Judge again blocks new R.I. sex offender residency restriction

UPDATED 11-9: Critics of new residency law say it’s dangerous to remove sex offenders from stable living situations

11-4-15 Rhode Island:

PROVIDENCE, R.I. — A federal judge has blocked until January enforcement of a Rhode Island law that bars certain sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of a school.

U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell Jr. on Wednesday ordered the state not to enforce the law until a hearing in January.

McConnell last week had issued a temporary restraining order for 10 days.

The law was enacted this year and applies to Level III sex offenders, considered the most likely to reoffend.

The state's affiliate to the American Civil Liberties Union had requested the temporary restraining order, and after the hearing Steven Brown, the executive director, said the ruling would give Level III sex offenders and their families "a great sense of relief."

Attorneys John E. MacDonald and Lynette Labinger argued for the restraining order, stating the law was not being implemented the same way everywhere — with sex offenders in some communities having 36 hours to move and in others 30 days — and that many would have to move to Harrington Hall, an all-male homeless shelter in Cranston.

Rebecca Partington of the attorney general's office pointed out in court that the 1,000 foot zone would give parents peace of mind and that zones, such as the proximity of liquor stores to schools, have been set in the past.

The temporary restraining order had barred the attorney general's office and the Department of Correction from enforcing the law.

The restraining order was issued in conjunction with a class action lawsuit filed by the ACLU asserting, among other things, that the law is unconstitutionally vague, violates due process and retroactively punishes those who already completed their sentences.

The state argued similar restrictions have been imposed elsewhere, and those affected can find other places to live. ..Source.. by Providence Journal

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Law barring sex offenders near schools temporarily blocked

UPDATED 11-3: Court puts hold on sex offender residency; ACLU seeks to kill law

10-31-15 Rhode Island:

PROVIDENCE, R.I. (AP) - A federal judge has temporarily blocked Rhode Island from enforcing a law that bars certain sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of a school.

U.S. District Judge John McConnell on Friday issued a temporary restraining order for 10 days, granting a request by the Rhode Island chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.

The law was enacted this year and applies to Level 3 sex offenders, considered the most likely to reoffend.

The ACLU filed a class action lawsuit against the state this week. It says the law is unconstitutionally vague, violates due process, retroactively punishes those who already completed their sentences and interferes with privacy interests without a legitimate purpose.

The state argued similar restrictions have been imposed elsewhere, and those affected can find other places to live. ..Source.. by ABC6News

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

ACLU sues to stop new sex offender residency law

UPDATED 10-30: Judge to hear ACLU challenge to sex offender residency law

10-29-15 Rhode Island:

PROVIDENCE, R.I. (WPRI) — The new law forbidding Level 3 sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of a school in Rhode Island is not constitutional, the Rhode Island ACLU said in a lawsuit filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Providence.

The law is vague, violates due process, punishes people retroactively even when they’ve completed sentences, and interferes with “liberty and privacy interests while bearing no rational relationship to a legitimate purpose,” the ACLU’s Johanna Kaiser said.

Six people are named as plaintiffs in the lawsuit. One of them was given 36 hours to move; and has been forced to stay at hotels since then. Others have been unable to secure new housing in the short time they’ve been given. Most of them, the ACLU said, will be forced to move into a homeless shelter, the Harrington Hall facility in Cranston — the only homeless shelter in the state accepting sex offenders that is not within 1,000 feet of a school.

How does one measure that thousand feet distance? How does one appeal an order from law enforcement? And how do you define a school — determining which facilities should be considered a concern? All these issues are not addressed in the new law, the ACLU said.

It also says it applies to all Level 3 sex offenders even if their crime was committed against an adult.

Providence Journal: Law could backfire ( http://www.providencejournal.com/article/20151003/NEWS/151009727 )

Several local homeless advocacy groups support the ACLU’s lawsuit, including the Rhode Island Coalition for the Homeless. By limiting where people can live, the law encourages homelessness, the ACLU said — and rehabilitation and treatment is disrupted; and the law decreases public safety, rather than increasing it.

Level 3 sex offenders are determined to be more likely to reoffend and more dangerous to the public. Level 2 offenders are moderate risk, and level 1 offenders are not listed in public registries. ..Source.. by Bill Tomison

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Statement from the ACLU of Rhode Island on the State’s Sex Offender Residency Law

10-9-15 Rhode Island:

The ACLU of Rhode Island issued the following statement today in response to a meeting held last week by the Department of Corrections’ probation and parole division, at which dozens of sex offenders were told they must leave their current residence in order to comply with a recently-enacted state law:

“In June, the General Assembly passed a law making it a crime for certain registered sex offenders to reside within 1,000 feet of a school. Last week, individuals purportedly subject to that law were given 30 days to move or else face a five-year prison sentence.

“It is the ACLU’s firm belief that, in addition to being unwarranted, misguided and counter-productive, this new law raises grave constitutional concerns. Within the month, we plan to file a lawsuit challenging the statute and seeking a court order to halt its implementation.

“It is important to emphasize the wide range of organizations – including advocates for the homeless, advocates for victims of sexual assault, the American Correctional Association, and the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers – that agree these laws are ill-advised and likely to make the community less, not more, safe.

“It is unfortunate that the legislature and Governor chose to ignore that testimony when it was presented to them. It is especially disheartening and intolerable that the state has given individuals only 30 days to uproot themselves from where they may have lived for years, even if it means making them homeless.

“We are hopeful that, upon careful review by a court, this unwise law will be struck down.” ..Source.. by ACLU RH

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Police Dogs Trained to Sniff out Hidden Hard Drives Containing Child Pornography

7-7-2014 Connecticut, Rhode Island:

Rhode Island and Connecticut have become the first US states to use specially-trained sniffer dogs to uncover hidden hard drives and other electronic storage devices that might contain child pornography.

The new initiative, first reported by New England newspaper Providence Journal, was launched to tackle the growth of internet child porn in the two states.

In the past three years, the number of paedophile rings dealing in child pornography has more than doubled in Rhode Island.

Police dogs are traditionally used in searches for contraband like drugs, explosives and firearms, as well as human remains and blood. However, many breeds of dogs are capable of distinguishing between millions of different scents and can be trained to locate individual odours if required.

Following 22 weeks of training, a golden Labrador gifted to police in Rhode Island by the Connecticut State Police assisted in its first search warrant last month.

Trained to pinpoint the location of computer components, the dog uncovered a flash drive containing child pornography hidden in a tin box inside a metal cabinet. The discovery allowed police to secure an arrest warrant.

"If it has a memory card, he'll sniff it out," detective Adam Houston, a dog handler with Rhode Island State Police, told Providence Journal.

Houston claims that child pornographers often hide storage devices in difficult to find places, such as ceiling tiles and radios.

Depending on the success of the sniffer dogs, the initiative could be rolled out across more US states in the future. ..Source.. by Anthony Cuthbertson

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Judge Upholds Sex Offender Residency Law; ACLU to Appeal

12-4-2012 Rhode Island:

R.I. Superior Court Judge Sarah Taft-Carter today upheld the constitutionality of a state law that makes it a felony for any person required to register as a sex offender to reside within 300 feet of any school. RI ACLU volunteer attorney Katherine Godin, who brought the lawsuit, said the ACLU would appeal the ruling. Across the country, experts involved in the treatment of sex offenders, as well as victims’ rights groups, have opposed sex offender residency laws as being ineffective, counter-productive, and potentially more, rather than less, harmful to public safety. If the ruling is formally implemented pending appeal, a number of ex-offenders in Rhode Island who have not been deemed a public safety risk may likely face potential homelessness.

Two of the plaintiffs reside in Warren Manor II, a Providence facility operated by NRI Community Services, a non-profit provider of mental health and substance abuse treatment. The plaintiffs have developmental disabilities and rely on the staff there to assist them with medication, meals and various other daily activities. They have lived at the facility for three or more years. If forced to leave, the complaint alleged, they are “unlikely to find and be placed in a comparable assisted living facility.” They are designated at the lowest level offender classifications, and are not subject to community notification requirements.

However, the judge rejected the ACLU’s arguments that the statute was punitive in nature, as well as data submitted by the ACLU demonstrating that laws such as these do not protect the public. Attorney Godin said today: “We are extremely disappointed by the ruling and concerned that implementation of the law will have precisely the opposite effect of its stated purpose.”

Among the groups that have publicly raised concerns about broad sex offender residency laws, both locally and nationally, are the RI Disability Law Center, the RI Coalition for the Homeless, Day One Rhode Island, the American Correctional Association, the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, and the Jacob Wetterling Resource Center. A year before the Rhode Island law was adopted, the Rhode Island Sex Offender Management Task Force prepared a draft statement on residency restrictions that noted that “research shows that sex offenders with residential and family stability (which can be disrupted by such restrictions) are less likely to commit new sex offenses.”

At the time the lawsuit was filed, Chris Stephens, the President/CEO of NRI Community Services expressed concern that subjecting the plaintiffs to potential arrest and eviction under the statute “is not only contrary to their medical needs and increases their risk of homelessness, but it categorically does nothing to make the community safer.”

Shortly after Iowa became the first state in the country to implement a sex offender residency statute, the Iowa County Attorneys Association issued a statement opposing that statute, pointing out that “there is no correlation between residency restrictions and reducing sex offenses against children or improving the safety of children.” Other groups have noted that laws like these perpetuate the myth that most child sex offenses are committed by strangers, when in fact the overwhelming majority are committed by relatives and people the child knows.

In addition to NRI Community Services, representatives from the RI Disability Law Center and the RI Coalition for the Homeless have expressed support for the lawsuit. ..Source.. by ACLU

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Rhode Island judge upholds ban on sex offenders near schools

11-30-2012 Rhode Island:

PROVIDENCE, R.I. (AP) — A Rhode Island Superior Court judge has upheld a state law that says sex offenders can’t live within 300 feet of a school.

Judge Sarah Taft-Carter on Friday said a state law meant to keep registered sex offenders from living near schools is constitutional.

The American Civil Liberties Union sued earlier this year. It said the law was vague and overly broad and would be counterproductive because it could force some sex offenders into homelessness or otherwise make their lives less stable. The ACLU said it would appeal.

In a written statement, Attorney General Peter Kilmartin applauded the decision, saying parents send their children to school with the expectation they will be safe and not in close proximity to a sexual predator. ..Source.. by Boston.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kilmartin praises decision to uphold sex offender residency restrictions

Attorney General Peter Kilmartin praised a decision by Superior Court Justice Sarah Taft-Carter on Friday, Nov. 30, upholding the constitutionality of the 2008 amendment to the Sexual Offender Registration and Community Notification Act that any person who is required to register or verify his or her address shall not reside within 300 feet of any public or private school.

The lawsuit was filed against the state of Rhode Island and the Department of Attorney General by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of three registered sex offenders, Dennis Gesmondi, Dallas Huard, and George Madancy. It came after the Providence Police Department notified the three that they were in violation of the statute and had 30 days to find a new residence.

“It was eminently reasonable for the Rhode Island General Assembly to set public policy and determine the need to put modest distance between sex offenders and school children. Parents send their children off to school with an expectation that they will be in a safe environment, never imagining they may be in close proximity to a sexual predator,” said Kilmartin in a statement. “I applaud Justice Taft-Carter’s decision upholding the amendment, which recognizes the intent of the General Assembly: to protect young children from sexual offenders.”

As cited in the state’s motion for summary judgment, supreme courts across the country have upheld similar residency restrictions, citing the safety and general welfare of the public.

Assistant Attorneys General Rebecca Partington and Susan Urso argued the case on behalf of the state and the Office of Attorney General. ..Source.. by The Valley Breeze

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Defendants Agree not to Enforce Sex Offender Residency Law Against ACLU Plaintiffs

7-20-2012 Rhode Island:

At a court hearing today on the ACLU’s request for a preliminary injunction, the state and the Providence Police Department have agreed not to arrest and/or prosecute the plaintiffs in an ACLU lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a state law that makes it a felony for any person required to register as a sex offender to reside within 300 feet of any school. Across the country, experts involved in the treatment of sex offenders, as well as victims’ rights groups, have opposed sex offender residency laws as being ineffective, counter-productive, and potentially more, rather than less, harmful to public safety.

The three plaintiffs face potential homelessness if the law is enforced against them. Two of them have development disabilities and are living in Warren Manor, an assisted living facility in Providence operated by NRI Community Services, a provider of mental health and substance abuse treatment. They are not even subject to community notification requirements.

RI ACLU volunteer attorney Kate Godin said today: “I am very pleased that, at least for the foreseeable future, our clients will not face any action that could lead to homelessness or their reinstitutionalization. We remain prepared to take further action if any other offenders are similarly threatened with arrest under the statute while this lawsuit is pending.”

Among the groups that have publicly raised concerns locally about broad sex offender residency laws are the RI Disability Law Center, the RI Coalition for the Homeless, and Day One Rhode Island. A year before the Rhode Island law was enacted, the Rhode Island Sex Offender Management Task Force prepared a draft statement on residency restrictions that noted that “research shows that sex offenders with residential and family stability (which can be disrupted by such restrictions) are less likely to commit new sex offenses.”

Even though the plaintiffs have been in their residences for some time with the full knowledge of probation and police officials, the Providence Police Department notified them last month that if they did not move out within 30 days, they risked being arrested under the statute. At the time the suit was filed, Chris Stephens, the President/CEO of NRI Community Services noted that some of the residents at Warren Manor were placed there by the state probation and parole office, and that “subjecting them to arrest and eviction is not only contrary to their medical needs and increases their risk of homelessness, but it categorically does nothing to make the community safer.” Judge Sarah Taft-Carter ordered briefs to be filed in the case by August17th. ..Source.. by ACLU

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

ACLU Files Lawsuit Over Residency Restriction for Sex Offenders

7-16-2012 Rhode Island:

The Rhode Island ACLU today filed a lawsuit in R.I. Superior Court challenging the constitutionality of a state law that makes it a felony for any person required to register as a sex offender to reside within 300 feet of any school. Across the country, experts involved in the treatment of sex offenders, as well as victims’ rights groups, have opposed sex offender residency laws as being ineffective, counter-productive, and potentially more, rather than less, harmful to public safety. The lawsuit, filed by ACLU volunteer attorney Katherine Godin, is on behalf of three plaintiffs who face potential homelessness if the law is enforced against them.

Two of the plaintiffs, _____, reside in Warren Manor II, a Providence facility operated by NRI Community Services, a non-profit provider of mental health and substance abuse treatment. The plaintiffs have developmental disabilities and rely on the staff there to assist them with medication, meals and various other daily activities. They have lived at the facility for three or more years. If forced to leave, the complaint alleges, they are “unlikely to find and be placed in a comparable assisted living facility.” They are designated at the lowest level offender classifications, and are not subject to community notification requirements. The third plaintiff, ___, was convicted of a non-contact crime, possession of child pornography. He is a veteran with medical problems that would likely leave him homeless or hospitalized if he is forced to move out of his apartment, also in Providence.

Among the groups that have publicly raised concerns about broad sex offender residency laws, both locally and nationally, are the RI Disability Law Center, the RI Coalition for the Homeless, Day One Rhode Island, the American Correctional Association, the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, and the Jacob Wetterling Resource Center. A year before the Rhode Island law was adopted, the Rhode Island Sex Offender Management Task Force prepared a draft statement on residency restrictions that noted that “research shows that sex offenders with residential and family stability (which can be disrupted by such restrictions) are less likely to commit new sex offenses.” Shortly after Iowa became the first state in the country to implement a sex offender residency statute, the Iowa County Attorneys Association issued a statement opposing that statute, pointing out that “there is no correlation between residency restrictions and reducing sex offenses against children or improving the safety of children.” Other groups have noted that laws like these perpetuate the myth that most child sex offenses are committed by strangers, when in fact the overwhelming majority are committed by relatives and people the child knows.

Even though the plaintiffs have been in their residences for some time with the full knowledge of probation and police officials, the Providence Police Department notified them last month that if they did not move out within 30 days, they risked being arrested and charged with a felony for violating the statute.

The lawsuit argues that the law violates due process, is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, and amounts to improper ex post facto punishment. The lawsuit also notes the extreme confusion that has been generated over determining how to measure the distance between a school and a residence. The ACLU is seeking a court order declaring the statute unconstitutional, and preliminary relief preventing the state from enforcing the law. A hearing on that request is scheduled to be heard Friday morning. ..Source.. by GoLocalProv News Team

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Sex offenders winning on appeal

2-3-2012 Rhode Island:

PROVIDENCE, R.I. (WPRI) - Rhode Island courts side with convicted sex offenders more than half the time when asked to reduce their offense level, in some cases preventing their communities from being notified they live there, a Target 12 investigation reveals.

According to records from the Sex Offender Community Notification Unit, a magistrate judge has overturned 58 percent of classifications given to offenders in the last year.

Sex Offenders are given a classification by the Sex Offender Board of Review, an eight-member panel that uses a formula to determine the persons’ likelihood they will re-offend. Offenders deemed a "level III" are at a high risk to re-offend, "level II" a moderate risk and "level I" a low risk. The classifications also determine whether or not the public is notified of their existence.

The public is made aware of "level III" and "level II" sex offenders on the state's website and local police departments notify neighbors if one is residing in the area. Records indicate since March of 2011, Special Magistrate Patrick Burke has heard 33 sex offender classification appeals. Of those, he has lowered 19 of them:

14 offenders were lowered from a "level II" to a "level I"
3 offenders were lowered from a "level III" to a "level I"
2 offenders were lowered from a "level III" to a "level II"

Records from the Sex Offender Community Notification Unit show the previous judge overturned about 50 percent of appeals.

Court spokesman Craig Berke said Magistrate Burke does not allow cameras into his courtroom and denied Target 12's request for an interview. But in a statement, Berke said there is no overriding philosophy that is in contrast to the decisions made by the Sex Offender Board of Review.

"It is an appeal process and not simply a rubber stamp of the board's decision," Berke said in the statement. "In each separate case, it is the magistrate's responsibility to follow the rule of law, to weigh the evidence presented, and to make a judgment to the best of his or her ability."

A Father's Fight

One man is on the front lines of the controversial sex offender appeals process.

In 2006 he learned both his daughters had been molested by someone close to the family. The father – whose identity Eyewitness News his not revealing to protect the names of the victims – said his girls kept the horrible secrets from their parents, until one of them began to fall apart.

"She was cutting herself and she was trying to hurt herself," he said.

When the family learned of the molestation, he said they immediately reported it to the police.

"The worst experience that I ever had as a father in my life was hearing the cries from my daughter as she was being interviewed by the police," he said. "It was absolute hell."

Eventually the man accused of sexually assaulting his children pleaded no contest to two counts of child molestation and three counts of sexual assault. Two additional counts of child molestation were dropped in the plea deal.

As a result of the agreement with the Attorney General's office, the father said the offender did not receive prison time and was sentenced to a nine year suspended sentence. He said the family was at peace with the decision because he was told the convicted child molester would be a deemed a "level II" offender and be subject to community notification.

For a short time he was, but the offender quickly appealed the decision by the Sex Offender Board of Review, and won in state court.

His classification was dropped to a "level I," meaning he would not appear on the state's sex offender website and neighbors would be in the dark about his presence.

"People have the right to know that someone who has sexually assaulted two people is in their neighborhood," the father said. "You can make peace with yourself after a while with things that have happened, but the fact of the matter is you have someone who committed heinous crimes against two individuals and he was not punished adequately."

He said the family was never told when the offender was going before the judge to argue to have his classification lowered and they were never afforded the opportunity to testify against the request.
"Absolutely not," he said. "[Our voice] was never heard."

In the statement, Berke said the magistrate can refer to transcripts and the case file to get the victim's side of the story.

"The Court has great compassion for the victims, who previously have had the opportunity to tell the sentencing judges the impact the offenses have had on their lives," Berke said in the statement. "The magistrate's focus, however, is to determine the likelihood of the defendant to re-offend."

A Target 12 review of the file in this case shows the magistrate relied on arguments made by the sex offender's defense attorney, a letter from a therapist and notes from the Sex Offender Board of Review. Included in the file was the transcript from the interview the two girls gave detectives leading to the molestation charges.

The father said without their testimony, he feels the judge missed out on important history of the case that may have had an impact on his ruling.

"I'm very, very angry," he said. "We didn't get justice. The courts let us down."

'Difficult' to overturn

The Sex Offender Board of Review is made up of eight volunteer members, many with backgrounds in law enforcement and social work.

State Senator James E. Doyle (D-Pawtucket) said he is concerned that the decision by a board of people is being overturned by a single magistrate.

"I don't know these cases but just looking at 58 percent, who knows where they are in the community?" Doyle said. "That is a deep concern to me."

Doyle, who has been outspoken on issues surrounding sex offenders for years, said he is going to bring Target 12's findings to the Attorney General's office.

He said he also plans on submitting legislation this year that would require the Attorney General's office to appeal any decision that does not uphold the board of review's classification.

Records show in the last year the Attorney General's office has not appealed any of the magistrate’s decisions to downgrade sex offender notifications. Amy Kempe, spokeswoman for Attorney General Peter Kilmartin, said that is because it is "very difficult" to reverse a judge's decision.

"There would be no reasonable probability of achieving appellate success in challenging a sexual offender classification," Kempe said in the statement.

She said a better alternative is to design legislation that would create a system using less judicial "intuition" and more accountability. Other states, for example, assign a sex offender their classifications based purely on the charges they were convicted of, eliminating a risk assessment board and the appeals process.

The father said he would like to see his case, and others that were overturned, appealed by the Attorney General's office. But he said he wonders how many victims even know that sex offenders are winning their appeals to have their classifications reduced.

"No one contacted us," he said adding he had to call to find out what happened in his case. "My family can't be the only family going through this." ..Source.. by Tim White, Target 12 Investigator

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

The Communities with the Most Sex Offenders

11-10-2011 Rhode Island:

Several cities and towns in Rhode Island have a far higher proportion of sex offenders than is the norm in most Ocean State communities, a GoLocalProv review of data obtained from the Department of Corrections has found.

Overall, there are just over 800 sex offenders on parole or probation living in Rhode Island. Several communities have far more sex offenders than others—and not just because they are larger or more urban. Woonsocket tops the list as the place with the highest proportion: a ratio of about 10 offenders for every 5,000 residents. Next are West Warwick and Exeter, each with ratios of seven offenders. (See below chart for the complete listing of all communities.)

The average ratio for an Ocean State community is 2.9 offenders for every 5,000 people.

The top ten communities with the highest ratios includes some of the usual urban suspects—Providence, Central Falls, and Pawtucket. But communities like Burrillville and Westerly also make the top ten.

Only three communities did not have any sex offenders on parole or probation: Block Island, Foster, and Jamestown.

Why do some communities have more?

For the most part, ex-inmates return to the city or town they called home before they went to prison, according to Tracey Zeckhausen, spokeswoman for the Department of Corrections. But some areas, such as the state’s main cities, may have more offenders than others because of cheaper rents, public transportation, and the locations of homeless shelters, Zeckhausen said. She also pointed to the connection between unstable family lives, poor education, unemployment and the higher number of convicts that cities might have.

But how did Woonsocket and West Warwick—mid-sized cities by Rhode Island standards—beat out the likes of Central Falls or Providence?

“It’s probably the type of community. We’re a mill town just like Woonsocket,” said West Warwick Detective Sgt. Scott Amaral, who oversees the town’s sex offender registry. “The town is so depressed economically that the rents are low, so you see a lot of people move to town who are sex offenders.”

West Warwick has 46 sex offenders on parole or probation, according to the DOC data. But the total number of registered sex offenders in town is nearly double that, according to Amaral. (A spokesman for the Woonsocket Police Department did not respond to calls for comment.)

Communities not always notified of sex offenders

A patchwork of laws and rules governs when sex offenders have to register with local police and when their neighbors are put on notice. A person who has been convicted of first-degree child molestation has to register with the local police department for his whole life. Someone who was found with child porn, on the other hand, only has to register for a ten-year period, according to Amaral.

Just because an offender is registered with police does not mean that neighbors are notified. In that case a different set of rules apply: offenders are ranked on a three-level system, based on the likelihood that they will commit a sex crime. A Level I offender has the lowest risk of committing another sex crime while Level II offenders have a moderate chance of repeating their behavior. Level III offenders pose the highest risk of harming another victim.

The law, as it now stands, mandates community notification for Level II and Level III offenders, but not Level I offenders—no matter how severe the crime, according to Amaral.

Everyone who lives within a half-mile radius is notified when a Level III offender moves in. The notification is less comprehensive for Level II offenders: only those households with schoolchildren are notified.

Current system plagued by loopholes

Rhode Island law is currently out of compliance with federal law on sex offender registration and community notification, according to Paula Kocan, supervisor of the Sex Offender Community Notification Unit of the state Parole Board.

That has one state rep worried. Peter Palumbo, D-Cranston, has twice tried to pass legislation that would bring Rhode Island in line with federal law, known as the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006. Palumbo warns that the current system has too many loopholes that would have been closed had his bill become law.

For one thing, the new law would change how communities are notified about a sex offender who is living in their midst. The new system would require notification based on the seriousness of the offense, rather than the likelihood that someone will commit another crime, according to Palumbo. Under this new system, an offender would automatically be labeled a Level I, II, or III offender.

Currently, the Sex Offender Board of Review has to decide how likely someone will repeat their crime—a process that Palumbo describes as “absolutely subjective.” Plus, the sheer volume of work that entails has caused a backlog of offenders awaiting classification, delaying community notification for Level II or III offenders, Palumbo said.

After all that, an offender can appeal their classification in the courts. Local police must hold off on issuing any community notices until the appeal process—which can last up to a year, or longer—is over. “While they’re appealing this, they’re running around preying on kids,” Palumbo said. “That’s a major problem.”

And that might not even be the largest loophole. Anyone who committed a sex offense before July 24, 1996 is not subject to the state law on community notification, according to Kocan. Under the legislation Palumbo proposed, notification rules would be retroactively extended to those offenders.

Palumbo says he can’t understand why anyone, at least any of his colleagues at the Statehouse, would oppose closing those loopholes—especially when Rhode Island could risk losing federal funding as a consequence. Palumbo said federal authorities have warned that failure to update the state law could result in a punitive, 10-percent cut in Byrne grants, which fund local and state law enforcement programs. That could cost Rhode Island $150,000 to $650,000 annually, according to Palumbo.

‘Frightening for the kids’

His bill passed the House in 2010 but not the Senate. This year, however, it did not even make it out of the House Judiciary Committee. “We’ve got super, super liberals running that committee, so we’re going backwards, instead of forward,” Palumbo said. He plans to re-introduce his bill next year, but is not too optimistic that it will go anywhere without a change in leadership of the committee. “It’s frightening. It’s frightening for the kids.”

Edith Ajello, a Democrat from the East of Providence who chairs the Judiciary Committee, did not respond to a request for comment.

State rep: signs should warn neighbors

One state rep wants to go even farther than Palumbo’s bill in making sure neighbors are aware of sex offenders living close by. Lisa Baldelli-Hunt, D-Woonsocket, this year proposed a law that would allow local law enforcement to place signs on public sidewalks or streets in front of the homes of sex offenders.

The bill, which was co-sponsored by all the state reps from Woonsocket, also did not make it out of the Judiciary Committee. Like Palumbo, Baldelli-Hunt plans on trying again next year.

“I have some concerns regarding sex offenders because, quite frankly, they don’t walk around with signs telling people they are sex offenders,” Baldelli-Hunt told GoLocalProv. “I’m not interested in their rights or protecting them. I have no concern for them because they are the worst of the worst.”

She hopes that such a law—a form of public shaming—would goad sex offenders into moving into communities in other states. “It’s not our responsibility to be concerned with how other states handle their sex offenders,” Baldelli-Hunt said.

In addition to community notices issued by local law enforcement, the state maintains a centralized, online database of where sex offenders live. The state site allows someone to pull up a list of sex offenders either for an entire city or town, or by zip code. Each name is listed with an address, their crime, and their prison-release status. (Click here to access the site.)

Baldelli-Hunt worries that some people, like the elderly, may not have easy access to the Internet. And, for those that do, it may not occur to them that they should be checking up on whether sex offenders are in their neighborhoods. “Everyone’s very busy and probably that’s not on your to-do list,” she said.

Posting signs outside their homes, she says, ensures that everyone is aware of their presence. ..Source.. by Stephen Beale, GoLocalProv News Contributor

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

I-Team: Child predators, part 1

This story has a major HOLE in it, it starts out by saying "Hundreds online either looking at or distributing CP." Then a bit later they say, they need "Administrative Subpoena Powers" to go after these suspected folks. It seems to me that, it is impossible to identify them, then call them suspected. If they are identified, go get them you do not need ASP powers. (Part-2 is below the video)(At very least, take down the KNOWN DATA BASES of CP)

Now in another article about the same story they speak about the embarrassment law enforcement felt -3 years ago- when Rhode Island was ID'ed as the worst in the nation for this crime. Also in the article are some stats which are shocking: RI received Grants "$647,438: Federal funding over three years" and the net arrest record is: 10 in 2008, 22 in 2009, and 50 in 2010. In other words, out of the hundreds they see online daily, they were only able to get 82 of them over three years (at a cost of $7,895 per case). Yup, embarrassing!

I wonder why they need administrative subpoena powers, could be because they are no rules to follow under ASP. Clearly RI needs new folks in this area, something is very wrong, or who do we believe?

5-4-2011 Rhode Island:

An NBC 10 I-Team investigation shows that hundreds of Rhode Island men are online, nearly every minute of every day, either looking at or distributing child pornography. And law enforcement authorities say dozens of these men, are sexual predators.

The I-Team was granted unprecedented access to the Rhode Island State Police's secret Cyber Crimes Unit. Using highly sophisticated computer software, 17 highly trained police officers and civilian employees track the child pornography trade in Rhode Island.

" There are known databases out there of images that have been viewed by law enforcement," said Lt. Nicholas Tella, who heads up the Cyber Crimes Unit, "so we know what we're looking at."

And what detectives are looking at is shocking.

Some pictures show adult men sexually abusing young girls. Some of the girls are infants, as young as 6 months old.

"Any given time, at any given day, there are hundreds of men looking at child pornography," said Coventry Police detective, Kevin Harris, who is part of a federal and state task force working at the Cyber Crimes Unit.

Just two weeks ago, Edgar Braley, 31, of West Warwick, was convicted for trying to entice two 13 year old girls to have sex with him.

He posed online, on the girl's MySpace sites, as an 18 year old.

Peg Langhammer, the executive director of Day One, an organization that helps sexual assault victims, told the I-Team that parents must be aware of what their young children and teenagers are looking at on their computers.

"They should start talking about what's out there with their children right away," Langammer said.

Child pornography distribution is a serious problem throughout the country, but more so, in Rhode Island.

"Rhode Island was identified as being the worst state in the country for child pornography traders," Tella said.

Tella and other law enforcement officials who try to track and arrest child pornographers, are frustrated. They say some legislators, and the Rhode Island branch of the American Civil Liberties Union, are blocking legislation what would help them arrest sexual predators and child pornographers, as soon as they are identified.

State police want the authority to use something called an administrative subpoena. It would allow the Superintendent of State Police, or the Attorney General, to issue a subpoena, based on evidence developed at the Cyber Crimes Unit, that would allow police to identify the account holder of IP addresses of suspected child pornographers or sexual predators.

"The IP address consists solely of numbers. There is no other information other than a number...it shows the user's general location and is not evidence of criminal behavior," Tella said.

Tella testified at a recent hearing on proposed legislation what would grant the use of an administrative subpoena.

Tella said once a suspected sexual predator's IP address is identified, it is extremely important to arrest that person as soon as possible, before the predator can gain access to other potential victims.

But the ACLU, and some key state senators, said there must be judicial review of any subpoena that is issued.

"It's fine to trust the police. But our criminal justice system is not based on trust. One of the key aspects of our system is judicial oversight," testified Steve Brown, executive director of the ACLU.

Brown is concerned that some police might abuse the administrative subpoena, and search IP addresses for other possible crimes, that don't have anything to do with child porn.

In the meantime, the Cyber Crimes Unit continues its work, tracking and in some cases arresting child pornographers and sexual predators, at an alarming rate. ..Source.. by Jim Taricani



I-Team: Child predators, part 2

Two years ago, 31-year-old Edgar Braley attempted to have sex with two teenage girls.

He contacted them on their MySpace pages.

Breanna Lataille, 13, at the time this incident happened, is one of the girls he tried to assault.

Braley first contacted Lataille on her then MySpace page. He lived only four blocks away from her.

"At age 13, I had a MySpace, and what normal teenagers would do, to talk to their friends. Then one day I got these messages," the girl said.

Lataille said after a few messages from Braley, the comments turned sexual.

"Saying like he was going to chop me up, screw me with a chain saw, sexual conversations and then, started getting random messages," she said.

Lataille said she felt like she was being stalked.

"Beyond scared and nervous, I didn't want to leave the house at all. It's terrifying," she said.

Breanna's mother, Shely Mathias, said her daughter did what she was told to do when finding strange remarks on an Internet site.

"I was scared for her, like some psycho was coming after her," Mathias said.

The Rhode Island State Police Cyber Crimes Unit tracks and arrests child pornographers, and sexual predators.

Braley was convicted two weeks ago of attempting to entice minors to have sex with him.

Peg Langhammer is the executive director of Day One, an organization that counsels sexual assault victims. She said parents need to make their children, even young children, aware of sexual predators on the Internet.

""It's so critical that parents become informed," she said. "They should start talking about what's out there with their children right away. Once they're teenagers and they have all the laptops and they are just using them in their bedrooms."

For Breanna Lataille, she knows she came very close to being Braley's victim.

Rhode Island has been identified by law enforcement officials as a state with one of the highest numbers of sexual predators and child pornographers in the country.

Experts say that parents need to constantly monitor their children's computer use to save them from being victims.

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Circuit Split Deepens Over 1st Circuit Ruling on Effective Date of Sex Offender Registration Act

This case is a perfect example of the problem created by SORNA, where no federal authority notified anyone of the FEDERAL requirements, and now the man is convicted in federal court of something he knew nothing about. While it appears true he failed to register in the state he moved to, and he should be charged under that state law, but the AWA jurisdictional hook allows a federal prosecution which is totally unjust! The forms he signed were State forms and they say nothing about FEDERAL requirements. And, within AWA it says, that all offenders MUST BE NOTIFIED and they were not. No court has yet to study what has happened and what caused the problem. i.e., the state forms. Someday lawyers will get smart and raise the issue.

9-28-2010 National:

The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed a defendant's conviction, ruling that registration requirements under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) took effect when the bill was signed, rather than when the U.S. attorney general issued an interim rule.

The 1st Circuit's Sept. 22 ruling in U.S. v. DiTomasso, authored by Senior Judge Bruce Selya with a concurring opinion by Judge Michael Boudin, deepens a circuit split on the law's effective date. The 4th, 7th, 6th and 11th circuits have ruled that SORNA's registration requirements didn't apply to people convicted of sex offenses until the attorney general's interim regulation set up rules for that group of offenders. The 3rd, 8th and 10th circuits -- like the 1st Circuit -- have ruled that SORNA's registration requirements applied to prior offenders as soon as SORNA was enacted.

SORNA was signed into law on July 27, 2006, and the U.S. attorney general issued the interim rule on Feb. 28, 2007. Michael DiTomasso was convicted of sex offenses in Massachusetts in 1995 and last registered in that state in 2006. He traveled to Rhode Island before the attorney general issued the February 2007 interim rule.

In October 2007, he was charged with failing to register as a sex offender. He pleaded guilty in June 2008, but reserved his right to appeal the denial of his dismissal motion. He was sentenced to 30 months in prison in December 2008.

Selya wrote that without clear congressional direction stating otherwise, "a law takes effect on the date of its enactment."

"For purposes of the case at hand, this holding gets the grease from the goose," he wrote. "It teaches that the general rules requiring updates to sex offender registration took effect when SORNA was signed into law. Those requirements were thus in full force when, in February of 2007, the defendant traveled to a new state. When he failed to register there, he violated federal law."

The opinion also rejected DiTomasso's two other claims. DiTomasso argued that Congress lacked the authority under the commerce clause, which prohibits states from placing unnecessary burdens on interstate commerce, to enact sex offender registration requirements. Selya wrote that "SORNA, as applied here, explicitly regulates the use of the channels of, and persons in, interstate commerce. Interstate travel is, after all, an express element of the SORNA violation with which the defendant was charged and of which he stands convicted."

DiTomasso furrhter claimed that the conviction violated his due process rights because Rhode Island had yet to implement SORNA when he traveled interstate. Selya wrote that SORNA's registration requirements "are neither conditioned on nor harnessed to state implementation of SORNA's state-directed mandates."

Boudin wrote in his concurring opinion that he wanted to underscore two additional points. He wrote, "the statute's design leans against the narrow reading adopted by several other circuits and ... Congress' purpose supports the broader one that we adopt today."

"What is important to the case before us is that Congress intended the enforcement provisions to apply of their own force to those who had previously been convicted and not just to newly convicted offenders," Boudin wrote.

DiTomasso's lawyer, Kevin Fitzgerald of the Federal Public Defender's office in Rhode Island, did not return a call for comment.

The Rhode Island U.S. Attorney's oOffice, which represented the government in the case, declined to comment, said spokesman Jim Martin.

The 1st Circuit heard DiTomasso and a similar District of Maine case, U.S. v. Gagnon, on July 27, but it has yet to issue a ruling in Gagnon.

Bruce Gagnon was convicted on a sexual assault charge in New Hampshire in 2000. He registered as a sex offender in New Hampshire from 2000 through 2005 and moved to Maine in December 2006.

He was charged in February 2007 with failure to register as a sex offender. His September 2008 guilty plea was conditioned on reserving the right to appeal the judge's denial of his motion to dismiss. He was sentenced to 12 months and one day in prison, plus three years of supervised release in January 2009.

The DiTomasso ruling "makes it very unlikely that Mr. Gagnon will prevail," said J. Hilary Billings, Gagnon's lawyer on appeal and an assistant federal defender for the District of Maine. DiTomasso and Gagnon made the same three legal arguments, Billings said. "I'd be shocked if there was any difference in [the Gagnon] opinion." ..Source.. by Sheri Qualters, The National Law Journal

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...