Never forget those who have died because of various sex offender laws.
Showing posts with label 2012. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2012. Show all posts

March 7, 2013

Sex Offender Registration Trumps Juvenile Offender Anonymity

3-7-2013 National:

An anonymous juvenile offender, whose identity is sealed under federal law, was required to register under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) after he sexually assaulted his two half-sisters, ages 10 and 6. Being a juvenile offender, his court case was kept under seal (hence his lack of identity in this case) due to the requirements of the Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act (FJDA).

Obviously, there's a bit of dissonance between the two laws. SORNA requires identification and registration, as well as semi-regular appearances for photos. FJDA requires that a juvenile's record be sealed unless he is tried as an adult, as the legal system does not wish to have the crimes of a minor follow him for life.

Unsurprisingly, the public policy of protecting potential victims and notifying neighbors of a sex offender's presence trumps the forgive-and-forget of the juvenile system. The Fourth Circuit provided a legal basis for this preference, citing a few obvious propositions:

Specific Laws Trump Broad Laws

SORNA explicitly carved out a group of juvenile sex offenders, narrower than the adult offenders, who would be required to register, specifically those who commit the equivalent of aggravated sexual assault and are themselves over the age of 14. FJDA just says to keep juvenile offenders' information under wraps. When one law is more specific than another conflicting law, it generally wins out.

More Recent Statute Controls (Footnote 2)

The applicable Latin phrase --- don't you just love when one of these applies -- is leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant, or the later statute prevails. It's a long-standing legal principal dating back to at least 1859 in our own jurisprudence, and likely to the common law beforehand. SORNA's relevant provisions were enacted in 2006. FJDA's provisions are from 1996. SORNA wins.

Legislative History

It that isn't enough for you, the legislative history also points to Congress' intent with SORNA's juvenile provisions. The Congressional Record states:

"While the Committee recognizes that States typically protect the identity of a juvenile who commits criminal acts, in the case of sexual offenses, the balance needs to change; no longer should the rights of the juvenile offender outweigh the rights of the community and victims to be free from additional sexual crimes ... [SORNA] strikes the balance in favor of protecting victims, rather than protecting the identity of juvenile sex offenders."
... ..Source.. by William Peacock, Esq.

Read More of Article...

January 11, 2013

Proposed bill to ban sex offenders from social media cites meets criticism

1-11-2013 National:

A proposed state law that would ban all registered sex offenders from using social media websites such as Facebook is being called unconstitutional by advocates of sex-offender law reforms.

The bill, introduced by state Rep. Nate Gentry, R-Bernalillo, would restrict registered sex offenders from using any instant messaging or chat room websites that “the sex offender knows allows a person who is under eighteen years of age to access or use.”

A first offense, according to the bill, would be a misdemeanor, and any subsequent offenses would be prosecuted as fourth-degree felonies.

Gentry said Thursday that the bill was created in response to what he called a growing number of instances around the country in which minors have been targeted by sex offenders through websites such as Facebook, Twitter and Google+.

“There have been many instances throughout the country where convicted sex offenders have lured children into unsafe situations using social media,” Gentry said.

The proposed bill has already received criticism from organizations such as Reform Sex Offender Laws of New Mexico. Lloyd Schwartz, the organization’s president, said Thursday that the bill is “overly broad” and “doesn’t take into account that many of the people on the registry didn’t commit a crime against a minor.”

“This has been a grandstand issue that’s been taken to the courts around the country and dismissed as unconstitutional,” Schwartz said.

Nebraska, Louisiana and Indiana have enacted laws similar to Gentry’s proposed law — and in Louisiana and Nebraska, laws banning sex offenders from social media websites have been deemed unconstitutional.

Senior U.S. District Judge Richard Kopf in Nebraska said in October 2012 said that legislatures need to “concentrate on demonstrated risk rather than speculating and burdening more speech than is necessary — use a scalpel rather than a blunderbuss,” the judge told the Lincoln Journal Star.

On the other hand, U.S. District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt of Indiana upheld a similar law in Indiana, ruling that “Social networking, chat rooms, and instant messaging programs have effectively created a ‘virtual playground’ for sexual predators to lurk,” according to The Washington Post.

Gentry said he modeled his bill after the Indiana law that Pratt upheld in June 2012.

“We’re trying to protect our kids here,” Gentry said.

Santa Fe Police Sgt. Andrea Dobyns, head of the Crimes Against Children Unit, said she thinks the proposed law is a “great idea” and would aid law enforcement in preventing predators from targeting minors.

“I can’t tell you how many cases that we’ve seen with known predators using chat rooms,” Dobyns said.

In a study conducted by Harvard University in 2008, minors identified about 48 percent of sexual solicitors as being other adolescents, and only 4 percent to 9 percent being adults older than 21. The study found that 44 percent of Internet-initiated sex crimes were committed by family members, and 56 percent were committed by people known to the victim offline.

“In other words,” the study states, “the threat of Internet-initiated sex crimes committed by strangers appears to be extremely exaggerated.”

However, according to a national study in 2010, in 82 percent of online sex crimes against minors, the offender used the victim’s social networking site to gain information about the victim’s likes and dislikes, according to the Journal of Adolescent Health.

Sex offenders on probation or parole in New Mexico are already prohibited from using social media sites through the state Department of Corrections. In most cases, sex offenders are sentenced to five to 20 years of probation and parole after their term of incarceration.

Schwartz argues that extending probation regulations into the rest of a person’s life strips the person of their First Amendment right to free speech. ..Source.. by Nico Roesler

Read More of Article...

December 27, 2012

"The best predictor of future behavior is …

12-27-2012 National:

… past behavior."

Past as prelude. So neat, so clean. So full of certitude. Like a Confucianism in a fortune cookie . Or something you might hear on CSI: Special Victims Unit, or from pop psychologist "Dr. Phil" McGraw. Actually, McGraw does cite it, in one of his many self-help books.

I'm sure you have heard the mantra. It's creeping into risk assessment reports and court testimony by forensic psychologists. Sometimes, it's augmented with incendiary metaphors: The subject is "a ticking time bomb"; he is "carrying a hand grenade and it's just a matter of when he pulls the pin."

One current case involves a guy with a cluster of several violent offenses a few years ago, when he was in his 20s. He was using drugs back then, and hanging around with a bad crowd. Plus, he is chronically psychotic. Not a good combination.

But if you predict future violence based on a set of risk factors like his, you will be wrong more often than not. Only about four out of ten of those individuals judged to be at moderate to high risk of future violence go on to violently offend, according to recent research. The low base rates of violent recidivism will be working against you.

Birth of a legend

So where does this idea come from, and does it hold water?

Perusing psychology texts, it appears that the principle has circulated for decades. But as it gained traction, some boiled it down into a simpler, one-size-fits-all mantra. So, for example, the 2003 Complete Idiot's Guide to Psychology claims as an established "psychological fact of life" that, "when it comes to human beings, the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior." Period. End of story.

But this is a gross oversimplification. Psychological scientists who study human behavior agree that past behavior is a useful marker for future behavior. But only under certain specific conditions: ...continued... by Karen Franklin, In the News

Read More of Article...

State told to pay $292K to firm that challenged sex offender laws

12-27-2012 Nebraska:

A federal judge has ordered Nebraska to pay more than $292,000 in attorneys' fees in a lawsuit that challenged the constitutionality of changes to the state's sex offender registry laws.

But it was a fraction of the amount sought by the attorneys who represented the sex offenders who sued.

The laws, the most recent changes to the state's Sex Offender Registration Act, were passed in 2009 but put on hold as a result of the lawsuit before they were to go into effect in 2010.

Later that year, Senior U.S. District Judge Richard Kopf issued a ruling leaving much of the laws intact -- including publication of the names of all adult, convicted sex offenders -- but said a trial was needed to determine whether the three statutes violated the U.S. Constitution.

At a trial before Kopf in July, experts and convicted sex offenders testified one after another about how the changes would affect them and, in many cases, their work.

In October, the judge struck down the parts of the laws that would have made it a crime for some sex offenders to use social networking sites and require them all to notify the state whenever they posted on the Internet.

Federal law authorizes district courts to award reasonable attorneys' fees to prevailing parties in civil rights litigation.

Following the ruling in October, Stuart Mills, whose law firm Dornan, Lustgarten & Troia of Omaha represented the John and Jane Does, requested an award of $751,947.67 in attorneys' fees, $13,111.88 for preparing the application for attorneys' fees and $26,182.56 in costs.

Deputy Nebraska Attorney General Katherine Spohn, who represented the state, argued the amount was unreasonable and should be reduced substantially.

She proposed a total award of $248,207.81.

In an order Friday, the judge approved $292,564.88, the sum of $279,453 in attorneys' fees, plus $13,111.88 in fees to prepare the application.

In the order, Kopf pointed out the case started in 2009 and resulted in 534 filings and the preparation of at least 15 briefs by plaintiffs' counsel.

It also involved about 50 John and Jane Doe clients and more than 200 defendants, including the state of Nebraska, Nebraska attorney general, the Nebraska State Patrol, local prosecutors and various law enforcement officers.

The state still could appeal Kopf's October ruling. ..Source.. by Loir Pilger

Read More of Article...

December 26, 2012

Group challenging Pa.'s Megan's Law

12-26-2912 Pennsylvania:

A national group plans to challenge the constitutionality of Pennsylvania's new sex offender registration requirements.

Act 111 aims to bring Pennsylvania's Megan's Law in line with the federal Adam Walsh Act. Police and probation officers started registering offenders under the new law on Dec. 20.

"It is disappointing that Pennsylvania's lawmakers chose to ignore the lessons learned when Ohio proceeded down this same disastrous path more than five years ago," said Brenda Jones, executive director of Reform Sex Offender Laws Inc.

Ohio was the first state to be deemed AWA complaint, but the courts subsequently have found several aspects of Ohio's new law to be unconstitutional, she said. After spending millions of taxpayer dollars defending an unconstitutional law, Ohio was forced to revert to the old registration system for those sentenced prior to the new law's enactment.

The Supreme Court of Ohio ruled in 2011 that imposing enhanced sex offender registration and community notification requirements, as required of some offenders under the 2007 Ohio Adam Walsh Act, violates the Ohio Constitution section prohibiting the Legislature from enacting retroactive laws. Other portions of the Ohio law were declared to violate the separation of powers. ...continued... by RSOL

Read More of Article...

December 24, 2012

Judge: King can move into Ayer home

12-24-2012 Massachusetts:

Ayer's sex offender residency bylaw stands

BOSTON - With five days to go before Christmas, the red light changed to green for John King. On Dec. 20, U.S. District Court Judge William Young ordered that King be granted grandfathered status in light of a new town bylaw that otherwise threatened to keep him from living at his wife's house.

John King, a Level 3 sex offender, and Ashley King married in March after discovering she was pregnant. The couple began dating in the early fall of 2011.

In Oct. 2011, Ayer Town Meeting adopted a bylaw that prevents Level 2 and 3 sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of public parks and senior housing complexes. Ashley King's house at 6 Whitcomb Avenue is located within 1,000 feet of both Pirone Park and the Pond Street elder housing project.

The couple filed suit against the town on Sept. 5, hoping for a fast ruling to be able to bring their child home to Whitcomb Avenue. Instead the baby was born at Halloween and the couple has resided at the baby's grandparents' house in Harvard ever since.

Now, the newlyweds are clear to move into the house before Christmas and the New Year. There was no immediate response for a request for comment from the Kings' attorneys Eric Tennen and John Swomley.

The Kings claimed Ayer Police Chief William Murray violated their civil rights when he advised King on April 25 that the town bylaw was in effect. The couple alleged that Murray tried to stall John King's April 19 visit to the police department to register as a sex offender.

State law requires all Level 2 and 3 sex offenders to provide advance notice to police departments in communities where the offender intends to live or work. The police dispatcher advised King that a posted letter could serve as evidence of his intended residence. King left on April 19 and was immediately advised by his mother-in-law that she'd send a letter to him from out of state.

The Kings alleged that Murray then discovered the new town bylaw - that would have barred King from living at his wife's home - was not on the books. Murray testified that he visited the Town Clerk, and discovered the bylaw needed only be posted in five public places before it took legal effect. Though the Attorney General's Office advised in February the bylaw needed to be posted, the posting occurred on April 24.

On April 25, when King returned to the police station with the letter, Murray advised that the town bylaw would prevent his residency at 6 Whitcomb Avenue.

Judge Young ruled that "ambiguity" in state regulations "appeared to require him [King] to provide proof of his future residence." Instead, Young found that "King was effectively registered as a resident of 6 Whitcomb Avenue, Ayer, on April 19, 2012..." - which was the date of King's initial visit to the police department.

Testimony referenced the definition of what is sufficient 'independent written verification' of an offender's address under 803 CMR 1.03. The regulation requires an offender to provide a police department or the state Sex Offender Registry Board (SORB) with two forms of independent written verification dated within 45 days of presentation to register.

The list of acceptable documents include a rent or mortgage receipt, utility bill, bank or credit card statement, passport, driver's license, RMV issued photo identification, or "any other current written document the Sex Offender Registry Board deems sufficient."

"Phase 1" of the trial lasted from Nov. 27 through Nov. 29. With last Thursday's ruling, the court will not consider the couple's second major claim- that the town bylaw is unconstitutional.

Young was clear in stating that the order pertains only to Mr. King "and does not have any effect on the Constitutionality of the Town of Ayer's Sex Offender Residency Bylaw.,"

"Further, this Order permits Mr. King to immediately reside at 6 Whitcomb Avenue in Ayer, Massachusetts with his wife, Ashley King," ruled Young. "It does not, however, address that ability of Mr. King to reside at any other location in the Town of Ayer."

Meanwhile, criminal charges against King linger at Lowell Superior Court. Ayer Police arrested King on May 15 and charged him with failing to register his address at the 6 Whitcomb Avenue address.

It was not immediately clear what affect the U.S. District Court ruling will have on the pending state criminal charges. In November, Lowell Superior Court Judge David Ricciardone denied King's motion to dismiss the charges against him. During the federal civil trial, Judge Young was clear that he would not permit a rehashing the criminal charges. A message sent to a spokesman for the Middlesex County District Attorney's Office was not immediately returned Sunday night.

The Ayer Board of Selectmen issued a statement on Young's ruling on Friday, Dec. 21.

"The Ayer Board of Selectmen deeply regrets that the bylaw was not posted in a timely manner by the Ayer Town Clerk. However, we are pleased that the Town of Ayer's Sex Offender Residency Bylaw remains in place and will continue to provide protection to our most vulnerable citizens of Ayer."

The selectmen state that the rest of the Kings' lawsuit, alleging impropriety by Murray and the Ayer Police Department, "will be dismissed." ..Source.. by Mary E. Arata

Read More of Article...

December 23, 2012

Oklahoma Supreme Court Oral Arguments in Starkey on 1-8-2013

12-23-2012 Oklahoma:

Thanks to a reader's HeadsUp the case of James M. Starkey, Sr -v- OK DOC (Click to read docket), Oral Arguments, will be on 1-8-2013 in the OK Supreme court.

ISSUE: Effectively, whether the state can lengthen the term of registration, after once setting it? i.e., from 10 years to 25 years, ets.

Earlier articles are Man challenges requirement to register as sex offender and Could Okla. Sex Offenders Fall Of Registry List? and Supreme Court Decision Could Knock Thousands Of Sex Offenders Off Oklahoma Registry.

Again thanks to our Reader.
eAdvocate

Read More of Article...

December 22, 2012

Sex-offender intern's case goes underground

12-22-2012 Washington DC:

Homeland Security, courts, senator's office all mum

The case against an intern serving in the Newark, N.J., office of Sen. Robert Menendez, a Democrat from that state, who was arrested Dec. 6 reportedly for being both an illegal immigrant and a sex offender, apparently has gone underground.

The Associated Press reported that Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers arrested 18-year-old ___ outside of his Newark home.

However, there seems to be no record of the arrest, the progress of his case, or that he is even still in custody.

WND contacted the Newark office of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement service. Officials there declined comment and referred WND to the ICE’s regional supervisor.

The ICE New Jersey supervisor referred WND to the Department of Homeland Security, which has not responded to WND’s request for an interview about the case.

In a follow-up inquiry, officials at the U.S. court for Newark told WND they have no record of his arrest, or if he is being held in custody.

The clerk for federal judge Patty Schwartz also said that she had no information on the disposition of his case and referred WND to the Public Access to Court Electronic Records, or PACER, the Internet-based federal court record system.

A PACER search returned no records of an arrest, an arraignment, or any court dates for ___.

A spokeswoman who declined to give her name said Menendez’ office has nothing to do with the arrest or prosecution of the case.

The case gained national attention because of press reports that Hudson County, N.J., prosecutors notified the ICE in October that ___ was not only an illegal immigrant, but also a registered sex offender in his native Peru.

AP reported recently that officials at the Department of Homeland Security asked the ICE not to arrest ___ until after the November election.

The spokeswoman in Menendez’ office said ___ was able to land the internship because he did not receive a salary. ...Continued... by Michael Carl

Read More of Article...

Congress passes measure to keep sex offenders out of the military

See earlier report HERE (S-3254 was ultimately passed). As to the Army's report of sexual assaults in 2011 [actually 2010 link below], it makes no mention that any of them were by formerly convicted sex offenders (registrants). Folks need to counter any claims that registrants were to blame.
12-1-2012 Washington DC:

On Friday the U.S. Senate passed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which included an amendment authored by Sen. Barbara Boxer banning anyone convicted of a felony sex crime from joining the armed forces.

“We owe it to our brave service members to do everything we can to protect them from sexual assault,” said Boxer (D-CA). “The action of both the Senate and the House will strengthen the military’s zero tolerance policy for these heinous acts of violence by permanently banning those convicted of felony sex crimes from serving in our military.”

The policy was put in place administratively by Defense Secretary Robert Gates in 2009, but Sen. Boxer’s amendment would codify the ban into law, making the change permanent.

The House passed the NDAA conference report on Thursday.

In 2011 alone, 3,192 incidents of sexual assault were reported in the military. According to the Department of Defense, this figure may significantly underestimate the actual number of sexual assaults, and the actual number may be closer to 19,000 annually.

In addition, service members who receive a conduct waiver are more likely to commit a sexual assault.

According to a report recently published by the Army (Found HERE 622 pg PDF), soldiers that entered the military with conduct waivers were more likely to commit a felony sex crime while on active duty than soldiers who entered the military without waivers.

The National Defense Authorization Act now goes to President Barack Obama for his signature. ..Source.. by Lake County News (See also HERE)

Read More of Article...

Iowa Supreme Court orders new trial in child sex case

12-22-2012 Iowa:

The Iowa Supreme Court is granting a convicted Muscatine child molester a new trial after deciding a detective crossed the line in promising him leniency in exchange for his confession.

Robert A. Howard, 22, confessed in 2010 to sexually abusing his girlfriend’s 17-month-old son. A jury heard his confession after the district court denied his motion to have it suppressed.

The jury found him guilty of second-degree sexual abuse and child endangerment. A divided Iowa Court of Appeals later affirmed his convictions and 25-year prison sentence.

According to its decision Friday, the Supreme Court ruled that “the detective’s questioning crossed the line into an improper promise of leniency under our long-standing precedents, rendering Howard’s subsequent confession inadmissable.”

It goes on to call the promise of leniency a “police tactic” that can “induce false confessions.”

Records state that Howard and his girlfriend took her son to the doctor’s office on Jan. 14, 2010, after discovering blood in his diaper. During the examination of the infant, the doctor saw a cut near the top of the child’s anus as well as bruising, swelling and signs of blood flow to the area that had recently increased, records state.

The doctor later testified at Howard’s trial that she thought the bleeding was caused by blunt penetration trauma, records state. She also determined that the injuries occurred within several hours of the child being brought to the clinic, records state.

Howard and his girlfriend were in a relationship for six months, and Howard was spending three to four nights a week at his girlfriend’s parents’ home, where she lived with her child, records state.

He spent Jan. 13, 2010, there, the night before they took the child to see the doctor, records state.

On Jan. 14, his girlfriend left him alone with the child at her parents’ house for about 20 minutes while she went to retrieve a key from her mother who was at work, records state. While she was at her mother’s workplace, she received a call from Howard, who said he noticed blood in the child’s diaper while he was changing him, records state.

The girlfriend returned home and found her child lying on his stomach in his crib, screaming, while Howard was lying on the floor, records state. After she saw the blood, she called the doctor, and before they left, Howard took a shower and changed his clothes, records state.

Following the doctor’s examination, the doctor contacted the Iowa Department of Human Services as a mandatory reporter under Iowa law because she suspected the child’s injuries were caused by child abuse, records state.

At his trial, Howard denied having sexual contact with the child, records state.

He testified that he confessed to police because he wanted to prevent the child from being taken from his girlfriend, adding that if the injuries were left unknown, the child wouldn’t be allowed to return home with his mother, records state.

The appeals court dissenting opinion concluded that Howard’s confession was inadmissible because he confessed as a result of “the officer’s deliberate ruse.” The officer implied that treatment in lieu of incarceration would follow, that Howard would have the ability to make plans for the next five years of his life, that he would be released no matter what he confessed and that he would be permitted to rejoin his girlfriend and her child, records state. ..Source.. by Brian Wellner Quad-City Times

Read More of Article...

December 20, 2012

Orange County's sex offender ban to be reviewed by Court of Appeals

12-20-2012 California:

A state appellate court has agreed to review Orange County’s controversial law barring sex offenders from county parks and beaches, a move that may determine whether the ban is legal.

The county ordinance, passed in April 2011, prohibits all registered sex offenders from county parks, beaches and harbors without written consent from the sheriff. The district attorney’s office has successfully urged other county cities to pass versions of the law.

Susan Kang Schroeder, the chief of staff for the district attorney’s office, said both sides would like a binding decision on the matter.

“We believe that this issue is an important issue for the safety of Orange County children,” she said.

On Nov. 15, an Orange County Superior Court appeals panel overturned the misdemeanor conviction of Hugo Godinez, a registered sex offender who attended a Cinco de Mayo party at a county park in 2011.

The panel of judges said the county's sex offender law appeared to be illegal and asked the Court of Appeals to take up the case.
In response, the Orange County Sheriff's Department stopped enforcing the law and the Lake Forest City Council voted to repeal its ban.

“It is an important issue, especially in the county,” said Scott Van Camp, a deputy public defender who represents Godinez. “When the Court of Appeals issues an opinion, it will apply for everything.”

Berkeley law professor Frank Zimring said the laws are an example of criminal justice as theater rather than criminal justice for public safety. He said he is not surprised that the county law is being challenged.

“It’s only symbolic,” he said. “It’s only political appeal.” ..Source.. by Nicole Santa Cruz

Read More of Article...

Sex offender's due process violated by court

12-20-2012 New York:

NEW YORK, Dec 20 (Reuters) - A deported sex offender's due process rights were violated when he was not notified about a hearing to designate his post-release risk level.

The Appellate Division, Second Department, held that Gaspari Gutierrez-Lucero had a constitutional right to be at a hearing to designate his risk level under the Sex Offender Registration Act, even though he received the least restrictive classification, Level 1.

Under SORA, convicted sex offenders are entitled to a court hearing to determine the offense level at which they will be required to register after they are released into the community. There are three different levels for risk of reoffending, 1 being low, 2 moderate and 3 high.

"Even where a sex offender is adjudicated a level one sex offender, due process requirements must be satisfied," Justice Reinaldo Rivera wrote for the unanimous appellate panel.

The ruling reversed Gutierrez-Lucero's designation and sent the case back to the Kings County Supreme Court for further proceedings.

Gutierrez-Lucero was convicted in 2003 of attempted sodomy and sentenced to 3-1/2 years in prison.

After his release, Brooklyn court officials sent notice to the prison where Gutierrez-Lucero had been incarcerated, informing him that there would be a hearing to determine his post-release risk level. A day later, immigration records showed that Gutierrez-Lucero, who was in the U.S. illegally, was deported to Mexico, the ruling stated.

Gutierrez-Lucero's lawyer said his client had never received notice of the hearing. Nevertheless, the hearing proceeded, over the objections of Gutierrez-Lucero's lawyer and prosecutors, who said Gutierrez-Lucero had not waived his right to be present.

Kings County Supreme Court Justice Michael Brennan said the deportation constituted a "de facto waiver" and designated him a Level 2 offender.

'OFFENSIVE'

A week later, Brennan held another hearing, and Gutierrez-Lucero was once again absent. The judge said he had reconsidered his decision. "(B)alancing the interest of the due process rights of the defendant with the interest and the protection of the public," Brennan said, he designated Gutierrez-Lucero a Level 1 offender.

Lawyers appointed to represent Gutierrez-Lucero, whose whereabouts are unknown, appealed. Citing a 1998 ruling from the Southern District of New York, Doe v. Pataki, they argued there were no exceptions to a sex offender's right to "a full and fair opportunity to be heard" before being designated under SORA.

The Second Department agreed.

"The Supreme Court's attempt to fashion a 'remedy' and make an 'exception' to Doe v Pataki is offensive to the constitutional principles of due process and cannot be sustained in law and reason," Rivera wrote.

Although public safety is one goal of the law, "that goal must invariably co-exist with the fundamental elements of due process, namely, notice and an opportunity to be heard, afforded to all sex offenders facing risk level classification under SORA," he added.

Justices Thomas Dickerson, Cheryl Chambers and Leonard Austin joined the opinion.

A lawyer representing Gutierrez-Lucero, William Kastin, called the ruling an "excellent decision."

A spokesman said the Brooklyn district attorney's office is reviewing the ruling.

The case is People v. Gutierrez-Lucero, New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, No. 2011-00644. ..Source.. by Jessica Dye

Read More of Article...

Google starts watching what you do off the Internet too

Hummmm, are they or aren't they? UPDATE: NEVER MIND: Google Has NOT Figured Out How To Track You Even When You're Offline
12-20-2012 National:

The most powerful company on the Internet just got a whole lot creepier: a new service from Google merges offline consumer info with online intelligence, allowing advertisers to target users based on what they do at the keyboard and at the mall.

Without much fanfare, Google announced news this week of a new advertising project, Conversions API, that will let businesses build all-encompassing user profiles based off of not just what users search for on the Web, but what they purchase outside of the home.

In a blog post this week on Google’s DoubleClick Search site, the Silicon Valley giant says that targeting consumers based off online information only allows advertisers to learn so much. “Conversions,” tech-speak for the digital metric made by every action a user makes online, are incomplete until coupled with real life data, Google says.

“We understand that online advertising also fuels offline conversions,” the blog post reads. Thus, Google says, “To capture these lost conversions and bring offline into your online world, we’re announcing the open beta of our Conversions API for uploading offline conversion automatically.”

The blog goes on to explain that in-store transactions, call-tracking and other online activities can be inputted into Google to be combined with other information “to optimize your campaigns based on even more of your business data.”

Google is all but certain to ensure that all user data collected off- and online will be cloaked through safeguards that will allow for complete and total anonymity for customers. When on-the-Web interactions start mirroring real life activity, though, even a certain degree of privacy doesn’t make Conversions API any less creepy. As Jim Edwards writes for Business Insider, “If you bought a T shirt at The Gap in the mall with your credit card, you could start seeing a lot more Gap ads online later, suggesting jeans that go with that shirt.”

Of course, there is always the possibility that all of this information can be unencrypted and, in some cases, obtained by third-parties that you might not want prying into your personal business. Edwards notes in his report that Google does not explicitly note that intelligence used in Conversions API will be anonymized, but the blowback from not doing as much would sure be enough to start a colossal uproar. Meanwhile, however, all of the information being collected by Google — estimated to be on millions of servers around the globe — is being handed over to more than just advertising companies. Last month Google reported that the US government requested personal information from roughly 8,000 individual users during just the first few months of 2012. ..Source.. by Reuters / Jason Lee

Read More of Article...

De Facto Life Sentences Contemplated in the 7th

12-20-2012 Illinois (7th Circuit):

CHICAGO (CN) - An otherwise run-of-the-mill sentencing appeal became a forum for 7th Circuit Judge Richard Posner to air his views on de facto life sentences.

For three years, David Craig had repeatedly sexually assaulted a child who was friends with his daughter. In addition to photographing his abuse, Craig also threatened to kill the girl if she did not email him additional photos in sexually explicit positions. The victim was 11-years-old when the abuse began.

Craig eventually pleaded guilty in Illinois to four counts of producing child pornography.

Though the guidelines recommended a life sentence, the statutory maximum for each count was 30 years. U.S. District Judge J. Phil Gilbert ordered a total of 50 years imprisonment: 30 years on one count to run consecutively with 20-year concurrent sentences on the remaining three counts.

Since Craig was 46 when convicted, he will be 96 when released.

"On the basis of existing medical knowledge we must assume that in all likelihood the defendant will be dead before his prison term expires," Posner wrote.

The 7th Circuit affirmed Craig's sentence Tuesday, but Posner penned a concurring opinion "to remind the district judges of this circuit of the importance of careful consideration of the wisdom of imposing de facto life sentences."

Judges should consider the economic costs of imprisonment, he argued, pointing out that an elderly prisoner costs the government between $60,000 and $70,000 a year.

"That is not a net social cost, because if free these elderly prisoners would in all likelihood receive Medicare and maybe Medicaid benefits to cover their medical expenses," Posner wrote. "But if freed before they became elderly, and employed, they would have contributed to the Medicare and Medicaid programs through payroll taxes."

Moreover, though sex offenders have a higher likelihood of recidivism than most criminals, Posner pointed out that "capacity and desire to engage in sexual activity diminish in old age."

Since the Justice Department "does little to publicize punishment levels for the various federal crimes," it is also unlikely that Craig contemplated his sentence when committing the crime.

Because the deterrent effect is likely minimal, a 30-year sentence may have been just as effective in this case.

Though weighing such considerations admittedly involves guesswork, Posner concluded, "I am merely suggesting that the cost of imprisonment of very elderly prisoners, the likelihood of recidivism by them, and the modest incremental deterrent effect of substituting a superlong sentence for a merely very long sentence, should figure in the judge's sentencing decision." ..Source.. by JOSEPH CELENTINO

Read More of Article...

December 19, 2012

Judge refuses to toss suit over La sex registry

12-19-2012 Louisiana:

NEW ORLEANS (AP) — A federal judge refused Wednesday to dismiss a class-action lawsuit that seeks to have removed from the state's sex offender registry roughly 400 people who were convicted of soliciting oral or anal sex for money under Louisiana's "crime against nature by solicitation" law.

U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman ruled in April that the names of nine plaintiffs who were convicted of the same offense must be stricken from the registry. A separate suit, filed after Feldman issued his decision, says the ruling should be applied to anyone in the same position.

Louisiana Attorney General James "Buddy" Caldwell's office urged Feldman to dismiss the latest suit, arguing that a recent change in state law leaves the potential class members without any valid claims.

Feldman rejected that request after challenging Phyllis Glazer, a lawyer for Caldwell's office, to explain why the hundreds of potential class members aren't immediately entitled to the same relief as the nine plaintiffs who sued last year.

"Sometimes I wonder if anything the state has done in this case has passed the laugh test," he said.

Feldman expressed frustration at the pace of the process for deciding whether people already have a right to have their names removed from the registry

"I am incredulous and very concerned about why this process has been dragged out against the backdrop of politics for so long," he said.

The state Legislature amended the 200-year-old law last year so that anyone convicted of a "crime against nature by solicitation" no longer will be required to register. But the legislative change didn't apply to the nine original plaintiffs or roughly 484 other people statewide who already were registered.

Feldman's earlier ruling said state lawmakers had no "rational basis" for requiring people to register as sex offenders if they were convicted of violating the law. The judge said the plaintiffs wouldn't have had to register if instead they had been convicted of soliciting sex for money under the state prostitution law.

Several weeks after that ruling, state lawmakers changed the law again. Glazer said the change requires people to prove they didn't solicit sex from a minor before they can be removed from the registry.

"The Legislature made a concerted effort to provide relief to the people it applied to," she said.

Plaintiffs' attorney Bill Quigley said virtually all of the potential class members are people who were arrested in sting operations for soliciting sex from undercover police officers.

"It's never a minor," he said in an interview after the hearing.

Quigley said dozens of people already have gone to court since Feldman's April ruling and successfully petitioned to have their names removed from the registry, but many don't have the means to follow suit.

Feldman said he has tried to bring a "commonsense approach" to his review of the case.

"Equal protection of the law in not rocket science. It's commonsense," he said. ..Source.. by MICHAEL KUNZELMAN

Read More of Article...

Bills working there way through Congress: S-1792 and S-1793

12-19-2012 Washington DC:

Two bills are working there way through Congress right now: S-1792 and S-1793. Only S-1792 affects certain sex offenders. What is shown in Yellow are additions to laws mentioned (portions shown in black); links allow you to see laws as they are today..

S-1792 effectively NOW gives the U.S. Marshalls jurisdiction -when called in by those indicated in YELLOW- to help in those investigations. Now why is this needed when we all know they are already doing this in "Home Address Checks" along with local police? AWA only gave them jurisdiction when local police identified a specific registrant was in violation of his/her registration requirements; I have written about this before. See HERE So, if s-1792 passes they will have broader jurisdiction locally.

S-1792 "Strengthening Investigations of Sex Offenders and Missing Children Act of 2011" which contains:

SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION OF AUTHORITY.

        `(B) as directed by the Attorney General, investigate--
          `(i) fugitive matters, both within and outside the United States; and
          `(ii) at the request of another Federal, State, or local law enforcement agency, cases involving--
            `(I) a sex offender (as defined in section 111 of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (42 U.S.C. 16911)) who violates a sex offender registration requirement; or
            `(II) a missing child.'.



This bill has nothing to do with sex offenders, but I felt it is a item folks would want to know about. S-1793 is clearly a response to the tragedies like Newtown, Connecticut. This bill was first introduced in November of 2011, and they are only getting to it now. The bill calls for:

S-1793 "`Investigative Assistance for Violent Crimes Act of 2012" which contains:

SEC. 2. INVESTIGATION OF CERTAIN VIOLENT ACTS, SHOOTINGS, AND MASS KILLINGS.

    (a) Attorney General- Title 28, United States Code, is amended--
      (1) in section 530C(b)(1)(L)(i), by striking `$2,000,000' and inserting `$3,000,000'; and
      (2) in section 530C(b)(1), by adding at the end the following--
        `(M)(i) At the request of an appropriate law enforcement official of a State or political subdivision, the Attorney General may assist in the investigation of violent acts and shootings occurring in a place of public use and in the investigation of mass killings and attempted mass killings. Any assistance provided under this subparagraph shall be presumed to be within the scope of Federal office or employment.
        `(ii) For purposes of this subparagraph--
          `(I) the term `mass killings' means 3 or more killings in a single incident; and
          `(II) the term `place of public use' has the meaning given that term under section 2332f(e)(6) of title 18, United States Code.'.
    (b) Secretary of Homeland Security- Section 875 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 455) is amended by adding at the end the following:
    `(d) Investigation of Certain Violent Acts, Shootings, and Mass Killings-
      `(1) IN GENERAL- At the request of an appropriate law enforcement official of a State or political subdivision, the Secretary, through deployment of the Secret Service or United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, may assist in the investigation of violent acts and shootings occurring in a place of public use, and in the investigation of mass killings and attempted mass killings. Any assistance provided by the Secretary under this subsection shall be presumed to be within the scope of Federal office or employment.
      `(2) DEFINITIONS- For purposes of this subsection--
        `(A) the term `mass killings' means 3 or more killings in a single incident; and
        `(B) the term `place of public use' has the meaning given that term under section 2332f(e)(6) of title 18, United States Code.'.


Thats all for today.
eAdvocate

Read More of Article...

December 18, 2012

When is social-media use a crime?

12-18-2012 National:

In the crowded world of social media, with its virtual currency of likes and followers, some people will do anything for attention.

Post a meme on Facebook. Create a parody account on Twitter. And in extreme cases, spread something shocking or offensive.

In these tender days after the Newtown, Connecticut, school shootings, bad behavior on social media has some observers wondering: Should people be criminally liable for false or threatening information they post online? And could they be successfully prosecuted?

Connecticut State Police Lt. Paul Vance jump-started this discussion Sunday when he complained to reporters about people posting fake information on social media related to Friday's fatal shootings of 26 people, 20 of them young children, at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

"There has been misinformation from people posing as the shooter in this case, posing using other IDs, mimicking this crime and crime scene and criminal activity that took place in this community. There's been some things in somewhat of a threatening manner," he said.

"These issues are crimes. They will be investigated, statewide and federally," he added. "Prosecution will take place when people who are perpetrating this information are identified."

Vance would not elaborate on which posts he was talking about. But a quick search of Twitter found a handful of new accounts seemingly created to piggyback on the notoriety of Adam Lanza, the alleged gunman. One was written as if from Lanza's perspective and made profane boasts about the massacre. It had almost 900 followers Monday night before being taken down.

"It's sick. It's hateful. But I don't know what they (police) can do about that," said Lauri Stevens, a social media strategist who works as a consultant to law enforcement agencies.

Other tweets encouraged people to take violent action against members of the National Rifle Association, the gun-rights lobby.

In the U.S., laws governing online harassment, threats and impersonating others vary from state to state. In Connecticut, harassment can be a felony, depending on the severity of the threats, and punishable by up to five years in prison. Since the Newtown shootings, state authorities have emphasized the law applies to online communications as well as other forms.

"Anyone who harasses or threatens the victims, the victims' families or witnesses of these horrific crimes or who in any manner interferes with the ongoing state or federal investigations will be referred for state and or federal prosecution to the fullest extent permitted by law," said Tom Carson, a spokesman for the Connecticut U.S. Attorney's office.

"Harassment not only includes in-person contact, but also contact via the Internet, social media and telephone."

Despite the disturbing nature of some social-media messages about the shootings, several legal experts contacted by CNN questioned whether Connecticut authorities could successfully bring charges against whoever posted them.

Prosecutions over social-media activity are still rare. In October a 19-year-old man was sentenced to 12 weeks in jail in the UK for posting what a judge called "despicable" comments on his Facebook page about a missing 5-year-old girl.

And in a highly publicized cyberbullying case, a Missouri woman was convicted in 2008 after prosecutors say she created a fake MySpace profile to befriend and then abandon a 13-year-old neighbor girl, leading the girl to hang herself.

Federal prosecutors charged the woman, Lori Drew, under a statute which bans unauthorized access to computers. But a judge overturned the conviction, saying that if Drew was to be found guilty of illegally accessing a computer, anyone who ever violated MySpace's terms of service would be guilty of a misdemeanor.

"We have a free-speech baseline in this country. Saying things about the Connecticut shooting 'somewhat in a threatening manner' ... is not going to be actionable for the most part," Ryan Calo, an assistant professor at the University of Washington School of Law, told CNN's Josh Levs.

"What the prosecution would have to show is that the post, or the tweet or whatever it happens to be, was done intentionally ... in order to interfere with the investigation, in order to create a public panic," Calo added. "And that's a relatively high bar to show."

Stevens, the social media consultant, believes authorities would have better luck going after social media users whose behavior crosses the line "from saying insulting things ... to making someone feel unsafe."

She cited the case of a Toronto man who was arrested last month and charged with criminal harassment after sending a woman a series of offensive Twitter messages. The woman, Stephanie Guthrie, built her case by documenting his tweets through screen capture and an unlisted Storify account.

"Unfortunately, when it comes to harassment, the onus is on the victim to collect as much information as they can," Guthrie told The Toronto Star.

Stevens believes there would be more prosecutions of such cases if more cops were familiar enough with social platforms to investigate claims of online harassment. Police also would need cooperation from companies such as Facebook and Twitter, which typically have been reluctant to reveal users' identities, she said.

"We don't have a lot of legal precedent. So people are at a loss for what to do," she said.

It remains to be seen whether Connecticut authorities bring charges against any social media users in relation to the Newtown case. But Ben Wizner of the American Civil Liberties Union believes they have an uphill battle.

"The police are there to protect our safety and not our feelings," said Wizner, director of the ACLU's Speech, Privacy & Technology Project. "If his (Vance's) suggestion is that anyone who posts false information about this case on social media is subject to arrest, that would be extremely unconstitutional.

"There's a tendency (among law enforcement) to overreact to new technology. But the legal issues are the same," he said. "I can understand why law enforcement would be upset about the spread of false information. But that doesn't make it criminal." ..Source.. by Brandon Griggs, CNN

Read More of Article...

Which Websites Are Sharing Your Personal Details?

12-18-2012 National:

To identify what personal information gets passed to other companies when you log in to popular websites, The Wall Street Journal tested 50 of the top sites (by U.S. traffic) that offer registration, excluding sites that required a real-world account, such as banking sites.

The Journal also tested 20 selected other sites that focus on sensitive subjects such as dating, politics, health, or children’s issues, and our own site, WSJ.com.

Click here to read more about the methodology. Results for each site are at the original site. Sites are ranked by popularity, based on comScore's numbers. Sites not in comScore's top 1,000 are marked with a "*". Click on the rows for more details. ..Source.. by Wall Street Journal

Read More of Article...

Facebook Said To Have Sexting App In The Works

This is just what we need to create more sex offenders! An App to promote, if used by minors, ILLEGAL behavior. i.e., Make child porn. And we allow our children to play on a website that promotes illegal behavior. Is it any wonder why some become law breakers in the future?
12-18-2012 Global:

Guess who just might be the newest addition to the sexting community? Facebook. That's right, the nearly 9-year old company is growing up. Big time.

The house that Mark Zuckerberg built is reportedly set to launch a new standalone app aimed at competing with Snapchat, a disposable photo and video chat service best known for... well... sexting.

Technically, the service is about creating private, “self-destructable” picture and video messages that users can send and choose the amount of time that the photo will be available for viewing. After the allotted time, the content deletes itself from the sender’s and receiver’s phone, and from Snapchat's server. Like it never happened. You can imagine the appeal to those who want to send "cheeky" images.


Details for the release are still sketchy (Facebook's official response to ReadWrite's inquiry was: "We're not going to comment on rumor and speculation."). But we do know that Snapchat boasts a community that sends 50 million photos per day, and Facebook is likely betting its users, 1 billion people, who upload about 300 million photos a day, want to play. Although this app would a stand-alone product, operating like Facebook's Instagram app, the coming service would be able to draw from a huge user base.

What's Coming?

Ben Tao, chief executive of adult crowd-funding site Offbeatr, and digital marketplace Extra Lunch Money, says there is a huge market for sexting. But he's not sure people will look to Facebook for it.

"If people can do this for free and know that those messages and pictures are never stored, even more people will use it," he said. "However, given Facebook's privacy reputation I doubt [it will] be able to convince the majority of users that these messages and photos are deleted like they are on SnapChat. When people think of 'sexting,' people think of SnapChat. They don't think Facebook."

But Kelly Lux, a social media strategist at Syracuse University's iSchool, thinks the app could be big, and used for more innocent purposes than sending NSFW content. "My view is that Facebook is going to jump on whatever bandwagon is hot at the moment and see if something sticks," Lux said.

Lux doesn't think the forthcoming app will be as big as Instagram because of the fleeting nature of its content. She also cautions that the promise of impermanence of photos and videos could lead to bad choices on the part of users. Even though the photos themselves would be automatically deleted, fast-fingered recipients or uploaders could still take screenshots or save those photos.

"I think this idea sets a bad precedent for young people who still have not heeded the wisdom of 'what happens on the Internet, stays on the internet,'" Lux warned. "There are permanent digital footprints from their connected activities."

The app is supposed to launch before the end of the year. That's two weeks away. ..Source.. by Adam Popescu

Read More of Article...

California judge considers sex offenders' social media

There is no law to monitor RSO Speech in society, why should there be one for the Internet? RSOs do not have to report the address or place where they speak to another person in society, the Internet should be the same.
12-18-2012 California:

Even child sex offenders have free speech rights.

The question for a federal judge Monday was whether those rights can be limited by a voter-approved requirement that registered sex offenders turn over vital online information such as social media passwords, usernames and Internet service providers to law-enforcement officials.

U.S. District Judge Thelton Henderson didn't say much during the nearly three-hour hearing in San Francisco, giving no indication of how he will rule in the coming weeks. Henderson earlier put that provision of Proposition 35 on hold pending the outcome of a lawsuit filed by two convicted sex offenders represented by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

The ACLU and EFF argue the rule violates their clients' free speech rights because it prevents them from expressing their views anonymously like other Web surfers. The lawyers also argue that the requirement will "chill" — or dissuade — sex offenders who have served their sentence from exercising their free speech rights online.

"There is no historical preference of stripping people of their 1st Amendment rights because they were convicted of a crime long ago," ACLU attorney Michael Risher said. "They have the same rights as everyone else as soon as they finish probation or parole."

Proposition 35, which passed with 81 percent support, also set higher prison sentences for sex traffickers while requiring those convicted of that crime to now register as a sex offender. The lawsuit doesn't challenge that portion of the law.

California deputy attorney general Robert Wilson on Monday defended the reporting provision as a necessary and helpful tool for law enforcement officials seeking to stop sex crimes before they happen while also investigating those that did.

"It's not so we can monitor what books or groceries they are buying," Wilson said. "It's for if something bad or suspicious pops up."

He said the sex offenders' online anonymity is protected because what they report is not a public record. Wilson said police who disclose the information or mishandled it are subject to discipline, including dismissal and even criminal charges.

James Harrison, a lawyer who represents former Facebook executive Chris Kelly and other backers of Proposition 35, told the court that the information offenders who have to register have to report is limited.

"Nothing in Proposition 35 requires a registrant to report what Web sites he visits," Harrison told the judge.

The judge said he would "rule as soon as possible." ..Source.. by PAUL ELIAS

Read More of Article...