Pierce County Child Sex Sting Operation Results In A Dozen Arrests

Note: NONE of those arrested were former sex offenders!

4-25-17 Washington:

(TACOMA, WA.) -- And there they were. They had arrived at a predetermined time and place, a dozen men aged 27 to 60 all with the same desire: have sex with children, according to the Washington State Patrol (WSP).

Or so they assumed prior to the shock of arrest.

There were three Tacoma men, a 35, 47 and a 50-year old. A 58-year old man from Renton, a prior felon from Kent, Washington and a 27-year old man already wanted for escape.

They live in places like Gig Harbor, Shelton, Lacey and Lakewood. And now they share one other thing besides an alleged desire to abuse children: the prospect of spending time behind bars and returning eventually to society as registered sex offenders.

On Monday the WSP's Missing and Exploited Children’s Task Force (MECTF) arrested the 12 men during a multi-day operation in Tacoma "that targeted individuals who wanted to sexually exploit children," according to a WSP news release.

“Thanks to the hard work of everyone involved in this operation, child predators are taken off the street, “ says WSP Chief John R. Batiste. “ This operation protects our most vulnerable members of our community from abuse and makes the internet safer for our children.”

The sting operation involved law enforcement officers acting in an undercover capacity who communicated on the internet through various websites with individuals who had expressed an interest in having sex with children. ..Continued.. by Chronicle staff

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Editorial: State corrections agency right to retire the word ‘offender’

See also: Senate looks at policy to rename prisoners

1-19-17 Washington:

Words matter because the meaning that we give words matters even more.

This is especially true of the words we use to describe each other, which is why it’s useful to have a discussion about the words we use to refer to those who have committed crimes, those who are currently incarcerated or are otherwise serving their sentences and those who have rejoined society at large.

And it’s why a recent decision by the state Department of Corrections to phase-out the use of the term “offender” in written policies and daily use shouldn’t be disregarded as another instance of “political correctness.”

Acting Corrections Secretary Dick Morgan, whose tenure ends Friday, met with a state Senate panel last week to explain the policy change he announced in November, as reported by The Herald’s Jerry Cornfield.

In November, Morgan told agency employees in a memo that the term “offender” would be replaced in policies and other documents with terms more appropriate to circumstances, such as “individuals,” “students” or “patients.” Morgan also encouraged corrections officers to refer to those serving time by their names and remove “offender” from their communications and discussions with others.

At the time, and testifying before the Senate Law and Justice Committee last week, Morgan explained the term carries a stigma that can complicate work to rehabilitate incarcerated individuals and can reinforce stereotypes after they have served their time and are rebuilding lives in society.

“There’s a sense of permanence around the department labeling somebody as an offender,” he told senators on Thursday. “There’s no conclusion to the time that they are an offender.”

Similar policy charges are being discussed across the nation. In May, Assistant Attorney General Karol Mason, who heads the Office of Justice Programs, wrote in a Washington Post commentary that her agency would no longer use the terms “felon” or “convict” to refer to released prisoners.

Mason wrote that the change in language did not condone criminal behavior or mean that people weren’t being held accountable for past actions.

“But accountability requires making amends, an objective that is much harder to achieve when a person is denied the chance to move forward,” she wrote. “The people who leave our correctional facilities every year have paid their debts. They deserve a chance to rebuild their lives. We, all of us, can help them by dispensing with useless and demeaning labels that freeze people in a single moment of time.”

Morgan’s change in state policy, which will be continued by Jody Becker-Green, the deputy corrections secretary who will become acting secretary of corrections on Friday, does not affect the use of the term for those convicted of sexual crimes. The term “registered sexual offender” is codified in state law and will remain in use.

One objection to the more general use of “offender” is that in the public’s mind the word has become closely linked to the term “sexual offender.”

That, in itself, might be a good argument to reserve the term for sexual offenses. State law has identified the need to require the registration of those who have committed sexual offenses and, after serving their time, are released into public life. Overuse of the term “offender” in a general sense could weaken its impact where we need it to identify sexual offenders.

Except for those sentenced to life in prison, the expectation is that some 95 percent of those who serve time will rejoin society. It’s why the state agency is called the Department of Corrections and why the state’s prison in Snohomish County is called the Monroe Correctional Complex.

Labeling someone as an “offender” — after a sentence has been handed down and the path to turn his or her life around begins — serves no purpose on that path to correction. ..Source.. by The Herald Editorial Board

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Appeals court says condition put on convicted child molester too vauge

10-28-15 Washington:

A Washington appellate court has overturned a probation condition imposed on an Anacortes man convicted last year of multiple sex crimes, according to a court opinion filed Monday.

The appeals court threw out a condition that said Samuel Lee Irwin, 63, could not “frequent areas where minor children are known to congregate.” Appellate judges found the condition to be “unconstitutionally vague,” according to the opinion.

The court ordered Irwin be resentenced.

Irwin was sentenced in August 2014 to about 10 years in prison after he pleaded guilty in Skagit County Superior Court to three counts of second-degree child molestation and one count of second-degree possession of depictions of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct.

A judge also sentenced Irwin to three years probation following his release from prison and set conditions that would restrict Irwin’s contact with children and his possession of computers and digital storage devices.

According to the opinion, authored by Judge Michael Trickey: “Without some clarifying language or an illustrative list of prohibited locations ..., the condition does not give ordinary people sufficient notice to ‘understand what conduct is proscribed.’”

The appeals court upheld a condition that will restrict Irwin’s possession of certain technology, including computer hardware components and devices used to store or reproduce digital media while he is on probation.

Irwin was taken into custody Jan. 30, 2014, by Anacortes police after two children reported sexual abuse. A third child later came forward with additional allegations.

A computer and several backup discs owned by Irwin contained sexually explicit images of children and an Internet browsing history indicative of child pornography, according to court documents.

Irwin’s 116-month sentence was at the top of the sentencing range of 87 to 116 months. The sentence was also close to the maximum penalty of 10 years allowable under state law for a conviction on a count of second-degree child molestation.

Irwin is in custody at Airway Heights Correctional Center in Spokane County, according to the state Department of Corrections. ..Source.. by Evan Marczynski

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

City receives $100,000 for sex offender monitoring

Unbelievable waste of taxpayer money: The numbers work out to $179.00 per registrant for the city, and $164,000 for the rest of the county. Talk about fleecing and bamboozling the taxpayers!

9-16-15 Washington:

The city of Vancouver has received $99,600 in state funding to monitor registered kidnapping or sex offenders until June 30, 2016.

In July, the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs awarded $264,000 in state funds to Clark County and its cities to enhance law enforcement monitoring of registered sex offenders, as required by state law. Police must provide face-to-face verification of a registered sex offender’s residence every three to 12 months, based on the level of offense.

The city and county must co-apply each year for funding renewal. The monitoring keeps the state’s registry database and public website current, and it serves as a deterrent for future crimes. Registry violations may result in arrest, prosecution and sentencing for any new offenses.

The Clark County Sheriff’s Office maintains the sex offender registry for the public website for all sex offenders in the county.

There are 556 registered sex offenders living in Vancouver city limits. Of those sex offenders, 419 are Level I (at low risk of re-offending in the community at large); 120 are Level II (at moderate risk of re-offending); and 17 are Level III (at high risk of re-offending and considered the most dangerous to the community), according to the Vancouver Police Department. ..Source.. by The Columbian

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

State high court upholds Jefferson County’s ruling in 2012 case

4-15-15 Washington:

The Washington State Supreme Court has upheld a Jefferson County court’s ruling that state prosecutors can charge a member of an Indian tribe who is living on another tribe’s land, according to the high court’s March 19 opinion.

In 2012, a Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office detective began investigating whether Howard John Evans Shale, a member of the Yakama Nation and a convicted sex offender, had moved to the Quinault Indian Nation’s reservation without registering with the county.

Shale had been convicted in 1997 of raping a child younger than 12. Upon his release from prison, he moved to Seattle and registered as a sex offender with King County.

With help from a fellow sheriff’s deputy and a Quinault tribal police officer, the detective found Shale had been living on the reservation by splitting his time between two family homes.

Jefferson County Prosecutor Scott Rosekrans charged Shale with failing to register with the county sheriff.

Shale moved to dismiss the charge, arguing the county had no jurisdiction over a tribal member in Indian country. Superior Court Judge Keith Harper declined Shale’s motion and eventually found him guilty, noting that because Shale was not a member of the Quinault Indian Nation, the state retained jurisdiction.

Judge Harper concluded state law “carved out from state authority only ‘Indians when on their tribal lands,’ not tribal members while on another tribe’s land.”

Shale appealed Harper’s decision, again arguing the court did not have jurisdiction as he was a member of a federally recognized Indian tribe and the crime took place on tribal land. A state appeals court affirmed his appeal and sent the question of jurisdiction to the high court.

In its opinion, the high court noted the state’s prosecution of Shale does not preempt a tribal court from charging and trying him, though it also stated the U.S. Supreme Court had held that tribal courts do not have jurisdiction over members of other tribes. In this case, that meant the state had jurisdiction. ..Source.. by Nicholas Johnson

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Judge dismisses long-running sex-abuse case, citing “prosecutorial vindictiveness” by Pierce prosecutors

3-31-15 Washington:

Citing misconduct by Pierce County prosecutors, Superior Court Judge Edmund Murphy ruled Monday to dismiss the child sex-abuse case against a former Longbranch woman accused of victimizing her daughter.

“The court is going to dismiss the case with prejudice on the basis of prosecutorial vindictiveness,” Murphy said in an oral ruling. The ruling means the charges can never be re-filed.

It’s the second time charges have been dismissed against Lynn Dalsing, 48, since prosecutors first charged her in December 2010 and dismissed the case without prejudice in 2011. Dalsing subsequently sued the county for false arrest in 2012. Monday’s ruling opens a potential door in that matter, which is still ongoing.

The finding of vindictiveness, a rare outcome, was a stunning loss for prosecutors. The ruling came from a judge who knows them well. Murphy, a former chief felony prosecutor for Pierce County, was appointed to the bench in 2010.

In his ruling, he rejected arguments that new information and evidence justified the new charges and sided with defense attorneys who argued that prosecutors filed new charges to gain an advantage in Dalsing’s lawsuit.

Murphy noted that prosecutors re-opened a dormant criminal investigation in 2013 after Dalsing won a series of favorable rulings in her suit.

Pierce prosecutors forwarded investigative information to Snohomish County prosecutors, who declined to file charges in June 2013 — but Pierce prosecutors continued the investigation after that. After Dalsing won another favorable ruling in her lawsuit, they filed new charges in 2014: two counts of first-degree child rape, three counts of first-degree child molestation, and three counts of first-degree sexual exploitation of a minor. The new charges, all dismissed by Murphy’s order, carried a possible lifetime prison sentence. ..Continued.. by Sean Robinson

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

State Supreme Court rules state can prosecute on tribal land

3-19-15 Washington:

The Washington Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that state prosecutors can charge a member of an Indian tribe who is living on another tribe's land.

The high court's ruling came in the case of a Yakama Nation man who was living on the Quinault Indian Nation's reservation. When Howard John Evans Shale failed to register as a sex offender while living on the Quinault reservation, a Jefferson County prosecutor filed charges against him.

Shale moved to dismiss the charges, arguing the county had no jurisdiction over a tribal member in Indian Country. But the justices disagreed. Their unanimous ruling said that because Shale was not a member of the Quinault Indian Nation, the state has jurisdiction.

Shale was convicted in 1997 of raping a child under 12. Once released from prison, he moved to Seattle, where he registered as a sex offender with the King County sheriff, court records said.

In 2012, a Jefferson County sheriff began investigating whether Shale had moved to that county without registering. With the help of a Quinault tribal police officer, they determined that Shale had been living on the Quinault reservation by dividing his time between two family homes.

The Jefferson County prosecutor charged Shale with failure to register. A state judge agreed, saying the law "carved out from state authority only 'Indians when on their tribal lands,' not tribal members while on another tribe's land," the justices wrote.

Shale appealed, arguing that he was a member of a federally recognized Indian tribe and the offense was on the Quinault reservation.

Citing U.S. Supreme Court rulings, the Washington justices said tribal courts do not have jurisdiction over members of other tribes and the state does not have jurisdiction over members of Quinault Indian Nation members while on their reservation. Taken together, because Shale is not a member of the Quinault Nation, the state can charge him with crimes. ..Source.. by MARTHA BELLISLE

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Supreme Court deals Pierce prosecutors another setback

2-4-2015 Washington:

Pierce County prosecutors lost another argument with the Washington State Supreme Court on Wednesday.

The high court’s decision was the latest development in an unbroken string of setbacks tied to a long-running sex-abuse case and a related lawsuit that accuses the county of false arrest and malicious prosecution.

The News Tribune first reported on the case in June 2014 in a story headlined, “The Case of Four Little Words.”

A unanimous panel of five Supreme Court justices denied the county’s request to modify an earlier order to disclose key records in the case. The county has resisted disclosure at every level; Wednesday’s ruling from the high court marked the county’s fourth consecutive defeat on the same point.

The plaintiff in the lawsuit is Lynn Dalsing, 48, who was charged in 2010 with child molestation after sheriff’s deputies falsely identified her in a child porn photo.

At the time, prosecutors also charged Dalsing’s husband and a friend with multiple counts of child rape; the victims were Dalsing’s daughter, then 7, and two young friends.

The husband, Michael Dalsing, had a prior conviction for a sex offense (indecent liberties) dating to 1993, 10 years before he and Lynn Dalsing met and married.

Both men were convicted, but the charges against Lynn Dalsing were dismissed without prejudice in 2011 after prosecutors verified that the photo, which they described as “the basis of the current case,” didn’t depict Dalsing.

The picture, part of a known pornographic series, had been taken a decade earlier. It depicted another child in another state.

At the time of the dismissal, Dalsing had spent eight months in jail. She later sued the county, seeking discovery of internal emails between prosecutors and deputies and memos written by prosecutors.

In 2013, King County Superior Court Judge Beth Andrus ordered disclosure of those records, despite the county’s objections. The county appealed. The state Court of Appeals twice declined to review the decision.

After that loss, the county appealed to the Supreme Court. At the same time, prosecutors filed child rape charges against Lynn Dalsing, accusing her of knowing about her husband’s abuse of their daughter and failing to prevent it.

The child victims, whose interviews are referenced in court records, identified Dalsing’s husband and his friend as the abusers. None of the children accused Lynn Dalsing of participating. Dalsing’s daughter reportedly told a forensic interviewer in 2010 that her mother knew what was happening and tried to stop it, but the behavior started again after that.

The criminal case is pending. Dalsing has pleaded not guilty, and denies she knew of her husband’s actions. The trial date, delayed several times, is set for May.

The refiled criminal charges and the appeal to the Supreme Court delayed disclosure of the records in Dalsing’s lawsuit, which has been in a holding pattern.

It was unclear Wednesday whether the high court’s ruling would accelerate the lawsuit while the criminal case remains active.

Doug Vanscoy, the chief of Pierce County’s Civil Division, said Wednesday that the criminal case is the immediate priority.

“Mrs. Dalsing is charged with sexual exploitation of a minor, rape of a child and child molestation as an accomplice,” Vanscoy said via email. “Three young girls were repeatedly sexually abused, including her daughter.

“She knew her husband was a registered sex offender before she married him, and she facilitated his sexual abuse of the minors. We expect the civil suit will remain stayed so as not to interfere with holding Mrs. Dalsing accountable in the criminal case.”

Fred Diamondstone, the attorney representing Dalsing in the malicious prosecution suit, has been seeking the underlying records from the county for almost two years.

“We are pleased that five Washington Supreme Court judges have unanimously agreed with two appellate court commissioners, three court of appeals judges and the trial court,” Diamondstone said Wednesday.

“We look forward to obtaining the documents that (King County Superior Judge Beth Andrus) ordered produced nearly two years ago. We expect to ultimately establish that Pierce County’s original case and its new case are equally unfounded, and that the county's deceptions will all be unveiled.” ..Source.. by Sean Robinson

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

App Links Sex Assault Survivors To Help, But Who Downloads It?

1-24-2015 Washington:

Maya Weinstein is now a happy, bubbly junior at the George Washington University. But she says that two years ago, just a few weeks after she arrived on campus as a freshman, she was sexually assaulted by a fellow student.

"It was one of those 'acquaintance rape' things that people forget about, even though they are way more common," she says.

As Hurricane Sandy passed over the Washington area, she and her friends went to an off-campus party. Upon returning, she ran into an older student she knew from around campus. By the time she ended up in his bedroom, Weinstein says, she was intoxicated to the point of passing out.

It wasn't until she woke up the next morning — in his bed, with no memory of getting there — that she realized she'd been sexually assaulted. Weinstein says she barely knew where the campus bookstore was, let alone where to go for sexual assault services.

"Do I go to Student Health, do I walk into the ER or do I call 911?" says Weinstein. "I've always had this image of, like, walking into the ER ... that's what you do, you show up there, you're all like disheveled, and they do what they do."

Not knowing where to turn, she instead did nothing. "I just stood in the shower and I cried," she says.

What Weinstein didn't know was that Washington has one of the most comprehensive sexual assault survivor programs in the nation. By calling one phone number — 1-800-641-4028 — she could have gotten a free ride to MedStar Washington Hospital, the designated forensic hospital in D.C. There, she would have been met by a sexual assault counselor, who would take her through the whole process.

The hospital has trained forensic nurses on-call 24/7 to provide rape kits and conduct physical exams of victims. Survivors also get emergency contraception, STD tests, antibiotics and a 28-day course of HIV medication — all for free.

And the patient drives the process. "You do not have to report to the police to receive any kind of medical or forensic care," says Jana Parrish, nursing director of the forensic nurses program.

The services don't get linked to the patient's medical records, either. Those working in the field say these efforts are getting more people to seek treatment, which in turn gets more rapes reported.

"We have over a 10 percent increased reporting rate every single year since 2008, since we began this program," says Heather DeVore, the medical director of the Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner Program.

She's pleased with the uptick, but says it's not enough: "It's still the tip of the iceberg ... most people don't seek care and don't get any sort of help."

Take Weinstein. A month into her freshman year, how she was to know that these services were available to her?

That scenario is what prompted a group called Men Can Stop Rape to partner with the Mayor's Office of Victims Services to put all this information into an easy-to-use app. ASK, or Assault Services Knowledge, centralizes 55 different services available to victims of sexual assault and highlights the phone number to call to access them. For college students specifically, there's UASK. The "U" stands for "university," and all nine schools in Washington participate.

"It centralizes, essentially, all of these different resources that survivors can access — everything from being able to get a free Uber ride to a hospital to finding out what your university offers," says Ariella Neckritz, president of Students Against Sexual Assault at GW.

Her group helps advertise UASK on campus. They want all students on campus to download it on their phone, so no one ever will have to wonder what to do after being sexually assaulted. The app has been around for two years, but hasn't quite caught on at these schools.

"To date, we've had over 14,000 people access both UASK and ASK, which is really great," says Rachel Friedman, the deputy director of Men Can Stop Rape.

While 14,000 people is progress, it's nowhere close to reaching everyone they are aiming for. There are almost 100,000 university students at the nine schools, and there are more than 650,000 full-time D.C. residents. The vast majority of them never have heard of the app.

On campus, Neckritz admits the universities could do a better job marketing the app. They may be hesitant to tell students (or their parents) just how useful a sexual assault app is in this day and age. But part of the problem is the students themselves.

Neckritz says her peers tend to "see sexual assault as an outside issue — as something that isn't directly affecting you, your life, your campus, your community."

Even Maya Weinstein doesn't have the app on her phone. She says her freshman-year experience has left her well-prepared, app or no app. But her classmates are a different story.

"I don't know who would download the app," she says. "You don't want to think that you're ever going to need it, so why would you put it on your phone?"

But as Weinstein can tell you, sexual assault does happen. She went on to file a no-contact order against her alleged assailant, after tracking down the Title IX coordinator's phone number and setting up an appointment.

"She was the person that I was supposed to go to," says Weinstein. "She had all the information."

That was three months after the assault. When you open the UASK app and select GW, that coordinator is the first name that pops up. ..Source.. by Eleanor Klibanoff

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Washington Supreme Court shifts burden in rape cases

11-1-2014 Washington:

The Washington Supreme Court says the state cannot require rape defendants to prove, to escape conviction, that an alleged victim consented. In a 6-3 decision, the justices reversed what they described as the court’s “incorrect and harmful” earlier rulings.

Reversing what it called “incorrect and harmful” earlier rulings, the Washington Supreme Court said Thursday the state cannot put the burden on rape defendants to prove that an alleged victim consented — a decision critics said will make it harder to punish dangerous sex offenders.

The court had previously ruled that when a defendant claimed the contact was consensual, it was up to the defendant to prove there was consent by a preponderance of the evidence. The rulings essentially made consent an affirmative defense to a rape charge, the way a killer can claim self-defense in a murder case.

But in a 6-3 opinion Thursday, the justices said those decisions wrongly interpreted U.S. Supreme Court precedent. Prosecutors must prove every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt, and making a defendant prove that there was consent got that requirement backward, they said.

“Requiring a defendant to do more than raise a reasonable doubt is inconsistent with due-process principles,” Justice Debra Stephens wrote for the majority, saying it raises “a very real possibility of wrongful convictions.”

Justice Susan Owens wrote the dissent, arguing that the majority’s opinion would reverse decades of progress in the handling of rape cases.

Before 1975, she noted, rape was defined in state law as sex “committed against the person’s will and without the person’s consent.” This required prosecutors to prove that a rape victim had not consented — meaning trials often focused as much on the actions of the alleged victim as on the actions of the defendant. That discouraged victims from reporting the crimes.

The Legislature changed the definition in 1975, removing the reference to consent and requiring prosecutors to prove “forcible compulsion” — force that overcomes resistance, or threats that put a person in fear of death or injury. The intent was to put the focus back on the actions of the defendant, Owens said.

“Placing the burden on the State to disprove consent wrongfully puts the victim’s actions and reputation on trial,” she wrote. “Not only does the majority’s decision invalidate years of work undertaken to properly refocus our rape law, but it also has serious implications for victims of an already underreported type of crime.”

Emily Cordo, former legal director of the Sexual Violence Law Center in Seattle, agreed.

“You are going to have decisions from jurors based on misperceptions about how victims should behave rather than based on what the defendant did,” she said. “Washington, like every other state, has a real problem getting actual rapists convicted. This makes it that much more difficult.”

But the majority said the use of force is an element of the crime: It can’t be true that a rape case involved both forcible compulsion and consent. For defendants to prove consent, they are also disproving forcible compulsion — which means the state has been requiring the defendant to prove they didn’t commit the crime, rather than requiring prosecutors to prove the defendant did.

The ruling came in the case of a boy identified only as W.R. Jr., who was convicted of second-degree rape in King County. He was awarded a new trial.

W.R. Jr.’s attorney, Gregory Link of the Washington Appellate Project, characterized criticism of the ruling as “fear-mongering.”

“I don’t think there’s any concern we’re going back to the dark days of rape prosecution,” he said. “This doesn’t change much. It just clarifies for jurors who has the burden of proof and who doesn’t. Outside this one area of law, that’s the way things are always done.”

Link said because of procedural rules, he did not expect the ruling to lead to many new trials for defendants convicted under the old court holdings. ..Source.. by Gene Johnson

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Citizen Pulls Over Police Officer

10-21-2014 Washington:

Citizen's arrests date back to medieval times. They are arrests made by a person who is not acting as a sworn law-enforcement official. Generally, citizens are encouraged to be mindful of unlawfulness and to take action when they see it.

In an attempt to bring attention to the issue of unlawful traffic stops by police impersonators, Gavin Seim of Washington state flagged down a police officer.

The former Republican congressional candidate and self-proclaimed "liberty speaker" stopped a Washington state police officer last week because he was driving an unmarked vehicle.

Seim asked the officer if it was a registered unmarked vehicle for undercover work.

When the officer replied that it was a patrol car, Seim informed him of the law, saying, "You're not allowed to have patrol cars that are unmarked, are you aware of that?"

In the state of Washington, police are allowed to drive unmarked vehicles for special undercover work but not for regular patrols. This is not a national law.

Seim then went through all the normal steps of a traffic stop: taking the officer's name and asking to see his license. Then after a lengthy discussion about the law, Seim let him off with a warning. He urged the officer to speak with his bosses about their illegal patrol cars.

As odd as this may seem, Seim explains that he has a reason for this type of activism. He says that police using unmarked vehicles for regular patrols puts citizens in danger, because people can never be sure if they're being pulled over by actual cops. On his blog he wrote, "If you think it's not a serious issue, try asking those that have been raped or lost loves [sic] ones because of unmarked cars." ..Source..w/video.. by Emily Scharnhorst

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Porn conviction tossed over military’s surveillance role

See Also: Navy Guilty of Illegally Broad Online Searches

9-13-2014 Washington:

Michael Dreyer, who lives near Seattle, was convicted and sentenced to 18 years in prison in 2012 for possessing and distributing child pornography that police said they found on his computer. On Friday, a federal appeals court overturned his convictions because of the unlikely — and illegal — source of the investigation.

The U.S. Navy. To be specific, an agent of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service in Georgia who had a high-powered software program and used it in 2010 to search computers throughout the state of Washington for evidence of child pornography. When the program picked up two child porn images and a video, the agent contacted the FBI, which tracked down Dreyer’s name and address. The naval office then got in touch with local police, who obtained a search warrant. The Department of Homeland Security later got a federal search warrant, and Dreyer was charged in federal court.

When the search was challenged, the Justice Department said a military investigation was justified because there are military bases in the greater Seattle area, and it’s a crime for members of the armed forces to distribute child pornography. But the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said the computer surveillance didn’t target military bases or personnel but extended across an entire state, resulting in prosecution of someone with no current military connection.

Those actions, the three-judge panel said, violated the Posse Comitatus Act, the 1878 law that prohibits the U.S. military from taking part in civilian law enforcement activities.

Congress has authorized a few exceptions, such as the now-familiar transfer of military equipment to local law enforcement, and the possibility of military assistance to police in emergencies involving weapons of mass destruction. But none of those exceptions covers “direct active involvement in civilian enforcement of the child pornography laws,” the court said. And by a 2-1 vote, the court said the computer search was so extensive, and the government’s arguments in defense of the search were so sweeping, that the incriminating evidence had to be suppressed — a remedy that the law reserves for exceptional cases.

“The government is arguing vehemently that the military may monitor for criminal activity all the computers anywhere in any state with a military base or installation,” Judge Marsha Berzon wrote in the majority opinion. Judging from the evidence in this case, she said, it has become “a routine practice” for the Navy to hack into every civilian computer in a state, search for evidence of child pornography, and turn it over to the police if the computer owner has no relation to the military.

Using the Justice Department’s rationale, Berzon said, naval agents could routinely stop suspected drunken drivers in downtown Seattle “on the off-chance that a driver is a member of the military,” and then give the police department any information it happened to collect on civilians. The department’s claim of such broad authority, Berzon said, shows “a profound lack of regard for the important limitations on the role of the military in our civilian society.”

The liberal Berzon was joined by Judge Andrew Kleinfeld, a conservative with libertarian leanings. Another conservative, Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain, dissented from the portion of the ruling that overturned Dreyer’s conviction, calling it “a breathtaking assertion of judicial power … for the benefit of a convicted child pornographer.”

Defense lawyer Erik Levin said Dreyer, who remains in prison for now, is in his 60s and has no record of violence. He said the naval office in Georgia has conducted statewide surveillance in other states as well.

“This is, literally, the militarization of the police,” Levin said. “They have enough funding that they can go out and stray from the core mission of national security and get into local law enforcement.” ..Source.. by Bob Egelko

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Pastors who run sex offender housing sue Marysville

7-14-2014 Washington:

MARYSVILLE — A pair of pastors who operate a series of halfway houses for sex offenders and other released inmates have sued the city of Marysville over its attempts to enforce land use codes against them.

John and Jane Mack of Arlington run Holy Ghost Revival Ministries, which provides ministry and 12-step residential programs for sex offenders and other men with criminal backgrounds in several “Mack Houses” in Snohomish County.

The Macks and Greg Stewart, the landlord for one of the properties, are taking the city to court over code enforcement actions related to two of the properties: one located east of downtown in a suburban residential neighborhood and one up north in a mixed commercial and light industrial neighborhood.

Marysville has ordered the Macks to cease using the 61st Street property for storage and that residents not be housed at the Smokey Point Boulevard location.

The Macks have nine properties, four of them in Marysville.

Another Mack house on State Avenue was the subject of a contentious City Council meeting in 2012 when neighbors found out that three sex offenders had moved in.

The suit, filed July 2 in Snohomish County Superior Court, is an appeal of two June 11 rulings by the city’s hearing examiner under the state Land Use Petition Act, in which the superior court acts as an appellate court for those land use decisions.

A judge could either uphold one or both of the rulings, or find that the hearing examiner committed an error in the original ruling and send one or both the rulings for reconsideration.

Typically no new evidence is allowed in this type of hearing. At the Smokey Point Boulevard property, the city cited the Macks for housing nine people in a building zoned for commercial use.

The Macks’ defense is that the residency is allowed under the “caretaker’s quarters” provisions of city code and that the terms of their lease with

Stewart specifically allow that use.

The hearing examiner had rejected that notion, saying that the building’s primary purpose was not commercial, but residential.

At the 61st Street location, the city cited the Macks for storing vehicles, trailers and materials such as cut wood on the property, which is zoned for residential use.

The Macks’ suit alleges a city code enforcement officer found no issue with the vehicles during an early visit, and that vehicle storage should be considered a “nonconforming pre-existing use,” a term that implies long-standing code violations can be allowed because it was always done that way.

The hearing examiner rejected the Macks’ argument and found no evidence of the site being used consistently in that manner over the years.

The Macks also accuse the city of conspiracy to drive them out of town. They claim that emails they obtained through a public records request demonstrate “the City’s goal is to systematically expel the Mack Houses from Marysville.

The City is using its land use code as the means of achieving its goal.

”That’s a charge the hearing examiner also rejected.

But attorney Scott Stafne, representing the Macks, said the city’s actions have the impact of violating the religious freedom of churches.

“The fact that the city doesn’t want to recognize this as a church doesn’t make the fact that it is a church go away,” Stafne said.

Stafne also said that the city is overlooking the societal good that the Macks do in providing former inmates with a stable environment and, through the ministerial program, the ability to re-enter society as productive members.

“They believe the best interests of all are served by these folks helping each other and trying to serve the Lord,” Stafne said.

Several calls to the city attorney were not returned. ..Source.. by Chris Winters

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Judge rejects Steven Powell's request for state-paid sex offender treatment

4-18-2014 Washington:

Steven Powell's request to have the taxpayers pick up the tab for his court-ordered sex offender treatment was rejected Friday, in no small part because Powell conceded in court that his argument was flawed.

Judge Ronald Culpepper denied Powell's request during a quick hearing in Pierce County Superior Court.

Culpepper said it was clear, as had been argued by the state Attorney General's Office, that Powell had cited the wrong statute when he filed a motion April 2 requesting that the state pay for his treatment.

That law requires the state to provide in-custody treatment to defendants sentenced under a particular scheme. Powell, though, was not sentenced under that scheme.

"I don't think that applies to you," Culpepper said.

Powell, who was released from prison late last month after serving 30 months for voyeurism, agreed.

"When I got out of prison, I was in a very limited sphere of contact, and I was not able to go to the law library," he said. "I concede the argument."

In his written motion that set up Friday's hearing, Powell said he should have received sex offender treatment while he was locked up and that state Department of Corrections officials made a mistake by not enrolling him in the program.

It was only right for the state to pay for the treatment now that he's out, Powell said in his motion.

Having lost that argument, Powell on Friday asked that some language be added to the order denying his request. He specifically wanted a notation that the state Department of Corrections had found him not amenable to treatment while he was incarcerated.

Culpepper declined to add the language after assistant state attorney general John Samson objected.

A Pierce County jury in 2012 convicted Powell of multiple counts of voyeurism. Prosecutors argued he surreptitiously photographed two school-age neighbor girls as they bathed and used the toilet in their home.

Evidence used to convict him was uncovered by detectives searching for clues in the disappearance and presumed murder of Powell's daughter-in-law, Puyallup native Susan Cox Powell.

She went missing from her Utah home in 2009, and authorities were investigating her husband, Josh Powell, when they searched his father's home.

Josh Powell, who moved to Pierce County after his wife's disappearance, killed himself and his and Susan Cox Powell's two young sons in February 2012. ..Source.. by ADAM LYNN

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Steven Powell asks state to pay for treatment

So the State only has to comply with a Judge's order, if it feels like it? The State had no problem keeping him incarcerated, why did they stop with that portion of the Judge's order?

4-16-2014 Washington:

He was ordered to get sex offender treatment, but wasn’t offered it while incarcerated; state says he didn’t qualify

Convicted voyeur Steven Powell wants the state to pick up the tab for his court-ordered sex offender treatment.

In a motion filed April 2 in Pierce County Superior Court, Powell — the father-in-law of presumed murder victim Susan Cox Powell — argues that the state Department of Corrections did not make sex offender treatment available to him while he was in prison as it should have.

He wants a judge to order the department to pay for his treatment now that he’s been released.

In a response filed Tuesday, John Samson, an assistant state attorney general who represents the Corrections Department, said Powell is wrong. He did not qualify for sex offender treatment while in prison, and corrections officials were within their discretion to deny it to him, Samson wrote.

“Powell fails to cite a single statute that mandates the department to provide him with sex offender treatment,” the assistant attorney general wrote. “Powell cannot cite such a statute because no such statute exists.”

Judge Ronald Culpepper is to hear arguments on the matter Friday.

Powell, 64, was convicted in Pierce County two years ago of multiple counts of voyeurism for photographing two school-age girls as they bathed and used the toilet in the house next door to his Puyallup-area home. He was sentenced to 30 months in prison and also ordered to undergo sex offender treatment.

Powell was released late last month.

In his motion, Powell contends Sally Nieland, superintendent of the Twin Rivers correctional unit near Monroe, should have offered him a spot in a year-long treatment program when he was transferred there in August 2012 even though he was eligible, because of good behavior, for release nine months later.

Nieland declined to enroll Powell in the program, in part because he was not scheduled to be at Twin Rivers for the year necessary to complete it.

Powell argued in his handwritten motion that Nieland knew the likelihood of his getting out in nine months was slim and that she should have put him in the program. Indeed, the Corrections Department kept Powell locked up until March 23, which was at the end of his maximum sentence.

Powell contends the department now is unfairly forcing him to pay for his sex offender treatment.

“DOC has notified defendant that he will begin (treatment) with a therapist, at his own expense, on April 7, 2014, barely two weeks after his release from TRU prison,” Powell wrote in his pleading. “Defendant respectfully asks this court to issue a writ of mandamus requiring DOC to pay for defendant’s court-ordered (treatment).”

Samson said in his response that Powell is citing a statute that regulates treatment of a different level of convicted sex offender: Mainly sex offenders sentenced to a minimum term of incarceration with the maximum term to be determined by the state’s Indeterminate Sentence Review Board.

While those people qualify for treatment in prison, Powell was not sentenced under that scheme, the assistant attorney general said, so the state had no duty to provide him treatment.

“Finally, Powell cannot show any authority that requires the department to pay for Powell’s treatment in the community,” Samson wrote.

The case against Powell began in 2011 when detectives searched his home looking for clues into the disappearance of his daughter-in-law. Powell’s son, Josh Powell, was under investigation in the disappearance and presumed murder of his wife at the time.

Susan Cox Powell disappeared from the family home in Utah five years ago.

During the search, detectives found a disc containing photographs and video of girls and women in various stages of undress. Steve Powell later was charged with voyeurism, and a jury convicted him at trial in May 2012.

Josh Powell, who was never charged in his wife’s disappearance, killed his and Susan Cox Powell’s two young sons and himself in Pierce County in February 2012.

Some of Susan Cox Powell’s relatives and friends believe Steve Powell knows what happened to her, but he has remained quiet. ..Source.. by ADAM LYNN

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Judge expected to sign order preventing release of sex offender information

3-29-2014 Washington:

Benton County Superior Court Judge Bruce Spanner is expected to sign orders April 18 officially preventing Benton County from releasing any low-level sex offender information to Donna Zink.

“This will cover every Level 1 sex offender,” said Ryan Lukson, deputy county prosecutor. “Ms. Zink has already appealed. Her appeal will be effective the (day after April 18).”

Spanner ruled in January that the personal information of more than 400 Level 1 sex offenders is confidential and Zink has no “legitimate interest” in it.

Zink requested the information last summer to create a digital database so people could know if sex offenders are living in their neighborhoods, she said.

The information -- which includes offenders’ names, addresses, pictures and other details -- could cause offenders irreparable harm if it’s released, Spanner wrote in his decision.

At a hearing Friday, Spanner shot down arguments from Shelley Williams, assistant attorney general, who represents the Washington State Patrol.

Williams argued that sex offenders’ registration information is public record and that the criminal justice system needs to be as transparent as possible.

She wanted an injunction -- which prevents state police from releasing sex offender information from its statewide database to Zink -- dismissed.

But Spanner stuck by his earlier ruling, citing case law, particularly State v. Ward, which states the information is confidential.

“Intellectually, I always go back to the same place and that is State v. Ward,” Spanner said at the hearing.

The case is expected to be decided in higher courts. Zink, who represents herself, has requested sex offender information from multiple agencies in at least three counties across the state.

Franklin County released low-level sex offender information to Zink after her initial request.

There are several injunctions in place in Benton, King and Yakima counties preventing multiple agencies and county officials from releasing sex offender information to Zink.

The Washington American Civil Liberties Union has fought to get injunctions in place in King County.

Zink has also requested more than 80,000 emails from Benton County officials that contain sex offender information. An injunction is place preventing the release of emails that contain sex offender information.

The county was releasing emails in installments to Zink that didn’t contain sex offender information. Zink has since put her request on hold because county officials told her it would take more than a decade to meet.

“We asked her to consider amending the request,” Lukson said. “Given our current pace, we would not complete it until 2032.” ..Source.. by Tyler Richardson

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Judge rules sex offender data in Benton County not public information

1-30-2014 Washington:

A Tri-City judge ruled Wednesday the personal information of low-level sex offenders in Benton County is not public information and shouldn't be released to a Mesa woman.

Judge Bruce Spanner's ruling comes after more than a month of deliberation about whether the data should be released to Donna Zink.

Zink has no "legitimate interest" in it, Spanner wrote in his 13-page decision. The information, if released, would cause irreparable harm to more than 400 Level 1 sex offenders.

Spanner said the information is considered confidential under other state and federal statutes and therefore is exempt from release.

"There is no showing that the information requested is either relevant or necessary," Spanner wrote. "Our Supreme Court has determined that Level 1 sex offender registration is in most instances 'confidential' and that the public has 'no legitimate' interest therein because those offenders do not pose any threat to the community."

Zink -- the former mayor of Mesa who sued the city in 2003 for withholding other kinds of public documents -- requested in July the names, birthdates, addresses, pictures and other information of the Level 1 offenders.

She requested the same information from Franklin County, and it has been released.

Zink has been in a legal fight with several Tri-City lawyers since making her request. She has said she plans to create an online database of the offenders because she believes people should know where someone convicted of any type of sex offense is living. She has said in court that Level 1 offenders can be dangerous, citing a recent Richland case in which a low-level offender is charged with raping and killing an infant.

Registration information for Level 2 and 3 offenders is routinely posted on sheriff department websites. But Level 1 offenders are considered the least likely to reoffend, and their information is not made public unless they fail to register.

The Benton County Superior Court ruling, however, only blocks the release of the personal information of 14 sex offenders.

Richland attorney John Ziobro, who represents those offenders, was the first to have his case for a permanent injunction heard.

Spanner granted the injunction, but it can be appealed to a higher court.

"For my clients, it's great," Ziobro said. "I haven't spoken to any of them, but I am sure they are ecstatic."

Lawyers for other clients told the Herald they are optimistic Spanner's ruling will be applied to their cases.

A temporary injunction was in place to prevent the county from releasing any low-level sex offender's personal information.

Benton County prosecutors do not agree with Spanner's ruling, saying the information should be released to Zink.

"There's still a whole lot left up in the air," said Ryan Lukson.

Richland attorney Greg Dow represents 20 other Level 1 offenders and is trying to form a class-action lawsuit to provide the majority of Level 1 offenders legal representation so they also can try to prevent the release of their personal information.

Spanner previously denied Dow's request, but he's filed an appeal.

"There's a lot of cleanup work left," said Dow, who praised Spanner's decision. "We need to find out what impact the judge thinks this has on the people who are not named as plaintiffs. There's 390 guys out there wondering, 'Am I protected or not?' "

Zink, who has been representing herself, could not be reached about the decision but took to social media Wednesday to blast the ruling. She said she is frustrated the court system is protecting sex offenders.

Zink wrote that Spanner's ruling will not stop her attempts to get the information.

"After all this they would serious(ly) think I was going to roll over," Zink wrote. "Let me give you a clue, when someone works this hard they are not going to quit. At least not till the Supreme Court weighs in. That is what appeals are for."

Zink has requested offender information from the Washington State Patrol database and from Yakima County. Temporary injunctions are in place in King County and Yakima County preventing the information from being released.

The state American Civil Liberties Union has gotten involved in the case with the state patrol. ACLU spokesman Doug Honig said attorneys are reviewing Spanner's decision.

Zink also requested around 80,000 emails from Benton County. The emails contain sex offender information and other sensitive police information. Spanner ruled information in the emails not pertaining to sex offenders can be released to Zink.

Zink's county requests for sex offender information could slow down a potential appeal, Lukson said.

Zink can't appeal a decision in her case until the county is done reviewing the emails. Lukson said it could take several years to do that.

If Zink withdraws the email request, it could speed up her potential appeal, Lukson said. ..Source.. by Tyler Richardson

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Court postpones decision on releasing sex-offender registration forms

1-9-2014 Washington:

A Columbia Basin woman seeking the names of all low-level sex offenders in Yakima County will have to wait another month to learn if she’ll get the list.

A public records request by Mesa resident Donna Zink, who has sought similar lists in other counties in order to post the names on her website, has been on hold after a group of offenders last month obtained a temporary injunction against the release.

On Wednesday, Yakima County Superior Court Judge Blaine Gibson continued a hearing on the county’s request to dissolve the injunction because Zink wasn’t named in the lawsuit asking her request be denied.

Excluding her could lead to overturning any decision on the matter, said Senior Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Stefanie Weigand.

Zink filed a request in November for electronic copies of the Level 1 sex-offender registration forms. Level 1 sex offenders are considered the least dangerous and least likely to reoffend. Their names are typically not posted by authorities, who routinely release the names and addresses of Level 2 and 3 offenders.

Attempts to reach Zink for comment on Wednesday were not successful.

Zink has received forms from Franklin County, but the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington obtained a preliminary injunction barring the Washington State Patrol from releasing the information on Benton County offenders.

“Being identified publicly as a sex offender puts individuals at risk of being harassed, assaulted, or losing jobs and housing,” the ACLU said in a written statement. “For individuals considered unlikely to reoffend, being labelled publicly as a sex offender creates a stigma that makes it very difficult for them to proceed with their lives.”

In Yakima County, Zink’s request was challenged by attorney Gregory Scott, who is representing several Level 1 offenders who were not identified in court records, except mostly by initials. Scott hopes to make it a class action, so all 600 to 700 Level 1 offenders in Yakima County will be represented.

Scott said his clients were notified by the county that their information was going to be released as part of Zink’s request, which was filed under the Public Records Act.

Scott said the state’s sex-offender registry system was designed to limit access to information on the lowest-risk offenders. The law allows for releasing the information to those who have a need to know, such as schools and police.

Plus, he said if Zink gets the records, those named could be forever branded as sex offenders. He said the state registry offers a chance for offenders to have their names removed in certain conditions, as well as correct mistakes in the record.

“If (the names) go into a private database, there is no way to get off the registry,” Scott said.

The county maintains the state records act permits releasing the information. Under the records law, all government records are presumed to be public, unless the law specifically bars their release.

Weigand said there is no specific exemption in the law for the registration forms on Level 1 offenders, and Scott has not demonstrated that the information was not within the public’s interest. She said Scott also failed to show that his clients would be harmed if their names are released. ..Source.. by Donald W. Meyers

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

No Decisions Made on Sex Offender Information Request

12-20-2013 Washington:

A Benton County judge makes no final decisions today on whether or not to grant a Mesa woman information sh'es been requesting for months on low-level sex offenders.

Former Mesa Mayor Donna Zink asked for information on all sex offenders in the area this past summer, she was granted her request for higher level sex offender information but not low level.

She made another request more recently for the county to release 80,000 emails with information pertaining to sex offender information.

The court is required to inform low level sex offenders about the request and in doing so four low level sex offenders filed lawsuits against having their information released.

The judge still has more to review and will make a decision in a few weeks. ..Source.. by Lida Alikhani

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Washington sex offenders, ACLU sue to hide low-level offenders' identities

See earlier lawsuit

12-16-2013 Washington:

Teen molester's mom: Disclosure would hurt my son's victims

“My family would lose everything.”

That’s the argument made by a King County sex offender terrified his name will be publicized if the State Patrol releases the sex offender registry it maintains.

A married father of two convicted of sex crimes in 2009, the man is one of two low-level sex offenders brought forward by the American Civil Liberties Union in a lawsuit aimed at stopping the state from releasing the names of 21,000 registered sex offenders residing in Washington.

At issue in the lawsuit are “level one” offenders, convicts judged by police evaluators to pose the least risk of further sex crimes. The names of offenders deemed more likely to commit additional sex crimes – “level two” and “level three” offenders – are already broadcast on free, public websites maintained by state law enforcement.

Filing the potential class action lawsuit earlier this month, attorneys for the offenders contend their identities and addresses should not be released to a Franklin County woman who has requested the entire database under the state public records act.

Attorneys for the State Patrol argue that the database – like the criminal convictions underlying the registry – isn’t protected by state privacy law and should be released. They also note the database has previously been released to numerous civic and media organizations, including the YMCA.

On Thursday, a King County Superior Court judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking the release of the database until the case can be fully heard. Such orders are the norm in public records disclosure lawsuits – there wouldn’t be much point to it if documents are released before the case is decided.

Represented by the ACLU and private attorneys, the offenders contend they should be able to live in the relative privacy afforded them by the “level one” classification.

Aside from administrative differences which lower the registration burden placed on them, level one offenders enjoy one big benefit over their higher-level contemporaries – their photos, names and crimes aren’t listed on the county sex offender sites. Additionally, while their past crimes are still reported to schools they attend, but police aren’t empowered to notify the community they live in.

That lower level of notoriety is earned by scoring well on a review conducted by law enforcement, and by meeting the obligations placed on them.

In a statement to the court, the King County man – “John Doe B” in the lawsuit – contended he’s complied with probation, reported any violations of his treatment plan and has avoided sanctions from his parole officer and counselor. Still, he could lose his job and shame his family if the larger community was better informed about his past.

“Knowing the public opinion about sex offenders, and the bias and hatred that many people have toward registered sex offenders, I’m worried about mental and physical abuse to my family and myself,” the man said in a Dec. 5 statement to the court.

Filing the lawsuit in King County Superior Court, attorneys for the offenders argued the State Patrol should not release its statewide database to Donna Zink, a resident and former mayor of Mesa. Reports in the Tri-City Herald and elsewhere indicate Zink has been attempting to compile a comprehensive list of Washington’s registered sex offenders.

In a statement Friday, ACLU of Washington staff attorney Vanessa Hernandez argued publicizing the database endangers offenders.

“Being identified publicly as a sex offender puts individuals at risk of being harassed, assaulted, or losing jobs and housing,” Hernandez said via an email sent by an ACLU spokesman. “The government should follow the state’s sex offender registration law, which says that names of these individuals should not be released automatically to the general public.”

Responding to the lawsuit for the State Patrol, Assistant Attorney General Shelley Williams said the offenders’ complaint is largely moot – the cat is already out of the bag.

The state has previously released the information Zink requested to other agencies, non-profit organizations, the general public and the media. Among the organizations that have previously received the database are the YMCA, an Eastern Washington housing authority and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. The Kitsap Sun received a complete copy of the database in March 2012.

Writing the court, Williams said state law simply does not protect the sex offender database from public disclosure. Beyond that, court records already provide the information the offenders would have the court hide from the public.

“The plaintiffs’ key concern is being identified as convicted sex offenders,” Williams said in court papers. “The fact that a person has been convicted of a sex offense has long been accessible by the public.

“Not only is a sex offender’s conviction readily available … but the intimate details of an offender’s life are also potentially open to the public.”

To support their claims of concern, attorneys for the offenders submitted statements to the court for the families of the men and boys whose identities would be released to Zink.

Nearly all those statements came from the parents or guardians of offenders convicted as children. Most of the offenders were convicted of sex assaults against family members, which is to be expected.

While research into the issue varies, estimates are that 1-in-4 to 1-in-3 sexual assaults against children are committed by family members, according to the Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire. Juvenile offenders commit about one third of all sex assaults against children.

The offenders’ parents and guardians said releasing the registry would shame the offenders unduly and could expose their victims as well. All argued publicity would make it harder for the offenders to get on with their lives.

“If publicizing level one sex offenders’ names and pictures prevented sexual abuse, protected victims or helped protect children in the community, I would continue to be an ardent supporter of public notification laws,” the mother of a young man convicted of molesting three younger siblings said in court papers. “However, as a mother who has experienced the other side of abuse, I only see the harmful effects and humiliation public notification causes families and most especially the victims of sexual abuse who are children.”

Another woman – mother to a son who sexually assaulted two of her young nieces – argued releasing low-level offenders’ names as “tantamount to bullying.”

“Other people shouldn’t be able to have the power to influence the rest of the people’s lives,” the woman said in a statement to the court. “Yes, the offenders have done that with their choices, but they have been in court for that and are making their restitution and changes in their lives.”

On Thursday, King County Superior Court Judge Jean Rietschel issued a preliminary injunction against the state barring the release of the database until the lawsuit is resolved. A trial date has not yet been set. ..Source.. by Levi Pulkkinen

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...