surgical manner, but does not do so. Rather, it casts a very broad net that captures all convicted sex offenders in one way or another – those at a high risk of re-offending, as well as those who will almost certainly never re-offend. The administrative apparatus required to operate the system is very large and costly. This raises the question of whether the State funds devoted to Megan’s Law supervision are being spent wisely, and the extent to which the system created by this law consumes valuable law enforcement resources that could be used more effectively elsewhere.

Finally, there is almost no data demonstrating that Megan’s Law has accomplished its essential purpose, which is to prevent sex offenders from re-offending. A 2008 Justice Department study found that Megan’s Law did not prevent first-time offenders from engaging in the conduct that resulted in their conviction, and did not prevent re-offending. Thus, the report concluded that “[d]espite widespread community support for [Megan's Law and similar State and Federal laws], there is virtually no evidence to their effectiveness.”

A pending bill in the New Jersey Senate would end the three-tier system, lump all three tiers into a single group, and place every convicted sex offender in the State on the Internet registry. In light of the foregoing, such a law will take a bad situation and only make it worse. ..Source.. by James S. Friedman, LLC

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Megan's Law 20 years later: Pros and cons of sex offender rules still debated

10-31-2014 New Jersey:

Two decades after a convicted sex offender lured a 7-year-old named Megan into his house with the promise of seeing a new puppy, then killed her, the law that bears her name remains broadly popular, but gets mixed reviews.

Megan’s Law was proposed within days of the murder of Megan Kanka and signed into law on Oct. 31, 1994, just three months after the girl was raped and strangled by the man who lived in the house across the street from her home in Mercer County.

Megan’s Place, a memorial park for Megan Kanka, was created on the site of the house where her killer lived in Hamilton Township.

Prosecutors and victims’ activists praise it. Defense lawyers and civil rights activists say it labels people as dangerous who pose little danger to society and was enacted in a wave of public outrage. There is scant evidence, they say, that it has done any good.

Still, the law, and others like it, have been enacted by all 50 states and the federal government, largely as a result of what happened in a quiet New Jersey neighborhood.

The last time anyone saw Megan Kanka alive was late in the day on July 29, 1994. She was talking to a man who was washing his car in the driveway across the street. The next day, following a frantic search, her body was found in a park about three miles away.

Almost immediately, Jesse K. Timmendequas, 33, was arrested and confessed. Only then did Megan’s family and neighbors learn that the man who lived across the street was a convicted sex offender. And two men who lived in the house with him also had been convicted of sex crimes against children.

The reaction was swift and forceful. In Hamilton Township, Megan’s hometown, a crowd of thousands gathered for a candlelight vigil to show support for a new law that would require neighborhood notification when a sex offender moves into an area.

“Light your candles on your porches and think of my little girl,’’ Megan’s tearful mother, Maureen, said. “Be irate. Write your senators, your representatives, the president. Let them know how angry you are.” Two days later, Megan was buried.

Some lawyers and civil rights activists warned of a lynch mob mentality and said such laws would amount to hanging scarlet letters around the necks of ex-offenders.

But the laws have survived a series of court challenges over the years, and have been expanded to include more offenders.

New Jersey now has more than 15,000 registered sex offenders. About 4,085 of them — including 140 in Bergen County and 383 in Passaic County — have been categorized as moderate to high-risk offenders, and are listed on a state police website.

“We think it has been successful in many ways,” said Laura Ahern, executive director of Parents for Megan’s Law and the Crime Victims Center. “It helps law enforcement, and parents can use it to prevent their child from having a relationship with someone who could victimize them.”

Ray Flood, a Hackensack defense attorney, said the law is appropriate for violent and repetitive sex offenders, “but there are so many defendants who will never re-offend and never need the Megan’s Law stigma. Perhaps on the 20th anniversary of the law, there should be a study to provide more flexibility.”

Megan’s Law requires that convicted sex offenders register with authorities, and that communities be notified when a sex offender moves into the neighborhood. New Jersey’s online registry provides the sex offenders’ names, addresses and photographs along with other identifying information.

It also provides information about the offender’s conviction and a description of the offense, such as, “Subject sexually assaulted a juvenile female,” or “Subject sexually assaulted several boys. Boys ranged in age from 8 years through 15 years.”

Information about sex offenders who are considered a lower risk is available only to law enforcement. Some community organizations — like schools — are also notified.

Soon after it was enacted, Megan’s Law faced a series of legal challenges from public defenders, civil liberties advocates and others who questioned its constitutionality. Federal and state courts have been mostly consistent in rejecting the arguments, ruling that public safety concerns outweigh the privacy or equal-protection claims of sex offenders.

But a sharp debate continues about whether the law accomplishes its goal: notifying the public about sex offenders in their neighborhoods so that people can take precautions, and reducing the likelihood that sex offenders will re-offend.

A 2008 study funded by the U.S. Justice Department concluded that Megan’s Law had no effect on preventing first-time sex offenses or on re-offending. “Despite widespread community support for these laws, there is virtually no evidence to their effectiveness,” the authors wrote.

Lisa Squitieri, who heads the sex crimes unit at the Passaic County Prosecutor’s Office, said Megan’s Law “has been effective for what it was intended to be. It puts the sex offenders on notice and notifies the public. It does that job.”

Ahern, of Parents for Megan’s Law, said it should be expanded to require that information on all registered sex offenders, not just those considered high risk, be available on the Internet.

Sex offenders are assigned to one of three tiers, based on their risk of re-offending. The risk assessment is done by a Superior Court judge. Those put in the top two tiers are placed on the Internet registry.

“Government should not be making a determination of risk,” Ahern said. “Just give the information to the community, and individuals can make their own determination.”

State Sen. Linda Greenstein, D-Mercer, is a co-sponsor of a bill that would do just that. Introduced in March, the bill has been referred to the Senate Law and Public Safety Committee.

“It would do away with the risk-based system,” she said. “It’s effective and fiscally prudent.” If the bill becomes law, she said, the list of offenders on the New Jersey Internet registry would rise from about 4,000 to over 15,000.

Joseph Del Russo, a retired Passaic County sex-crimes prosecutor, said the bill would modernize Megan’s Law and make the information more accessible in an age where people increasingly get their information from the Internet. But he predicted that if the measure becomes law, it will face constitutional challenges.

Megan’s Law, he said, should not be seen as a stand-alone mechanism to deter recidivism. It should be used as part of a comprehensive approach that includes strict probation for sex offenders. Some sex offenders who are on probation are even required to undergo polygraph tests and wear ankle bracelets to monitor their movement, he said.

Opposition comes from many quarters, including Fletcher Duddy, director of the special hearings unit at the state’s Office of the Public Defender, who thinks it would be a mistake to list all sex offenders on the Internet.

“It dilutes the system when you put thousands and thousands of people on the list,” he said. “The public would have no way of determining who poses a serious risk and who doesn’t.”

Overall, Megan’s Law has been counter-productive and should be scrapped, he said.

“The intent of Megan’s Law is good and laudable,” Duddy said. “Reducing sexual-offense recidivism is a noble goal. But in reality, the law doesn’t do that. Making sex offenders pariahs in modern-day society, making it impossible for them to find work or a place to live, actually increases their likelihood of recidivism.”

Many defendants who pose no risk to the community end up being registered as sex offenders, he said. The most common types are those who are convicted of statutory rape, in which an otherwise consensual relationship is defined by law as rape because the victim is under the age of 16, and the offender is at least four years older.

“You have someone who is 19 or 20, having a relationship with someone who is 15,” he said. “The person frankly didn’t even know he was doing something wrong, and even their families knew about it. That is a very, very common fact pattern.”

The older partner in such relationships would then be required to register under Megan’s Law, although he or she has no tendency to sexually victimize others, he said. “Now he is classified as a predator and lumped together with dangerous pedophiles.”

Joseph Rem, a Hackensack defense attorney, agreed.

“I think it is often applied to people who do not represent any threat to the community, and that is unfortunate,” he said. “To those who are listed on the Internet, Megan’s Law is the 21st-century scarlet letter.”

Timmendequas, now 53, was convicted of Megan Kanka’s murder and sentenced to death. His sentence was commuted to life without parole when New Jersey abolished the death penalty in 2007. He remains behind bars in a maximum security prison in Trenton.

Maureen and Richard Kanka have spent the 20 years since their daughter’s death pushing for laws to keep children safe from sexual predators. They still live in the house in Mercer County. Across the street is a quiet, verdant park where the house of her killer once stood. It’s called Megan’s Place. The centerpiece is a hopscotch grid. ..Source.. by KIBRET MARKOS

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

The “Sex Offender” Regime is Cruel and Unusual Punishment

10-24-2014 New Jersey:

Why the Sayreville Bombers Shouldn't be Prosecuted

If it’s true that all seven of the football players arrested for hazing in the Sayreville, New Jersey, War Memorial High School locker room are students of color, that is one more reason not to prosecute them as sexual felons.

I don’t mean not to prosecute them in adult court. I mean not to prosecute them at all.

If they’re guilty, they should be disciplined by the school, kicked off the Bombers team, and held accountable to their victims by making amends in words and deeds.

But the punishment the state will mete out far outweighs the transgression. For kids who are 15 to 17 years old, it will be life crushing.

Yes, more life-crushing even than being punched, kicked, groped, or subject to an unwanted finger inching into your anus.

The state has charged the boys, variously, with aggravated sexual assault, aggravated criminal sexual contact, conspiracy to commit aggravated sexual contact, criminal restraint, and hazing, involving what the New York Times called “the sexual penetration of one of the juvenile victims.”

The juvenile victim in question describes it as the pressing of a digit or digits against the shallow dent between his clothed buttocks—unpleasant, but hardly the traumatic experience the law, and the press, assume it to be. The other sexual aggressions appear to amount to grabbing of butts and genitals.

Nonconsensual penetration of any orifice constitutes aggravated sexual assault under New Jersey law — in fact, “the depth of insertion [is not] relevant as to the question of commission of the crime.” That’s a first-degree felony, carrying a sentence of 25 years to life.

But even if the boys would serve less time, in adult prison or juvenile detention, or no time at all under a plea deal, a conviction almost definitely will put them on the sex offender registry. New Jersey’s minimum period of registration is 15 years. That 15 years also amounts to a life sentence.

All former felons suffer thousands of state or federally imposed collateral consequences of conviction—from the inability to get a car salesman’s license to permanent denial of the right to vote—condemning them to poverty and social alienation.

But amid the U.S.’s harsh penalties and post-incarceration sanctions, sex offender registry, community notification, and related restrictions—collectively known as Megan’s Laws—stand out for their harshness. Registered offenders must continually apprise the state of their addresses, school enrollment, or jobs. Localities restrict where they can live or drive or walk. Parole officers may enter their homes at will. They cannot join the military. They are ineligible for college loans. They may not work with children or youth, even if their crimes had nothing to do with children or youth. In many cases, they may not live with their own children.

New bills in the New Jersey legislature would require registered offenders to get HIV tests and pay for the GPS devise that tracks them night and day. In the state that gave us the original Megan’s Law, sex offenders are prohibited from giving out candy on Halloween. The lawmakers would now like to keep them from working on ice cream trucks as well.

Shopping malls and housing projects bar them. Churches close their doors.

Sex offenders are harassed, their homes vandalized. Not a few have been murdered. The public registry practically invites it. South Carolina skinheads who recently murdered a sex offender and his wife got his name and address off the Internet registry.

There are 785,000 Americans on the sex offender registries, all but banished from society. These people may have committed a vicious rape at gunpoint or urinated on a tree. Or chatted online with a federal agent masquerading as a teenage girl.

Or pressed a finger into a clothed anus.

Now we find that a disproportionate number of the people on the registries are also African-American. This is surprising only because the popular image of the sexual “predator” is a “pedophile,” and the pedophile is white.

In fact, whites represent two-thirds of registered offenders—the unique criminal category in which whites show up in proportion to their demographics in the general population. But on the public registries, “blacks appear to be over-represented,” according to an ongoing analysis by University of Washington criminologist Alissa Ackerman and colleagues of over 445,000 sex offenders on public registries in 2010.

Nationally, African-Americans comprised 22 percent of the Ackerman sample, compared with only 13 percent of the U.S. population. Among the states with the greatest mismatch was New Jersey.

Ten years ago, Drexel University law professor Daniel M. Filler also found that “African-Americans are grossly overrepresented on [community] notification rolls. In some states an African-American person is over 16 times more likely to appear on a notification website than a white person.” Overall, a black person’s odds of being subject to notification requirements ranged from 1.35 to 14.4 times those of a white person’s, with a median of 1.91 times, according to Filler.

In other words, the corrections agency psychologists and police deciding who is so sexually dangerous that his presence must be announced to the whole neighborhood, tend to think of black men as more dangerous than white.

The Sayreville high school administrators seem to think the same. The Bombers, who surely did not start hazing new players last month or even last year, are 70 to 80 percent white.

Megan’s Laws were supposed to protect children. But two decades of research show they don’t improve anyone’s safety, least of all children’s. In fact, it may be minors themselves who are harmed most by the laws put in place to safeguard them.

The age of the greatest number of people involved in the criminal justice system for sex offenses is 14. Thank age-of-consent laws for that. Because the laws deem minors categorically incapable of consenting to sex, any sexual contact with a minor is considered an assault. Indeed, if the victim is a minor, sexual assault becomes “aggravated” sexual assault. Aggravated does not mean more sadistic or lengthy. It can just mean the “victim” of a touch or chat room conversation was 13.

Fourteen is also the age at which the federal government requires committers of certain sex crimes to be listed on the Internet registries.

And in a nation already overflowing with prisoners both juvenile and adult, the vast majority of them black and brown, do we need to lock up more black and brown kids?

In its 2011 report “Raised on the Registry,” Human Rights Watch detailed the severe and lifelong harms of putting youth on sex offender registries, from chronic unemployment and homelessness to depression and suicide. HRW and other human rights advocates have condemned the incarceration and registration of minors as violations of their human rights.

It’s nasty stuff, what goes on in boys’ locker rooms, dorms, and frat houses. Bigger boys humiliate, beat, and grope smaller, weaker boys.

Masculine rites of passage are not pretty in general. For millennia older males have inflicted torture on younger males to turn them from boys to men, from sissy to macho. Circumcision without anesthesia, flagellation, hanging by hooks through the skin of the chest and shoulders—all had to be endured without flinching or crying. But this for-your-own-good torment is not an artifact of the preindustrial past. If you’re interested in cruel initiations into the higher ranks of manhood, read the memoir of any Englishman who went to a boys’ prep school.

Is anyone really shocked that the Bombers do what they do? Football, after all, is no sport for sissies.

As a feminist, I’m not happy about the equation of masculinity with sexually tinged sadism or the stoicism to withstand it. But answering personal violence with state-sanctioned violence won’t make anyone any less violent.

For kids, it’s just as likely to make them angrier, less empathetic, and stripped of hope.

The sex offender regime is cruel and unusual punishment, excessive even for people who have committed heinous crimes. For these teenagers, whose “sex crimes” were to grab some ass and maybe stick a finger up that ass, it is a massively disproportionate penalty – a life sentence, before their adult lives have begun. ..Source.. by JUDITH LEVINE is the author of Harmful to Minors, My Enemy, My Love, and, most recently, Not Buying It: My Year Without Shopping. She can be reached at Judith@judithlevine.com

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Sex offenders offended by lie tests

9-29-2014 New Jersey:

TRENTON — Convicted sex offenders on the streets of New Jersey are asking Mercer County’s top judge to block parole officers from giving them polygraph tests to make sure they’re staying out of trouble.

A convicted child molester, identified only as J.B. in court papers, is contending that because lie detector tests aren’t reliable enough for use at a trial, they can’t be used to lock up a parolee for a new violation.

J.B. was part of a wider class-action lawsuit by Jersey sex offenders that argued that restrictions on them using social media and submitting to lie testing were violations of their constitutional rights.

In a lengthy opinion written by Superior Court Judge Jack Sabatino, virtually all the molester constitutional arguments were shot down. The appeals panel ruled, in short, that public safety outweighed the molesters’ rights.

“Nevertheless,’’ Sabatino wrote, “appellants have at least preliminarily raised genuine and material issues about the actual utility of polygraphs (for lifetime parolees) particularly in light of the long-standing case law underscoring the unreliable and controversial nature of this testing device

“For these many reasons, an evidentiary hearing is vital to explore the existence and strength of what the State asserts are the therapeutic, rehabilitative, and risk management benefits of polygraph examinations as administered to released sex offenders.

“Such a hearing ideally should encompass expert testimony, cross-examination, and neutral judicial inquiry. Appropriate findings of fact (and, on the points where the experts may disagree, findings of credibility) must also be generated. That amplified record, along with detailed factual findings, will enable this reviewing court’s more informed ultimate resolution of the competing constitutional interests at stake.’’

The job of doing all that fell to Mercer Assignment Judge Mary Jacobson, who held a hearing on the issue Monday, and is expected to hear more legal arguments before making a call.

In the appeals ruling handed down a year ago, Mercer’s go-to judge was told to have her review of the issue completed by April 30.

But that was before Jacobson also ended up refereeing the complex Bridgegate case involving Gov. Chris Christie, as well as the fiasco of succession that following the conviction of ex-mayor Tony Mack on federal corruption charges. ..Source.. by Paul Mickle

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

INGLE: Two decades later, has Megan's Law delivered?

8-25-2014 New Jersey, National:

It's been 20 years since New Jersey's Legislature passed Megan's Law. The two decades since have been filled with legal challenges and disappointment it didn't accomplish what many thought it would. It's what happens when politics and emotion team to shortcut the legislative process.

The law is named for Megan Kanka, who was raped and killed in 1994 when she was 7 after being lured into the home of a twice-convicted sex offender, Jesse Timmendequas, who lived across the street from the child.

Her parents, Maureen and Richard, lobbied the Legislature for a law to require registration of sex offenders; it was named after their daughter. It went into effect just months after her horrible death.

Typical of legislation rushed through, New Jersey's version has been much challenged. Other states and the federal government took their time and did it better. In New Jersey, there is a back story involving Republican Garabed "Chuck" Haytaian, who was Assembly speaker and wanted to replace Frank Lautenberg in the U.S. Senate. His colleagues saw the law as an opportunity.

In his campaign ads, Haytaian bragged he "fast-tracked Megan's Law." Both chambers of the Legislature were controlled by Republicans, and so was the Governor's Office. They wanted to see Lautenberg, a Democrat, beaten. Haytaian came within 3 points of winning.

Emotion and political ambition are not a good combination for strong, effective legislation — the usual vetting and debate got lost. After its passage, it was tied up in court for years, a lot of it because of unforeseen problems. As much as we hate it, there is a reason the legislative process is slow and deliberate by design.

In 2009, a study by the state Department of Corrections and Rutgers University concluded Megan's Law doesn't deter sex offenders in New Jersey. The report says it makes it easier to find them because of registration, but you don't need a report to tell us that. It also said the cost of carrying out the law — the report used $5.1 million, the cost in 2007 — may not be justified.

After Gov. Christie Whitman signed the bill into law, Maureen Kanka hit the road, talking to groups about the dangers of pedophiles, and then worked in a foundation named for her daughter that used federal grant money to do background checks on volunteers who work with children. That money has dried up.

The house where the crime occurred is now a park named for the child. Timmendequas is serving a life sentence without chance of parole.

The debate about Megan's Law's usefulness remains active.

Fletcher Duddy, an attorney in the state Public Defender's Office, told the Star-Ledger the law is "the product of good intentions" but does more harm than good. "Meg­an's Law is just putting a scarlet letter on someone, making them a pariah in modern-day society so they can't function in that society. It really has a counterproductive effect."

"Are there problems with the way it's implemented in places? Yes," Whitman told the paper. "Do we have to carefully remind parents to know where their children are and to watch? Yes. But this is one instance where it's better to be safe than sorry."

The Department of Corrections says about 7,000 people have registered under Megan's Law in New Jersey and 2,600 more will have to when released from prison.

Nowadays, when asked about success in cutting down on child molestation, Megan's Law defenders are quick to point out the purpose was not to end child abuse but to give communities information about where convicted sex offenders reside so they can protect themselves and the children in the neighborhood.

That's what the much-challenged law does. But that wasn't the impression of its intent given by supporters when it was rushed through. The public was allowed to be misled into thinking it would do more. Had they taken enough time they might have created legislation that stood the test of time and afforded people a realistic understanding of what it could accomplish. Much more needs to be done.

There have been other laws named for individuals, and it seems that many are flawed. Laws should be about achieving a clearly stated goal, not as a memorial or fuel for someone's political career. ..Source.. by Bob Ingle who is senior political columnist for the State House Bureau

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Judge to review Facebook posts of rape accuser

8-9-2014 New Jersey:

A New Jersey judge has ordered a teen who accused a man of rape to turn over access to her Facebook account, providing another example of social media's growing use in courtrooms and the resulting privacy concerns.

Mercer County Superior Court Judge Robert Billmeier this week agreed to a request from David Stevens-Parker's defense attorney, and the judge said he will privately review two weeks of Facebook postings for any comments related to the alleged rape before deciding whether any can be used in court.

Defense attorney Andrew Ferencevych said he wants to see if there are any hints that the sex was consensual. Stevens-Parker, 22, was charged with providing the then-16-year-old Princeton girl with alcohol before sexually assaulting her in April 2013.

Assistant Prosecutor John Carbonara said Ferencevych cited a state court ruling that allowed a defense attorney to require a victim to submit to an eye exam, but Carbonara argued that ordering the teen to turn over Facebook access was a greater invasion of privacy. He said courts don't typically order crime victims to turn over information.

If you asked a typical teen whether having an eye examination or giving over Facebook passwords was more of an invasion, "I guarantee 100 percent of them would say to look at your Facebook," Carbonara said. "That's the predominant way they communicate to their friends on a lot of issues."

Content from social media is routinely used in court, but the New Jersey case is different because it involves a judge ordering an alleged victim to turn over information, said Wendy Patrick, a prosecutor and former chairwoman of the California state bar ethics committee.

"It's used all the time and the reason is because the Internet has become a confessional," Patrick said. "It's a place where everyone is an open book."

Patrick noted that authenticating content found on social media is often the most difficult part of trying to use it as evidence.

Among the other recent cases where posts on Facebook and other social media have been used in court:

-The case of two Ohio high school football players convicted of raping a 16-year-old West Virginia girl drew international attention because of the role of texting a and social media in exposing the attack.

-Also in Ohio, a grand jury decided not to charge anyone in a public sex act that was photographed by witnesses and later reported by the woman as a sexual assault after images circulated on social media.

-A defense attorney for a man convicted of killing a University of New Hampshire student spent several hours going over Facebook pages and conversations in an attempt to convince jurors that the state's star witness was possessed by imaginary characters.

Carbonara said that the teen victim in the New Jersey case told him she was willing to turn over the information to the judge. Patrick said that it's good to know that she isn't opposed to the judge reviewing her Facebook page.

"Think how you would feel if someone went into your room and said, 'I must read your diary to see if anything is relevant?'" Patrick said. "It's just invasive." ..Source.. by JOSH CORNFIELD

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Convicted NJ sex offender loses fight over Megan's Law registration

6-18-2014 New Jersey:

A Monmouth County sex offender can be subjected to the stricter registration requirements of Megan’s Law even though they went into effect after his conviction, a state appellate court said today.

Charles E. Hunt, 58, of Union Beach, was appropriately given the stiffer penalty for failing to register as a sex offender when he was released from prison in 2011 because the registration offense was a new crime, the two-judge panel concluded, affirming his five-year probationary sentence.

Hunt contended he was not subjected to the stricter penalties for failing to register as a sex offender because the law upgrading that registration offense from a fourth-degree to a third-degree crime was approved after his conviction.

He argued his situation was similar to a defendant being subjected to increased penalties for violating probation or supervised release after his sentence was already imposed.

But appellate judges Carmen Alvarez and Mitchel Ostrer were not swayed.

In their 10-page decision, they said Hunt’s failure-to-register offense was a new crime – one that he committed in 2011 after the state Legislature changed the law in 2007.

“We conclude that the 2007 statute did not change or enhance the sentence imposed on defendant for his 1994 crimes,” Alvarez and Ostrer wrote. “Rather, the Legislature enhanced the penalty for his new offense of failing to register, and it did so before he committed that new offense.”

The New Jersey Constitution does not allow criminal laws to apply retroactively and there are three categories that the court has recognized as not being permitted. Hunt argued his case fell into one of those categories because the crime that led to the registration offense occurred before the state Legislature upped the penalty in 2007.

Hunt was convicted on Jan. 12, 1996, of aggravated sexual assault and two counts each of sexual assault and child endangerment. The appellate ruling did not provide details of the crime, but noted he was arrested in 1994.

The Monmouth County Prosecutor’s Office indicted Hunt in 2012 on the registration failure charge. Using the same argument he would later bring to the appellate division, Hunt tried to get the indictment dismissed but Judge Francis Vernoia ruled the amended law did not increase the punishment for his underlying offenses.

Hunt then pleaded guilty pending the outcome of his appeal. He was sentenced on Jan. 18. 2013, to five years’ probation, according to the decision. ..Source.. by MaryAnn Spoto

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Appeals court upholds conviction of N.J. pedophile but vacates life sentences

5-2-2014 New Jersey:

The 1st Circuit Court of Appeals this week upheld a New Jersey man’s convictions for arranging a sexual encounter with what he thought was an 8-year-old girl but vacated the life sentences he got for the crimes.

A three-judge appeals panel on Wednesday let stand Donald J. Jones III’s convictions for crimes related to his plotting over the Internet to have sex with a child in Rhode Island. The court, however, returned the case to Chief U.S. District Judge William E. Smith for re-sentencing. It found that Jones’ 1993 convictions in New Jersey for aggravated sexual assault and child endangerment in a case involving a 9-year-old did not meet the standards requiring that he receive life sentences for his federal crimes.

The decision, written by Judge O. Rogeriee Thompson, lays out the travel of Jones’ case.

In 2011, Jones signed up for an account on an adult Internet forum, posting a lewd photo and advertising that he was looking for white parents willing to allow their children to have sex with a black man.

The posting was spotted by U.S. Postal Service inspector Jay Stern, who initiated contact with Jones saying he had an 8-year-old daughter in Rhode Island. During their conversation, Jones bragged about prior sexual contact with girls as young as 4. Jones arranged to travel to Rhode Island and spoke with an officer, believing it was the 8-year-old girl. He emailed Stern child-pornography videos for the child to watch.

An undercover agent sat behind Jones on the bus to Rhode Island. He was arrested by members of the Rhode Island State Police Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force upon his arrival in Providence. A search of his backpack found a sheer child-sized nightgown and panties and a thumb drive containing more child pornography.

After deliberating for less than an hour, a jury in May 2012 convicted him of crossing state lines with the intent to engage in a sex act with a person under 12; using the Internet for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct; interstate travel to engage in illicit sexual acts with a minor; transporting child pornography via interstate travel; possessing and distributing child pornography; and committing a sex offense while being required to register as a sex offender.

Judge Smith sentenced Jones, 49, of Pemberton, N.J., in January 2013 to concurrent life sentences for crossing state lines with the intent to engage in a sex act with a person under 12 and using the Internet for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct and 10 years to serve consecutively for committing the crimes while being required to register as a sex offender. His sentences on the remaining charges ran concurrently.

A re-sentencing date has not yet been set. ..Source.. by Katie Mulvaney

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Alpha defamation lawsuit against anonymous online users dismissed

2-26-2014 New Jersey:

A defamation lawsuit filed by Alpha and a coalition of borough council members against anonymous online users has been dismissed.

New Jersey Superior Court Judge John Purcel tossed the 31-page lawsuit, citing a "failure to prosecute," court records say. According to a rule cited in the decision, if a civil complaint has been pending for four months and a required proceeding has not occurred, the judge will dismiss the case without prejudice after notifying the parties involved.

Court records indicate no action had been taken on the suit since it was filed last summer.

The judge's Jan. 31 dismissal of the lawsuit without prejudice allows for it to be refiled, but borough attorney Christopher Troxell said that was unlikely.

"The Borough of Alpha has chosen to not move forward," Troxell said today.

The borough, along with council members Louis Cartabona, Carol Schwar and Michael Schwar, as well as then-members Craig Dunwell and Michael Savary, filed the six-count suit in July against the anonymous users, including those behind a pair of Save Alpha social media accounts.

The council members claimed statements made by the posters, which included accusations of illegal activity and misconduct, hurt the borough and irreparably damaged their reputations.

Included in the lawsuit were pictures of posts made on the Twitter account @Save_Alpha and Facebook account of save.alpha.NOW as well as a posting on the "Defeat Dunwell" blog.

Among the statements the suit declared were defamatory was an accusation Dunwell had demanded a six-pack of beer in exchange for keeping a neighbor's utilities from being turned off for nonpayment. The lawsuit also cited a post which claimed five council members broke the New Jersey Open Public Meetings Act by meeting privately.

In August, several legal experts said the borough and council members may have been fighting an uphill legal battle in their defamation claims.

Cartabona declined to comment today, saying he was choosing silence "just in case the borough decides to tackle this problem of anonymous posters making comments that hurt the borough business in the future."

Dunwell, who lost a re-election bid in November, and Councilwoman Carol Schwar also declined comment when reached by phone. ..Source.. by Matthew Bultman

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Gloucester Township Police, Pine Hill Police First In U.S. To Join Missing Kids Readiness Project

1-17-2014 New Jersey:

The Pine Hill and Gloucester Township Police Departments have become the first two police departments in the country to become participating members of the Missing Kids Readiness Project.

Pine Hill Chief of Police Christopher Winters and Gloucester Township Police Chief Harry Earle accepted the Missing Kids Readiness project certifications on behalf of their police departments on Tuesday at the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children in Alexandria, Virginia.

The Missing Kids Readiness Project promotes best practices for responding to calls of missing, abducted, and sexually exploited children.

Chief Winters and Chief Earle received their department’s certificate before the 150th NCMEC Missing Children Seminar for Chief Executive Officers. The award was presented by Kristen Anderson, NCMEC Executive Director of Training.

NCMEC Board Chair Patty Wetterling, whose son Jacob was abducted at gunpoint in 1989 and not yet found, and IACP Executive Director Bart Johnson, were also present to congratulate the Gloucester Township and Pine Hill Police Departments.

Each member of both police departments has completed essential training required by NCMEC in responding to a missing child or sexual abuse incident. Additionally, both police department’s policies on handling a missing person incident, which include the initial response by officers, investigation, search, reunification, and follow-up social services, have been reviewed and approved by the NCMEC. ..Source.. by CBS Philly

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Sex-offender ID crucial on social media

This forced posting of the Government's message seems to violate a person's right to NOT be forced to carry the government's message.

12-9-2012 New Jersey:

On Nov. 26, a state Appellate Court upheld limited access to the Internet for convicted sex offenders who are on parole, by allowing authorities to prohibit sex offenders from using online social networks such as Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter.

Although the New Jersey Appellate Court and Supreme Court acknowledge the relatively high recidivism rate of sex offenders, and there are state statute and parole board rules that address Internet access for certain sex offenders, many are still allowed to use the very same social networks that are being popularized by more and more of our children and teens.

More than ever, in this increasingly digitalized society, we must do everything to protect our children from predators who can use social media networks to easily and anonymously target unsuspecting victims.

Legislation I introduced in July 2012, would establish a statutory protection for families and children to know the sex offenders who are using social media websites.

Senate bill 2142 would require anyone required to register as a sex offender to also identify the criminal status on their online social network profiles. ..Continued..

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...