Mortality in State Prisons, 2001-2014 - Statistical Tables
Mortality in Local Jails, 2000-2014 - Statistical Tables
Arrest-Related Deaths Program Redesign Study, 2015-16: Preliminary Findings
Probation and Parole in the United States, 2015
Showing posts with label 2016. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2016. Show all posts
January 1, 2017
More Bureau of Justice Stats
December 30, 2016
New Bureau of Justice Stats
Jail Inmates in 2015
Correctional Populations in the United States, 2015
Prisoners in 2015 (several references to sex crimes, and stats in Tables 5 and 8). From page-3:
Total prison population
State and federal prisons had jurisdiction over an estimated 1,526,800 prisoners at yearend 2015, a more than 2% decrease (down 35,500 prisoners) from yearend 2014 (table 1). Federal prisoners made up 13% of the total U.S. prison population at yearend 2015.
The decrease in the number of U.S. prisoners from yearend 2014 to 2015 was similar to the decrease that occurred between 2011 and 2012 (down almost 2%). The 2011–2012 decline coincided with California’s Public Safety Realignment Policy, which diverted newly sentenced nonviolent, nonserious, and nonsex offenders from state prisons to serve time in local jails and under community supervision. With the commitment by the U.S. Department of Justice in 2015 to reduce the number of nonviolent drug offenders held in federal prisons, the BOP began releasing more nonviolent drug offenders from prison in 2015.
Obama Administration Yanks Second Amendment Rights from SSI Recipients
Hopefully this reporter has misunderstood the policy, because just because someone is, ex: disabled, is no reason to deny them rights affected by this policy and label them harshly . ACLU where are you? See Also: Growth of NICS ‘Mental Defectives’ Index Category12-30-16 Washington DC:
Last week, the Obama administration put the finishing touches on a new policy (rule) that would deprive recipients of disability insurance and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) of their Second Amendment rights. The administration will now characterize those citizens as "mental defectives," thereby having their ability to own a firearm subject to the federal Gun Control Act.
Supplemental Security Income helps blind, disabled, and elderly people with little to no income Previously, it was understood that "mentally defective" referred to one's mental health. Citizens who have been institutionalized against their will are restricted from owning a firearm. The new definition of "mentally defective" has nothing to do with being mentally ill.
The Social Security Administration released its final decision after a period of open comments that drew more than 91,000 responses, including a response from the NRA. Although Obama likes to empty out Guantanamo Bay of dangerous terrorists and commute the sentences of criminals guilty of breaking federal firearms laws, he doesn't like law-abiding American citizens to possess firearms. ..Continued.. by Liz Sheld
Facebook stalls in lawsuit alleging its facial recognition tech violates Illinois law
12-30-16 Illinois:
An Illinois law is proving a thorn in Facebook’s side as a class action lawsuit, alleging mishandling of biometric information, moves toward trial. The latest developments in the case have the social network objecting against releasing or even admitting the existence of all manner of data, but the plaintiffs aren’t taking “objection” for an answer.
The case revolves around a 2008 state law known as the Biometric Information Privacy Act. BIPA basically makes it illegal to collect or use biometric data, such as a “scan of hand or face geometry,” without rigorous disclosure of methods, intentions and guarantees regarding that data. The class action suit, filed in mid-2015, alleges that Facebook has knowingly failed to perform this disclosure for its many Illinois users.
Separate suits have been filed against Shutterfly, Snapchat and Google. The Shutterfly suit was settled, and Snapchat’s sent to arbitration. The Google case is technically ongoing, but the company argues that analysis of digital photos doesn’t count as biometric data, nor could an Illinois law prevent a California company from performing such analysis outside Illinois. Facebook has likewise fought the suit, aiming for dismissal under similar arguments.
The clear-headed Judge James Donato determined in May that while proceeding under California law was something users had agreed to, it was unenforceable, as it would amount to “a complete negation” of non-California protections such as those found in BIPA. And as for the idea that a “scan” must take place in person, he called that interpretation “cramped” and noted that the law itself is so worded as to potentially include such “emerging” methods as bulk digital analysis. So the case proceeded, and the parties at odds have fallen to squabbling over the details. ..Continued..
December 26, 2016
A new call to make it much, much easier to convict the wrongly accused of rape
Two specialists in ethics have penned a horrifying piece that calls for the abolition of the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard of evidence in sexual assault cases. They insist that a preponderance of the evidence standard is sufficient.
You see, it's sometimes difficult to tell if sexual assault occurs because it "is often physically indistinguishable from consensual sex." Most rational people think this is a sound basis for insisting on processes that insure the innocent are not convicted of crimes they did not commit. Not Christopher Wareham and James Vosis. They acknowledge that the harms to the falsely accused can be "severe." They seem think the harms of a false acquittal are worse, so they are willing to allow some innocent men to suffer for the purported greater good. They want to see the standard of proof drastically reduced to "preponderance of the evidence" in sexual assault cases. Their plan literally would invite convictions even where jurors have a reasonable doubt as to guilt. Jurors would be told to convict if there is only a 50.00001 percent likelihood of guilt.
This proposal is morally grotesque on every level, and it flips on its head a long-settled principle of law famously expressed by the celebrated English jurist William Blackstone: it is "better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer." (Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1765.)
In fact, the debate about whether it is just to punish the innocent in order to insure that the guilty are punished has been long-settled in civilized societies: it is not just. Even the Book of Genesis recounts that when God was deciding what to do about the evil in Sodom and Gomorrah, Abraham put this question to him: "Are you really going to sweep away the innocent with the guilty?" After repeated probing by Abraham, God made it clear he would not destroy the guilty if it meant destroying the innocent with them. ..Continued.. by COWA
December 24, 2016
NARSOL to Supreme Court: Throw out social media bans on SO’s
On December 22, the National Association for Rational Sexual Offense Laws (NARSOL), formerly known as Reform Sex Offender Laws (RSOL), filed a brief of Amicus Curiae before the U.S. Supreme Court in conjunction with North Carolina RSOL (NCRSOL) and the Association for the Treatment of Sexual abusers (ATSA) on behalf of the petitioner in Packingham v. North Carolina, a case concerning the rights of registered citizens to access social media websites. Packingham is set for oral argument on February 27, 2017. ..Continued.. by Robin
U.S. Supreme Court moving ahead without a ninth Justice
12-24-16 Washington DC:
The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday appeared to concede the practical reality that a ninth Justice will not be approved for the bench until several weeks into the new Trump administration. It did so by releasing a schedule of hearings for the February session that, once again, omits three cases that have been on hold since last January and, under normal timing, would have been heard weeks ago.
From every indication, those three cases appear to have been postponed repeatedly because the Justices have reason to think a decision in each might split the Court 4-to-4, settling nothing. Thus, those three likely will not be heard until a replacement for the late Justice Antonin Scalia has been nominated by President-elect Trump after he takes office January 20, and approved by the Senate.
The cases involve disputes over churches’ claim of an equal right to receive state government benefits, the scope of government power to take private property for public use, and a high-stakes dispute over claimed defects in Microsoft Corporation’s popular Xbox 360 game console.
The Court has only two more scheduled argument sessions in this Term — in March and April. If a Trump nominee is deeply controversial, opposition from Democrats in the Senate could prolong the process, possibly delaying further the addition of a ninth Justice. A new Justice ordinarily would not take part in decisions on cases already heard before that Justice arrived but not yet decided.
The February schedule is noteworthy for another reason: under normal circumstances, the Justices would have heard at least 10 cases during that two-week sitting, but actually will only hear seven. On only two of the five days (one normal hearing day is a legal holiday) will the Court hear two cases — the more customary number. On the other three days, only one case each day is set. ..Continued w/Schedule of Cases.. by [National Constitution Center]
Lyle Denniston
December 22, 2016
Sex Offenders Say Illinois Parole System Is Broken
See also: IL: Class Action – Supervised release policies unjustly effectively keep sex offenders in prison ‘for life’12-22-2016 Illinois:
CHICAGO (CN) – More than 4,000 sex offenders in Illinois face effective life sentences despite a court granting them parole because of restrictions on where they can live, seven men claim in a federal class action.
Due to state regulations that severely limit where sex offenders can live, Stanley Meyer has served the past five and a half years of his parole behind bars and is unable to qualify for release, according to a complaint filed Monday in Chicago federal court.
The trouble begins with the courts’ interpretation of the sentencing law, which permits parole terms from three years to life at a court’s discretion.
Rather than setting determinate parole periods within that timeframe, however, state courts routinely sentence sex offenders to indeterminate parole, the complaint states.
When a sex offender serves that time outside prison, he earns credit towards termination of his parole.
But when the offender is not able to leave prison because he cannot legally live in any of his proposed “host sites,” he can never earn termination of his parole, effectively sentencing him to life in prison, according to the lawsuit.
For several of the plaintiffs, the only option for housing would be a halfway house or homeless shelter, none of which accept registered sex offenders in Illinois, they claim. They are unable to earn money to secure other housing because they are in prison.
Several other plaintiffs have family that is willing to take them in, but these proposals have been blocked by the Illinois Department of Corrections for a host of reasons.
Sex offenders cannot live in a house with a computer or smart phone, for example, or in varying distances from schools, daycare centers and public parks, of which there are thousands in Illinois.
Even if the offender passes all these tests, the department can and does deny housing plans for “any reason they see fit,” the complaint states.
“The challenged scheme results in what amounts to a Kafkaesque nightmare whereby these individuals are denied any semblance of proportionality in their prison sentences and due process of law,” the lawsuit says.
Life sentences not handed down by a judge are a civil rights violation, claim the plaintiffs, who were only sentenced for a handful of years for various sex offenses including child pornography and sexual assault.
Further, the right to release for parole is established under state law, they claim.
The plaintiffs – Meyer, Paul Murphy, J.D. Lindemeier, Keenon Smith, Jasen Gustafsen, Alfred Aukema and Kevin Tucek – seek class certification on their claims, which include violations of due process, equal protection and the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.
They want to represent about 4,000 Illinois prisoners who have been sentenced to indeterminate parole sentences for sex offenses, plus any who would face this punishment in the future.
U.S. District Court Judge Virginia Kendall is presiding over the case.
Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan and John Baldwin, director of the Illinois Department of Corrections, are the defendants. Their media representatives did not immediately respond to emails requesting comment sent late Wednesday evening.
Civil rights lawyer Adele Nicholas, who represents the plaintiffs, said in a phone interview Wednesday that she expects the state to contest the claims “vigorously.”
Because the de facto life sentences result from several overlapping laws and jurisdictions, Nicholas said she expects an argument that it’s neither Madigan nor Baldwin’s fault that her clients’ rights are being violated.
As far as damages go for the time the men have spent in prison, Nicholas said this declaratory action will not address that.
“That’s really not our clients’ priority at all,” she said. ..Source.. by MOLLY WILLMS
Nevada court ruling gives state authorities trouble with tracking sex offenders
RENO, Nev. (News 4) — The state is having a hard time keeping track of its most heinous sex offenders because of a new Nevada Supreme Court ruling.
Parole and Probation tracks 6,000 sex offenders in the state, with 1,000 on lifetime supervision. Staff make sure they're registered as required by law -- they confirm their address and make sure the offenders have no contact with their victims.
Officers who monitor sex offenders on lifetime supervision previously would go into the offenders' houses to see if there are children present or drugs and alcohol.
"Drugs or alcohol, they inhibit you from making good judgement, and a lot of our sex offenders know because they were under the influence of drugs or alcohol and they did make poor choices. So if we're unable to enforce those, it puts them at a higher risk to re-offend," said Lt. Brian Zana, with Parole and Probation with the Nevada Department of Public Safety.
Staff also had offenders come to the state office and sometimes take polygraphs.
Those would be personal contact with the offender. Gives an officer an opportunity to see how they're doing, body language, ask them questions," said Zana.
But now they can't do in-home or office visits. No polygraphs either. They can only verify addresses, that there's no contact with the victim and that they keep a certain distance from children. They can use GPS tracking on some offenders.
Last summer, the Nevada Supreme Court reversed the conviction of Steve McNeill, a sex offender from Las Vegas. He was convicted of not complying with conditions that included curfews, counseling and maintaining employment. But none of those requirements are listed in the state law regarding lifetime supervision, and the state Supreme Court ruled the parole board can't impose those restrictions.
Parole and Probation officers said they're concerned that they now don't have enough tools to track sex offenders.
"We feel that there's very limited supervision that we can provide. The division feels that it's a high liability for our division because the public is looking at us to supervise these sex offenders," Zana said.
News 4 went along with Parole and Probation officers as they checked sex offenders' addresses in Reno. Several of them were not home.
"Instances just like we just found out. We knocked on the door and they're not there, so we can't verify that they're living where they're registered with," said officer Laurie Vela.
The state has not been able to track child sex offender Gene Roper. He's been in and out of jail for not following his lifetime supervision requirements. He's been on the run and did not register with the state as required.
"We lost complete control of him," Zana said.
His last known address was in Las Vegas, but just last month Reno Police arrested him in town.
Parole and Probation believes officers could have tracked him better if the Nevada Supreme Court didn't restrict officers' contact with these offenders. Any additional supervision the office wants to do would have to be changed in the legislature.
"We're not looking to jam them up; we're looking to keep them honest and hold them accountable," Zana said. ..Source.. by Kim Burrows
December 21, 2016
New evidence says US sex-offender policies are actually causing more crime
On Sept. 30, 2016, in a Los Angeles suburb, 48-year-old Michael Zinzun, a homeless man on the California sex offender registry, approached a woman sleeping on a park bench and reportedly asked if she wanted to smoke meth. When she turned him down, he allegedly started sexually assaulting her. As she screamed, he dragged her away, pushed her over a three-foot retaining wall, and then raped and tried to strangle her, according to charges filed by the Los Angeles district attorney and local reports. The woman survived, and Zinzun is facing life in prison for rape, kidnapping, and other charges.
Cases like this might seem to argue for even tougher controls on ex-offenders convicted of sex crimes. But new research indicates that the existing sex-offense regime in the US actually may be making repeat sex crimes more likely.
Since the mid-1990s, legislators have devised increasingly byzantine rules for those who have been punished. Those include sending out postcards when an offender moves to a neighborhood, placing warning signs outside offenders’ homes, setting restrictions on what offenders can do on Halloween, and devising “presence” restrictions banning them from places like parks, malls, and museums where children might be present. That ever-tightening leash has produced unintended outcomes with an almost mechanical predictability. Many cities have devised new no-go zones that keep them from living near places like school, parks, and daycares and have seen their homelessness rates spike as a result.
California passed a law in Nov. 2006 forbidding parolees who’d committed a sex crime from living within 2,000 feet of schools or parks. Less than five years later, the number of them who were homeless had risen from 88 to almost 2,000. In Oct. 2014, Milwaukee passed an ordinance banning many registrants from living within 2,000 ft of schools, parks, day cares, recreational trails, and playgrounds. The number of homeless registrants promptly soared from 15 to 230 in less than two years, according to an analysis in Oct. 2016 by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
Now, new research suggests making it harder for offenders to find a place to live might increase reoffending. In a study released in July 2016, researchers from the California and Canadian justice departments looked at more than 1,600 California sex offenders on probation or parole. Overall, the group’s sex-crime recidivism rates were low–less than 5% during the five-year follow-up period. But those who were homeless were over four times more likely to commit a repeat sex crime than those who weren’t. “Collectively, transient status seems to be associated with higher sexual recidivism rates,” the researchers concluded. That’s likely because those who lack stable homes, jobs, and social connections are more prone to reoffend.
The California Sex Offender Management Board, created by the state legislature and made up of law enforcement officials and other experts, issued a stark warning in a 2011 report: “The Board believes that the rise in homelessness among sex offenders needs attention because it is so closely associated with an increased level of threat to community safety.” An earlier board report had cited nine studies, including from Australia and Great Britain, all of which found a link between homelessness among ex-offenders (including sex offenders) and higher re-offense rates.
It’s not just residency bans that may increase crime. Sex offender registries—publicly posting ex-offenders’ names, photos, and personal information—appear to raise re-offense rates as well. Only the US, the UK, Canada, a few Caribbean countries, India, Chile, and South Korea operate public registries. But US registries, which are state run, are far and away the most extensive in terms of the number of people registered, length of registration, and degree of public access. (No country outside the US appears to restrict where registrants can live.) ..Continued.. by Steve Yoder
December 18, 2016
Krum’s sex offender ordinance on way out
A Krum ordinance that greatly restricts where convicted sex offenders may live appears headed for the dustbin. Similar ordinances in Argyle, Hickory Creek, Oak Point and Ponder could fall soon.
This week, the 2nd District Court of Appeals in Fort Worth sided with Taylor Rice, who sued Krum in 2015 over the city’s residency rules. The appeals court said Krum did not have the authority to adopt the restrictions and sent the case back to District Judge Margaret Barnes of the 367th District Court in Denton for final disposition.
Many small Texas towns adopted restrictive local rules in recent years knowing they didn’t have the authority to do so, according to Denton attorney Richard Gladden. He represented Rice in his complaint against Krum.
“A lot of these cities decided to ignore what had been the law since 2007,” Gladden said.
Gladden is referring to an opinion by Greg Abbott, who was state attorney general at that time. Abbott ruled small Texas cities didn’t have the authority to restrict where sex offenders may live.
Lance Vanzant, who serves as Krum’s municipal attorney, did not return a call for comment.
Cities have argued Abbott did something that had never been done before through an attorney general’s opinion: take away a city’s authority.
In reviewing the case against Krum, a majority of the appeals court agreed that Texas cities without charters cannot restrict where sex offenders live.
Charters are approved by a city’s voters to create the “home-rule” authority for a city to govern its citizens. Because state law doesn’t allow cities under 5,000 population to adopt charters, most smaller Texas cities exist as “general-law” cities governed by state statutes.
General-law cities can only adopt ordinances expressly allowed by state law. But home-rule cities govern themselves as they see fit, as long as a state or federal law doesn’t expressly forbid a local ordinance.
In the past several years, more than 80 Texas cities adopted ordinances that restricted sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet — in some cases, more than 2,000 feet — of a place where children gather. In Rice’s case, the 22-year-old could not return to his family home, where he was born and raised, without violating Krum’s ordinance.
After filing the Rice case, Gladden agreed to challenge other Texas cities on behalf of Texas Voices for Reason and Justice. The nonprofit advocacy group says no sexual abuse is acceptable, but also says that sex offense laws and policies should not be based on panic and paranoia that cause needless harm to families of sex offenders.
Gladden wrote letters to 46 small Texas cities, telling them they did not have the authority to adopt the local rules and they risked a lawsuit. About half of those cities repealed their ordinances upon receiving notification, he said. More repealed their ordinances when Gladden filed suit.
But Krum and 14 other cities across the state, including Argyle, Hickory Creek, Oak Point and Ponder, held out.
Although one of the appeals court judges wrote a dissenting opinion, Gladden said he’s confident the majority ruling is the “final nail in the coffin” for the current ordinances.
For now.
The Texas Municipal League and Texas cities have been lobbying for a legislative fix. State Sen. Jane Nelson, R-Flower Mound, has pre-filed a bill for the Texas Legislature’s next session that would eliminate the difference between home-rule and general-law cities in adopting “child safety zones.”
Senate Bill 76 would give those 14 cities currently being sued the authority to pass local ordinances that place residency restrictions on sex offenders.
Similar bills have failed in past sessions, but Nelson is confident of the prospects for her bill in the 85th regular session, which begins Jan. 10.
“I am confident that my colleagues will agree that children in every city — whether home-rule or general law — deserve protection from sex offenders,” Nelson said in an email to the Denton Record-Chronicle. ..Source.. by PEGGY HEINKEL-WOLFE
December 17, 2016
New Law In Russia Allows Women To Kill Rapist In Self-Defense
Yes, ladies, you’ve heard that right – all women in Russia, from now on, can kill their rapist in self-defense! This means that all women won’t be responsible for their reaction, because it was in self-defense!
A few weeks ago, Putin has announced war against rapists and pedophiles, and he said that these criminals are doing acts, which is a disgrace for the Russian justice. This is the main reason why he suggested this legislation, and a few weeks later – it was accepted!
The new legislation has surprised many people across Russia, especially women! They’ve supported this new legislation, especially because raping has become everyday “thing” in Russia. Ladies, what do you think about this law?
Share your thoughts in the comment section below. We really hope you find this article helpful and don’t forget to share it with your friends and family. Thank you and take care! ..Source.. by Healthy Holistic World
December 16, 2016
Neighbor accused of hugging 7-year-old in her swimsuit wrongfully convicted
There was certainly something odd about 31-year-old Jason Lee Hosley's decision to pick up and hug his 7-year-old neighbor as she stood wearing a swimsuit on her front porch in summer 2013.
The girl later testified that Hosley whispered a message to her: He wanted a girl as pretty as she was.
Hosley was convicted of second-degree disorderly conduct for hugging her and for returning later that July night to leave the girl a strange letter about the importance of reporting child molesters in the future.
But the Oregon Court of Appeals on Wednesday reversed Hosley's 2014 conviction, saying his behavior didn't fit the definition of the charge. Senior Judge Kip Leonard originally found him guilty after a trial in Marion County Circuit Court.
The Appeals Court ruled that Hosley would have had to display a "threatening physical act of aggression" -- physical force against the girl or an intention of inciting physical force -- for the charge to fit.
What happened didn't amount to violence, the court said. And neither the girl nor her father reacted with violence, although the girl testified she was "weirded out" by the man she barely knew, according to an Appeals Court summary of the encounter.
Her father was in the front yard setting up a Slip 'N Slide, according to the court summary. He testified that Hosley cried and looked distraught as he held his daughter. After Hosley put the girl down, the father let Hosley walk away because he didn't want to make the situation worse, according to the summary.
The Appeals Court noted that Hosley's act of leaving the letter at the family's home also didn't incite violence, though it did anger the girl's father. The letter thanked the family for its "respect, hospitality and ... tolerance" during "some of the most difficult of times," according to the court summary.
Hosley's letter included a "promise" that he signed and left a space for the girl to sign, as well. According to the court summary, the promise read: "IF ANY BOY OR OLDER MAN EVER TOUCHES MY PR(I)VATES OR HURTS ME IN ANY BAD WAY, I PROMISE I WILL TELL MY DADDY!"
The Appeals Court's ruling means Hosley is no longer convicted of a crime for the encounter and that all court and probation directives no longer apply.
According to court records, he was sentenced in March 2014 to five years of probation, sex offender treatment, to have no contact with children and to stay at least three miles away from the girl and her home in Hubbard, population 3,200.
The Appeals Court hinted that another charge might apply to the behavior Hosley was prosecuted for -- such as harassment, which is defined as "offensive physical contact." But Hosley wasn't charged with that.
Court records in Oregon don't show any previous convictions for sex crimes for him.
The ruling was made by a three-judge panel of the Appeals Court: Rebecca Duncan, Joel DeVore and Meagan Flynn. ..Source.. by Aimee Green
December 13, 2016
COA keeps man’s name on sex offender registry
A man who has been convicted of multiple sex offenses must keep his name on the Indiana Sex Offender Registry for now after the Indiana Court of Appeals found Tuesday that he had failed to present a proper petition to keep his name off of the registry.
In State of Indiana v. Douglas Woods Johnston, 49A02-1606-CR-1222, Douglas Johnston filed a motion in October 2015 requesting his removal from the Indiana Sex Offender Registry, writing that he had been found guilty but mentally ill in 2006, when he was convicted for the first time of child molesting as a Class C felony. Johnston further wrote that he was eligible for relief because he was 59 years old and was willing to get continued treatment for his mental illness.
During the hearing in January 2016, Johnston’s counsel told the Marion Superior Court that Johnston had also been convicted of child molesting in 1997 and had been arrested in 2013, though that charge was dropped. Johnston then testified that he had been getting treatment for his mental illness and told the court that he faced hardships when trying to comply with the Indiana Sex Offenders Registry Act.
The state, however, objected that the petition was inadequate and argued that Johnston had failed to meet his burden of proof. But the trial court ultimately found that Johnston should be required to register only until July 28, 2016, 10 years after his conviction. The Indiana Department of Correction filed a motion to intervene and motion to correct error, but failed to appear before the Marion Superior Court, so the motion to correct error was denied.
The state appealed, and in a Tuesday opinion a panel of the Indiana Court of Appeals unanimously reversed the decision to deny the motion to correct error. In the majority opinion, Judge Mark Bailey wrote that there were allegations that Johnston’s most recent victim was 6 years old, that Johnston had been classified as a sexually violent predator and that state statute in effect in 2006 required that, “A sex or violent offender who is convicted of at least two unrelated offenses … is required to register for life.”
“Thus, by all indications, Johnston was subject to life-time reporting requirements when he petitioned for relief,” Bailey wrote.
Johnston’s petition for relief came under Indiana Code section 11-8-8-22, which provides a mechanism for relief for sex offenders if, among other things, the petition is submitted under penalties of perjury and lists each criminal conviction. But Johnston’s petition was not submitted under penalties of perjury and one of his convictions was omitted, Bailey wrote.
Further, Bailey wrote that there was no indication that notice of the hearing was sent to the Department of Corrections or the Attorney General, as required by state statute. Finally, the appellate judge pointed out that Johnston’s counsel had not argued that he had satisfied his statutory burden of proof. Instead, Johnston argued that he had been “implicitly” found to be subjected to an ex post facto punishment, another provision of the statute.
But Bailey wrote that Johnston had not presented an ex post facto punishment argument and instead made an appeal for compassionate relief. Thus, the appellate panel found that Johnston had failed to produce a proper statutory-based petition for relief, so the Marion Superior Court should have granted the state’s request for dismissal.
The case was remanded with instructions to dismiss the matter with prejudice, subject to further proceedings if Johnston filed a new petition. ..Source.. by
December 12, 2016
Child molester’s failure to register conviction vacated
A convicted child molester will not also have a conviction of failure to register as a sex offender after the Indiana Court of Appeals found Monday that his arrest was premature.
In Richard Dobeski v. State of Indiana, 49A02-1603-CR-440, Richard Dobeski was convicted of Class C felony child molesting in 2008 and was subsequently required to register as a sex offender upon release from prison. When he was released July 16, 2015, a transportation van carrying Dobeski left the prison at 9:30 a.m. and arrived in Indianapolis at 11:15 a.m.
When a sergeant in the Marion County Sheriff’s Office checked the sex offender registry sometime after 1 p.m. on July 23, he found that Dobeski had not yet registered, so he was arrested sometime between 2 and 2:30 p.m.
At trial, the state argued that a full seven days had elapsed between Dobeski’s release and arrest and that “days” referred to full 24-hour periods beginning with the moment Dobeski was released. Thus, he was required to register by 11:15 a.m. on July 23, and his failure to do so justified the arrest that occurred after 2 p.m. But Dobeski argued that state statute gave him seven calendar days to register, so he had until midnight on July 23 to do so.
The Marion Superior Court found in favor of the state, so Dobeski appealed. The state presented two arguments on appeal – first, that a “day” constitutes a 24-hour period, and second that if a “day” means a calendar day and Dobeski’s day of release was included, then he only had until midnight on July 22 to register.
But in a Monday opinion, the Indiana Court of Appeals wrote that both of the state’s arguments were deficient and reversed Dobeski’s conviction of failure to register.
Judge Robert Altice, writing for the majority panel, pointed out that Indiana Code and trial rules explicitly state that the time within which an act must be done, such as registering as a sex offender, excludes the first day. In this case, that means that Dobeski’s seven-day window did not begin on the day of his release.
Further, Altice wrote that Indiana caselaw traditionally defines a “day” as a 24-hour period and that the state pointed to no evidence to suggest otherwise.
Thus, the state’s arrest of Dobeski was premature, the appellate court wrote, so the case was remanded with instructions to vacate his conviction. ..Source..
December 6, 2016
Judge Strikes Part of Indiana Sex-Offender Ordinance
FORT WAYNE, Ind. (CN) – A federal judge in Indiana ruled that the loitering ban in a city’s sex-offender ordinance retroactively punishes convicted sex offenders in violation of their 14th Amendment rights.
The ruling arises from a federal class action filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana last year on behalf of convicted sex offender and Indiana resident Brian Valenti, and any convicted sex offenders who may live in, travel to, or simply visit someone in Hartford City, Ind.
Hartford City Ordinance 2008-01, titled “regulation of sex offenders,” prohibits the presence of sex offenders near parks, schools and other places children most commonly frequent. “Child safety zones,” as designated by the town, also include libraries, bowling alleys, child care facilities and youth centers.
Valenti, who was convicted by a California court in 1993 of lewd and lascivious acts with a child under 14 years of age, moved to Indiana in 2014. Upon establishing Indiana residence, he complied with state law and registered as a sex offender.
Valenti claims Hartford City’s ordinance prevents him from being an effective parent because he cannot enter his child’s school, take her to the library, drop her off or pick her up at child care, or attend youth center activities with her, among other restrictions.
At the center of the 2015 lawsuit is the loitering ban included in the ordinance. As written in 2008, the ban makes it an offense for registered sex offenders to “knowingly loiter on a public way within 300 feet of a child safety zone.”
U.S. District Judge Theresa Springmann ruled Thursday that the loitering ban is unconstitutionally vague.
“There is no indication of how long a person must be standing or sitting, or remaining in an area, before he is in violation of the ordinance,” Springmann wrote in a 32-page opinion. “The subjective standard is not tied to any other objective criteria by which enforcement would be required to rely upon before finding a violation.”
Springmann used a practical example to illustrate her point.
“For example, the YMCA in Hartford City, which is a child safety zone, is within 300 feet of a grocery store and a restaurant. Normal community activity would include sitting at a table in the restaurant, or even sitting in a car waiting for a take-out order,” the judge wrote. “Both restaurants and parking lots are included in the definition of a ‘public way’ where loitering (sitting idly) is prohibited. Whether sitting in the restaurant is a violation of the ordinance depends on how a police officer would subjectively choose to characterize the purpose.” (Parentheses in original.)
After the ACLU filed the lawsuit in 2015, Hartford City amended its definition of “loiter” to “remaining in a place or circulating around a place under circumstances that would warrant a reasonable person to believe that the primary purpose or effect of the behavior is to enable a sex offender to satisfy an unlawful sexual desire, or to locate, lure, or harass a potential victim.”
But Springmann ruled that the intent of the sex-offender registry ordinance – public safety – does not offset its unconstitutional effects.
Ordinance 2008-01, she said, is “so punitive in effect that it has been transformed into a criminal penalty despite its regulatory intent.”
“Considered as a whole, the ordinance imposes substantial affirmative restraints on [Valenti] that he did not have fair warning of when he committed his offense in 1988, or was convicted in 1993,” the judge wrote.
“Whether a person who is remaining within 300 feet of a Child Safety Zone is attempting to ‘locate’ a ‘potential victim’ would invite police officers to guess at the person’s intent, potentially without the benefit of any action other than sitting in proximity to children,” Springmann said. “The ordinance thus fails to provide adequate guidance and authorizes arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.”
Thursday’s ruling only applies to Hartford City’s loitering provision and does not enjoin all enforcement of the sex-offender registry in Indiana.
“It is only the inclusion of the loitering prohibition that creates a due process violation. Thus Hartford City is enjoined from enforcing it against plaintiff Valenti. The remainder of the ordinance has not been challenged, and remains intact and enforceable,” Springmann ruled. ..Source.. by MARCIE SHIELDS
Federal appeals judges hear serial child-molester case
RICHMOND — A federal appeals court Tuesday suggested that a serial child molester from Maryland who abused young boys overseas was exactly the type of person Congress intended to ensnare when it passed a law targeting American sex tourists.
The hearing at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit came after a Baltimore judge last year found that Richard A. Schmidt had not broken U.S. law because the crimes to which he pleaded guilty occurred in the second country he visited after leaving the United States, not in the first.
All three judges on the appeals panel — G. Steven Agee, Pamela A. Harris and J. Harvie Wilkinson III — appeared convinced that the law applied to Schmidt’s conduct no matter how many countries he visited during his travels.
Congress deliberately targeted what Wilkinson called a “worldwide scourge” that leads to the “conscription of very young children and their induction into the sex trade” and has been “underwritten and subsidized by Americans.”
Schmidt, a former elementary school teacher, was arrested repeatedly during the 1980s in Maryland for molesting young boys and served more than a dozen years in prison. In 2002, after his release, he fled to the Philippines and later to Cambodia, when a new U.S. warrant was issued for his arrest, according to court records. ..Continued.. by Ann E. Marimow
Sex offender argues mandatory ankle monitors are unconstitutional
As opposing attorneys argued the constitutionality of the Sex Offender Registry Review Board on Monday, several Georgia Supreme Court justices kept focusing on an aspect of the law that applies to the most dangerous predators: they must wear an ankle monitor for life but face no punishment if they don’t.
“So you’re telling us all the people subject to monitoring could just stop and nothing will happen?” Justice David Nahmias asked Monday.
“The point is to prevent future recidivism and it’s not punitive,” answered Rebecca Dobras, the assistant attorney general who argued in favor of the law. “What it’s supposed to do is allow the offender to know he’s being monitored.” Nahmias replied, “I don’t understand the point of having a regulation you don’t have to comply with. What a useless regulation if that’s what you’re saying it is.”
The justices were hearing a challenge to Georgia’s version of the federal Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, named for the 6-year-old Florida boy who was kidnapped from a shopping mall and murdered. The 2006 law, also known as the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, required states to: ..Continued.. by Rhonda Cook
December 5, 2016
Two Federal Courts Call BS on Banning Sex Offenders From 'Child Safety Zones'
Rulings deem Indiana and North Carolina laws unconstitutionally vague and unjustifiably wide.
A couple of years ago, Brian Valenti, a registered sex offender who lives in Hartford City, Indiana, received a citation for sitting in his brother's car. The car was parked outside his brother's house, which happens to be across the street from a school. By sitting in it, Valenti violated a local ordinance prohibiting anyone convicted of a sex offense involving a minor from entering a long list of "child safety zones"—including schools, parks, libraries, swimming pools, athletic complexes, movie theaters, and bowling alleys— or "loitering" within 300 feet of those locations. Because of Hartford City's ordinance, Valenti, who committed a sex offense 28 years ago in California, was not allowed to visit his daughter's school, go to the library with her, visit local parks, join the YMCA, enroll his daughter in activities there, go bowling with his family, or vote at his designated polling place.
Under a similar law in North Carolina, registered sex offenders whose crimes involved minors or violence are forbidden to venture within 300 feet of "any place intended primarily for the use, care, or supervision of minors." They are also required to stay away from "any place where minors gather for regularly scheduled educational, recreational, or social programs." Five sex offenders who challenged the law said it prevented them from attending church, visiting their children's schools, participating in adult softball games, going to events at the North Carolina State Fairgrounds, eating at fast food restaurants with play areas, attending town council meetings held near a library, and visiting the state legislature, which meets in a building near a natural history museum that attracts children. The plaintiffs also worried that they were committing felonies by working on construction projects within a 300-foot zone or by going shopping or commuting to work, since they could easily drive by forbidden locations on the way. ..Continued.. by Jacob Sullum
December 2, 2016
Hartford City sex offender ordinance unconstitutionally vague
See earlier post HERE12-2-16 Indiana:
A 2008 Hartford City ordinance that restricted registered sex offenders from entering or loitering within 300 feet of broadly defined “child safety zones” is unconstitutionally vague, a federal judge has ruled.
Brian Valenti challenged a 2008 ordinance after he moved to the Blackford County community in 2014 with his wife and minor child. Valenti was required to register as a sex offender for his 1993 California conviction of a sex offense involving a child under the age of 14.
The Hartford City ordinance, which was amended in 2015, imposed a fine of up to $200 per offense for registered sex offenders who entered or loitered within 300 feet of parks, schools, public libraries, arcades, amusement centers, swimming pools, child care facilities, athletic complexes, crisis centers or shelters, skate parks or rinks, movie theaters, bowling alleys, scouting facilities or the office of protective services.
Valenti argued the local ordinance caused him to curtail activities with his child. He said he was given a citation while a passenger in his brother’s car while the car was parked at his brother’s house across the street from a school.
Judge Theresa Springmann in the District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division, granted Valenti summary judgment in part, finding the ordinance violates Indiana’s ex post facto law as applied to Valenti, and that it’s unconstitutionally vague.
The ordinance “encouraged arbitrary enforcement by failing to describe with sufficient particularity what activity violated the ordinance” and was “unconstitutionally vague on its face,” Springmann wrote in an order issued Thursday.
Though Springmann wrote that she was troubled by the amended ordinance that sought to clarify who could be subject to fines and further define prohibited loitering, she stopped short of striking the revised city code. She did forbid Hartford City, though, from ordering fines under the amended ordinance, finding its language also violates the 14th Amendment.
Springmann said a future conference will be set to consider Valenti’s damages. The case is Brian Valenti et al. v. Hartford City, Indiana, 1:15-cv-63. ..Source.. by IL Staff
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
