12-21-17 Indiana:
Three men have filed a lawsuit over an Indiana requirement that they register as sex offenders when moving to the state.
They say they're being treated differently than other residents in similar situations.
The men were convicted out of state, and before the Indiana Sex Offender Registration Act was enacted.
The lawsuit says that the state typically doesn't require sex offenders to register if they were convicted before the act took effect, and if they haven't moved to Indiana from another state.
However, the state does require offenders who have temporarily left Indiana or are moving to the Hoosier state to register. ..Source..
Showing posts with label Lawsuit - IN. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lawsuit - IN. Show all posts
December 21, 2017
Lawsuit over Indiana sex offender registry requirement
February 2, 2016
County to pay $40K to injured inmate, child molester
See earlier: Disabled sex offender allowed to sue sheriff2-2-16 Indiana:
The Tippecanoe County Sheriff's Office will pay $40,000 to settle a federal lawsuit filed in 2014 by a disabled inmate, an attorney said Monday.
A settlement was reached last month to cover medical treatment and legal fees incurred by Anthony Scott Overla, a convicted sex offender whose right leg is amputated below the knee, said Doug Masson, an attorney who represents Tippecanoe County.
Despite his disability, Overla was assigned a top bunk at the county jail, according to a civil complaint filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana. After making dozens of oral complaints, the suit alleges, jail staff never provided Overla with the proper grievance forms. As a result, he sustained an injury March 31, 2013, jumping from the top bunk, which wasn’t equipped with a ladder, according to the suit.
Masson emphasized that last month's settlement isn't an admission of guilt, but an avenue to avoid a jury trial and a larger settlement cost. Although jail staff contend they weren't aware of Overla's situation and there is no physical documentation of his requests, "none of the lawyers were there and neither was the court.
"So you just have to make the settlement decisions based on the idea that the jury could find either side credible and order a verdict," Masson said.
During court proceedings, Masson argued that Overla was ineligible to proceed with the lawsuit because he failed to exhaust all administrative remedies available at the jail. But U.S. District Judge Joseph Van Bokkelen found that Overla had likely done everything he could to complain about his living conditions.
Kenneth Falk, legal director for the ACLU of Indiana, was not available for comment Monday.
Overla was incarcerated at the time of his alleged injury for failing to register as a convicted sex offender. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to six years in the Indiana Department of Correction, with an earliest possible release date of September.
But he was arrested again in November for failure to register, and he was sentenced to serve the remainder of his probation in the DOC. ... ..Source.. by Joseph Paul
November 11, 2015
Indiana judge dismisses suit targeting new sex offender law
INDIANAPOLIS (AP) — An Indiana judge has dismissed a lawsuit that argued a new state law wrongfully barred two registered sex offenders from attending church services because their churches have schools on their grounds.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana and the state's attorneys sought the dismissal after the state determined the law does not in fact bar the two men from attending their respective churches.
An Elkhart County judge dismissed the suit Oct. 22 and ordered the two sides to pay their own costs and attorneys' fees.
The ACLU of Indiana argued that the law that took effect in effect in July and bans many sex offenders from going onto school property at any time also barred the men from attending their churches because they have schools on their grounds. ..Source.. by The News Dispatch
ACLU: RFRA must let sex offenders worship at churches with schools
7-2-2015:
The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana filed Wednesday what appears to be the first lawsuit that invokes the state's new new Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
Their clients? Registered sex offenders who believe their religious freedom is being denied by another new law that bans them from attending any church located on the same property as a school.
"This is a prime example as a place where people's religious rights are being burdened, and therefore under RFRA the state has to justify that," said ACLU of Indiana legal director Ken Falk. "It makes no sense to ban people on a Sunday if there are kids there on a Thursday."
For example, that would be the case with church preschools or parochial schools with adjacent churches.
Serious sex offenders include sexually violent predators and those convicted of crimes such as child molestation, possession of child pornography or sexual misconduct with a minor.
The lawsuit was filed in Elkhart Superior Court, on behalf of two unnamed sex offenders, against the prosecutors and sheriffs of Allen and Elkhart counties. When reached by The Indianapolis Star, the sheriff's departments declined to comment.
Indiana's new religious freedom law, which went into effect Wednesday, says if the government imposes an undue burden on the religious rights of individuals, businesses or religious organizations, it must prove a compelling interest and that it is using the least restrictive means possible.
"I think this is exactly the kind of case RFRA was about," said Indiana University law professor David Orentlicher. "You've got this sex offender law that's designed to protect children. It wasn't passed with the intent to interfere with religious practice, but it turns out there are a fair number of schools on church grounds. These people now can't go to pray without running afoul of the law."
Some in Indiana — including the ACLU — opposed the state RFRA, arguing that the law would allow discrimination against lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgender individuals. That led to a "fix" to the law to clarify that an RFRA defense could not be used to trump local and state civil rights laws.
But with the heated debate over how RFRA would apply in wedding services for same-sex couples, "what got lost was there are a lot of good reasons for these statutes," Orentlicher said.
"That's what this case should remind us — that RFRAs can be misused, but we don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater," he added.
Falk of the ACLU said the lawsuit uses RFRA "as it was originally contemplated" to protect religious freedoms.
"We're not going to pretend it doesn't exist now," Falk said. "It does exist. The legislature said it wants to protect religious liberties, and that's exactly what we're trying to do."
Still, state Senate President Pro Tempore David Long, a Fort Wayne Republican, criticized the ACLU for the lawsuit.
"The ACLU used to be a staunch supporter of religious liberty," he said in a statement. "Now they've reduced themselves to making a mockery of it. On top of this, they also support endangering our children while championing the rights of sex offenders. It's a sad day for the ACLU."
State Rep. Christina Hale, D-Indianapolis, co-sponsored the law prohibiting sex offenders from school grounds and reacted to the ACLU lawsuit by slamming the religious freedom law: "Clearly nobody had thought through what all the negative ramifications might be for people."
"I think that we have to keep in mind that Indiana is one of the very worst states in the nation when it comes to protecting our children from sexual violence," she added, citing national health statistics and recidivism rates. "We're second only to Wyoming. And we have to do whatever it takes to protect our kids. ... Any time we can keep a sexual predator away from a child, that's a small victory."
But Orentlicher made the point that the case may not be so simple. For sex offenders who have served their time, religion may be instrumental to their rehabilitation, he said: "If your goal is to protect kids, with these people, you want to maximize their chances for rehabilitation."
As an example, the lawsuit notes that one of the unnamed plaintiffs had his parole officer approve the church he chose after being released from jail. The lawsuit says he is now "deeply spiritually involved" with the church — one that doubles as a preschool and is adjacent to a religious school.
In addition, the ACLU argues for sex offenders to have access to the worship services when schools aren't in session. And the lawsuit says it's "not rational" that serious sex offenders can still go to church services where children are present if there's no school attached.
Orentlicher said other states, such as Missouri, have carved out religious exemptions to allow sex offenders to attend church when school is not in session.
"They're just saying, 'Let us pray when the kids aren't there,' " Orentlicher said. by Stephanie Wang
August 27, 2015
Controversial Sex Offender Law Being Challenged
8-27-15 Indiana:
An Indiana state law that prevents sexual offenders from entering school buildings will be challenged in court. The basis of the lawsuit argues the law inhibits certain individuals from the right to vote. The lawsuit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana.
While the law may seem to serve an important public interest, it could also easily be seen as an undue burden affecting a person’s constitutional rights. The aim of the original law was to prevent certain offenders from access to places where children frequent; however, children are not allowed in polling locations unless accompanied by an adult.
Opponents of the lawsuit claim sexual offenders’ right to vote is unaffected due to absentee voting. While this may seem like a logical assertion, voting via absentee ballot often requires separate applications and does not offer the in-person assistance that is available at the actual polling locations. In addition, opponents feel those convicted of sex crimes should not possess the privilege and right to be on school property. This is an interesting argument because by preventing this class of citizens from voting, fundamental rights are being directly violated.
The act of physically voting is fundamental to our rights as Americans and this law unfairly discriminates against a select class of individuals. These individuals have already paid their debt to society, and in many cases, are still doing so in the form of registering as sex offenders. It is unfair to prevent a free citizen from exercising the same rights and privileges afforded to everyone else. ..Source.. by The attorney’s at Bleile, Witte & Lape are extremely knowledgeable in the field of criminal defense throughout the State of Ohio and the Commonwealth of Kentucky. If you seek the best possible representation, hire a law firm that puts the client first and fights hard to protect their rights. Contact us today for a completely confidential consultation at 513-564-0088.
August 19, 2015
Sex offender's second suit attacks absentee ballots
8-19-15 Indiana:
Seeks class-action status in 2nd claim filed this year
Recent changes to state law prohibit sex offenders from being on school properties. Because many polling places are located in schools, or in churches with schools, state officials will allow registered sex offenders to vote by absentee ballots.
But a Blackford County man argues in a recent federal lawsuit that the absentee ballot process is “inferior” and prone to error and fraud.
The lawsuit filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Indianapolis names the Indiana secretary of state, individual members of the Indiana Election Commission, the superintendent of the Indiana State Police and the Blackford County prosecutor as defendants.
Plaintiff Brian Valenti is seeking class-action status for the lawsuit, which is his second this year attacking ordinances and state laws designed to keep registered sex offenders from entering school properties.
In 1993, Valenti was convicted in California of lewd or lascivious acts with a child under 14 years old. In 2014, he moved with his family to Blackford County, according to court documents.
Valenti sued Hartford City in March in the U.S. District Court in Fort Wayne over “child safety zones” created in the small city that prohibit registered sex offenders from going anyplace where children may congregate, from bowling alleys to public parks and movie theaters.
Valenti claimed in his lawsuit, filed with assistance from the American Civil Liberties Union, that Hartford City’s ordinance is vague, arbitrary, irrational and violates the due process clause of the 14th Amendment to U.S. Constitution.
He alleged that the ordinanance represents unconstitutional retroactive punishment, violating the U.S. Constitution as well as the Indiana Constitution.
Valenti’s new lawsuit, also filed with the ACLU’s assistance, takes aim at the state law that keeps registered sex offenders out of school properties.
He alleges that the absentee ballot process is inferior in many ways to traditional, location-based polling, according to court documents.
Voters must apply for absentee ballots, which must be mailed back to the election board before specific times, and the process encourages early voting, documents say.
“By voting early, absentee voters are deprived of any information pertinent to their vote that surfaces in the late stages of the election campaign, which could affect how they vote,” according to court documents.
He contends that there is no reason why his right to in-person voting should be “burdened by prohibiting him from voting in-person,” the documents say.
Valenti seeks an injunction prohibiting the law’s enforcement on Election Day; a declaration that the law is unconstitutional; and costs and fees, according to court documents.
“The right to vote is fundamental in a democracy,” said Jan Mensz, ACLU of Indiana staff attorney in a new release Tuesday. “Therefore, any attempt to impinge on that right must be justified by sufficiently weighty government interests. This statute does not meet that test.” ,,Source.. by Rebecca S. Green
August 18, 2015
Suit: Law impedes sex offender’s voting rights
8-18-15 Indiana:
HARTFORD CITY – The Indiana Civil Liberties Union of Indiana on Wednesday filed a federal class action lawsuit on behalf of a Hartford City man concerned that a change in state law might impede his ability to vote.
A new law went into effect July 1 that prohibits “serious sex offenders” from entering school property.
“One of the consequences of this is that these persons will be prohibited from voting at their designated polling place if it is located on school property,” the ACLU’s suit, filed in U.S. District Court in Indianapolis, contends.
In 1993, Valenti was convicted of “lewd or lascivious acts with a child under 14 years” in California, drawing an eight-year sentence, according to the Indiana Sex and Violent Offender Registry.
According to the lawsuit, Valenti’s crime occurred in 1988, and he has not been convicted of “any other sex offenses against children either before or after that time.”
Valenti — who moved to Hartford City in 2014 — will be required to register with local authorities as a sex offender for the rest of his life, at least so long as he remains in Indiana.
“Mr. Valenti is registered to vote and intends to vote in future elections, including the upcoming municipal election on Nov. 3,” the suit states. “The polling place for Mr. Valenti’s precinct, however, is located on school property.”
The suit — filed by ACLU attorneys Kenneth Falk and Jan Mensz — acknowledges Valenti has the option of voting by absentee, but calls that an “onerous” process.
The lawsuit also says Valenti “would like to talk to people, including electioneers and candidates, outside of polling places.”
The Hartford City man “views voting in person on Election Day as a celebration of his right to vote and... something that should be shared publicly with his community.”
Defendants in the suit are Indiana Secretary of State Connie Lawson, the Indiana Election Board, Blackford County Prosecutor Kevin Basey and Doug Carter, superintendent of the Indiana State Police.
Valenti and the ACLU filed another federal suit in March, questioning the legality of a Hartford City ordinance concerning “child safety zones.”
That suit alleges the ordinance prevents Valenti from taking his child to the local library or area parks, visiting her school or attending church. ..Source.. by Douglas Walker
July 31, 2015
Sex offender says lifetime registration is unconstitutional
7-31-15 Indiana:
VALPARAISO | A Porter County man is challenging the constitutionality of an amended law increasing the time he must register as a sex offender from 10 years to his entire life.
Scott Miller said the Indiana Supreme Court ruled in 2013 that the amendment violates a prohibition in the Indiana Constitution against retroactively applying the law in certain cases like his own, according to the petition.
The prohibition applies when the offender is not a sexually violent predator, was required to register for 10 years when released from incarceration and was subsequently required to register for life as a result of amendments to the Indiana Sex Offender Registration Act, the petition says. He said all these requirements apply to his case.
Miller, through his Portage-based attorney Andrew Spica, is asking the court to absolve him from the requirement to register any longer as a sex offender.
The request is set for hearing at 2 p.m. Sept. 11 before Porter Superior Court Judge Bill Alexa.
The Porter County prosecutor's office had not yet filed its response as of Thursday.
Miller said he pleaded guilty Dec. 3, 1999, to child molesting between November 1996 and September 1997, according to his petition. He was sentenced to eight years behind bars, with six years suspended and to be served on formal probation.
When released from prison on Nov. 30, 2000, Miller said he was told he had to register as a sex offender for 10 years. State law was then amended July 1, 2001 to increase the registration period for his conviction to life.
Miller said his 10-year registration period ended Dec. 1, 2010, but he has continued to comply.
The Indiana Supreme Court ruling exempting his type case was handed down Jan. 10, 2013, he said. ..Source.. by Bob Kasarda
Appeals court: Second region sex offender not required to register
12-3-2012
INDIANAPOLIS | For the second time in less than a month, the Indiana Court of Appeals has declared it unconstitutional to require a Northwest Indiana man to register as a sex offender.
Terry Hough, 48, of Portage, was convicted of rape in 1993 in Pennsylvania. He served nearly four years in prison, completed his parole obligations in 1998 and then moved to Indiana.
Hough's conviction came prior to enactment of sex offender registration laws in either Indiana (1994) or Pennsylvania (1996). Porter Superior Judge Roger Bradford previously ruled forcing Hough to register would be an unconstitutional, retroactive punishment.
Republican Attorney General Greg Zoeller appealed that finding. In a 3-0 ruling, the Indiana Court of Appeals concluded Bradford got it right.
The appeals court acknowledged changes since made to Pennsylvania law would compel Hough's registration if he lived there. But as an Indiana resident, Hough is protected from retroactive punishment by the Indiana Constitution, the court ruled.
"To require that Hough register as a sex offender for a conviction pre-dating the enactment of (Indiana's Sex Offender Registration Act) would violate Indiana's constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws," Judge Paul Mathias wrote.
On Nov. 8, a separate three-judge Court of Appeals panel ruled Jerome Burton, of Hammond, convicted in 1987 of a sex crime in Illinois, is not required to register because his conviction came prior to creation of the Illinois and Indiana sex offender registries.
Zoeller spokesman Bryan Corbin said the attorney general's office is reviewing the rulings to decide whether to appeal to the state's highest court.
"The Indiana Supreme Court has held that the Indiana Constitution limits some of the circumstances in which the offender registration laws apply. So the courts are continuing to consider, case-by-case, the boundaries of those limits," Corbin said. "As state government's lawyer, the Indiana Attorney General's Office has a responsibility to help courts sort through these complex questions." by Dan Carden
July 2, 2015
ACLU: RFRA must let sex offenders worship at churches with schools
Given the intent of RFRA (to stop anything that interferes with a person's right to worship their religion) it is quite apparent the sex offender law violates RFRA. (Two articles below)7-2-2015 Indiana:
The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana filed a lawsuit Wednesday invoking the state's new Religious Freedom Restoration Act to contend that not allowing serious sex offenders to attend churches with attached schools is an undue burden on religious rights.
The lawsuit, filed on behalf of two unnamed sex offenders, challenges another new state law that bans registered sex offenders from entering school property — including when a parochial school is located on the same grounds as a church.
Under RFRA, the ACLU said, the government is placing an undue burden on the religious beliefs of sex offenders.
"This is a prime example as a place where people's religious rights are being burdened, and therefore under RFRA the state has to justify that," said ACLU of Indiana legal director Ken Falk. "It makes no sense to ban people on a Sunday if there are kids there on a Thursday."
Serious sex offenders include sexually violent predators or those convicted of crimes such as child molestation, possession of child pornography or sexual misconduct with a minor.
The lawsuit in Elkhart Superior Court was filed against the prosecutors and sheriffs of Allen and Elkhart counties.
Indiana's new religious freedom law went into effect July 1. The law says if the government imposes an undue burden on the religious rights of individuals, businesses and religious organizations, it must prove a compelling interest and that it is using the least restrictive means possible.
The ACLU of Indiana opposed RFRA, arguing that the law would allow discrimination against gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender individuals. But Falk said the lawsuit uses RFRA "as it was originally contemplated" to protect religious freedom.
"We're not going to pretend it doesn't exist now," Falk said. "It does exist. The legislature said it wants to protect religious liberties, and that's exactly what we're trying to do."
This story will be updated. ..Source.. by Stephanie Wang Copy of Complaint on Indiana Law Blog
Sex offenders sue, cite Indiana's religious objections law
INDIANAPOLIS (AP) — A lawsuit filed on behalf of two registered sex offenders cites Indiana's new religious objections law in arguing they've been wrongly prohibited from worshipping at churches that have schools on the same property.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana filed the lawsuit Wednesday on behalf of two unnamed sex offenders, one of whom belongs to a Fort Wayne church and another who has attended an Elkhart church.
The lawsuit claims that a new state law banning many sex offenders from going onto school property at any time presents an unjustified burden on the men's religious liberties under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
Ken Falk, the ACLU of Indiana's legal director, called the additional sex offender restrictions absurd.
"The Legislature passes a law which says sex offenders cannot go into schools and it is being applied to people who are going to church or other religious observances during a time that there's no school in session," Falk said. "The law prohibits them from walking on that property — it's a felony to do so."
The religious objections law and the tougher sex offender restrictions both took effect Wednesday. The lawsuit said both men have regularly attended Sunday services and other events at their churches, but now fear being arrested if they do so.
The ban on sex offenders going onto school property gained little attention as it sailed through the state Legislature this year — clearing both the House and Senate without any votes cast against it.
A national outcry erupted after Republican Gov. Mike Pence signed the religious objections law in late March, with critics saying it would provide a legal defense for discrimination against gays, lesbians and others. It prohibits any government actions that would "substantially burden" a person's ability to follow his or her religious beliefs."If you have any hope of rehabilitation, religion works for some people. Telling them they can't go to church doesn't make much sense," said Laycock, the lead writer of an analysis supporting the Indiana religious objections law. The analysis was frequently cited by the bill's sponsors.
Douglas Laycock, a constitutional scholar at the University of Virginia Law School who helped win passage of the 1993 federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, said he believes the ACLU lawsuit has merit and that making it a crime to attend church services is a major burden on a person's religious practices.
Laycock said he's not aware of similar cases involving religious objections laws in the 19 other states with similar statutes.
Indiana Senate President Pro Tem David Long issued a statement blasting the ACLU of Indiana's filing of the lawsuit after the group opposed the religious objections law as it was debated in the General Assembly.
"The ACLU used to be a staunch supporter of religious liberty," said Long, a Republican. "Now they've reduced themselves to making a mockery of it. On top of this, they also support endangering our children while championing the rights of sex offenders. It's a sad day for the ACLU."
The lawsuit, filed in Elkhart County Superior Court, names the prosecutors and sheriffs of Allen and Elkhart counties as defendants. Neither prosecutor's office had immediate comment Thursday on the lawsuit.
Falk said the lawsuit is serious and that the group has long worked to protect the right to worship.
"Regardless of what we said about the law, it is the law now," he said. "This is a very conservative use of the law." by TOM DAVIES
April 15, 2015
Disabled sex offender allowed to sue sheriff
See: County agrees to pay $40K to inmate injured in jail4-15-15 Indiana:
A federal lawsuit brought against the Tippecanoe County Sheriff’s Office last year by a disabled inmate will proceed toward trial, thanks to a judge’s green light earlier this month.
Anthony Scott Overla, a convicted sex offender whose right leg is amputated below the knee, was assigned a top bunk in Tippecanoe County Jail, according to a civil complaint filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana.
Despite officers and medical staff in the jail being made aware that Overla uses a prosthetic leg, they failed to meet the inmate’s repeated requests for a bottom bunk and chair to use in the shower, the suit alleges.
As a result, he sustained an injury March 31, 2013, jumping from the top bunk, which wasn’t equipped with a ladder, according to the suit.
“I have a liner and a gel pack that goes on my leg. There is a pin in there that ruptured my stump and snapped in two pieces,” Overla said during a Jan. 8 hearing in the U.S. District Court of Northern Indiana, according to an official court transcript made public this week.
Overla said he made at least 30 oral complaints and repeatedly requested — but never received — grievance forms to seek medical treatment for his broken prosthesis and leg, which later developed a bacterial infection.
Multiple jail officers failed to log Overla’s complaints, the suit alleges.
“Some of them told me it wasn’t grievable. Some of them told me they would get back to me. Some of them told me they would talk to a sergeant. And some didn’t say anything,” Overla said, according to the transcript.
Kelly Eskew, one of two ACLU staff attorneys representing Overla, said Tuesday that her client went seven months before receiving adequate medical attention — after he was transferred to the Indiana Department of Correction.
“And that’s just unconscionable,” she said.
Federal law stipulates that an inmate cannot bring a claim in court against a jail unless and until he or she has exhausted the facility’s internal grievance process.
Eskew said the law is designed “to create a hurdle” between inmates and the court.
“But sometimes it just prevents lawsuits,” she said.
Well aware of that hurdle, Eskew and fellow attorney Ken Falk spent months preparing for the Jan. 8 hearing, at which they argued that Overla had exhausted every step of the grievance process available to him.
Doug Masson, who has represented the Tippecanoe County Sheriff’s Office more than a decade, countered the ACLU’s claims. He called six witnesses during the hearing, including former Sheriff Tracy Brown and jail administrator Capt. Denise Saxton.
Masson argued that Overla is ineligible to proceed with the lawsuit because he failed to exhaust all administrative remedies available at the jail.
Saxton, three officers and the jail nurse testified that they had no record of any complaints from Overla, although they all admitted it’s possible some complaints weren’t logged properly.
Eskew said the jail’s complaint process fell apart in practice, causing her client to suffer significant harm.
“They have a written grievance process, and it was not followed,” she said. “Every jail officer that we deposed ... had a different understanding of how that process worked, and they implemented it differently.”
U.S. District Judge Joseph Van Bokkelen found that Overla had presumptively done everything he could to complain about his living conditions, even though additional options spelled out in the jail’s policy book remained beyond his reach.
“A ‘dose of common sense’ leads the Court to conclude that (Overla) was mislead on the grievance process, the jail personnel have a poor understanding of the Jail’s grievance procedure, and (Overla) exhausted all of the remedies available to him,” the judge wrote Feb. 20.
It would be unreasonable to assume that Overla remained silent about his injury for months on end, Bokkelen added.
“It is much more plausible,” he wrote, “to infer that (Overla) was continually misled on the grievance procedure by jail staff, either purposely or inadvertently, which frustrated his efforts to exhaust his administrative remedies.”
Bokkelen clarified his order April 2 in response to a request from Masson to reconsider.
The decision means Overla and the ACLU have permission to continue pressing for damages.
“The fact that he’s cleared this hurdle now puts him on even footing with someone who’s not in jail who’s filed a lawsuit,” Masson said Tuesday.
Moving forward with the discovery process, Masson said, the focus will shift from the grievance process to the allegations Overla raises.
“Once we’ve conducted discovery on those substantive issues, we’ll see if we have grounds to move for summary judgment on any or all of his claims,” Masson said.
Eskew said Overla’s case raises several significant constitutional issues and involves alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and deliberate indifference to an inmate’s medical needs.
Although the ACLU isn’t seeking injunctive relief in this case, the organization does hope to improve medical conditions and the grievance process inside Tippecanoe County Jail, she added.
The parties have until early 2016 to complete the discovery process, Masson said, noting that he’s offered some advice to jail staff in the meantime.
“My recommendation has been to emphasize keeping even more meticulous records because it makes it even easier to respond to these sorts of cases,” he said.
Overla was incarcerated at the time of his alleged injury for failing to register as a convicted sex offender. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to six years with the Indiana Department of Correction, where he remains in custody.
His earliest possible release date is in September.
Overla, 29, was 15 years old in 2000 when he was adjudicated a delinquent child for criminal sexual abuse in Macon County, Illinois, according to Tippecanoe Superior Court 1 records.
He was ordered to register as a sex offender for 10 years but failed to do so in 2006, 2009 and 2013, court records state.
He was sentenced to a stint in prison for each conviction, and his decade on the sex offender registry started over each time he was released. ..Source.. by Steven Porter
March 15, 2015
Sex offender fights restraint law
See also: Sex-Offender Limits in Indiana Inspire Lawsuit3-15-15 Indiana:
Challenges Hartford City child safety zones
Convicted sex offender Brian Valenti would like to take his daughter bowling. And to church.
And although it’s been more than 20 years since he was convicted of the crime in Los Angeles County, California, the 47-year-old Blackford County man is prohibited from doing those and other activities with his daughter because of a Hartford City ordinance.
Valenti is a registered sex offender, and under Indiana law is prohibited from living within so many feet of certain places where children congregate. Hartford City’s ordinance keeps him out of child safety zones.
Valenti wants those freedoms back and, alongside the ACLU of Indiana (See ACLU list of court actions), is fighting the small Blackford County city, according to a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Fort Wayne.
Hartford City’s ordinance appears to be the only one of its kind in the northern section of the state. Similar ordinances in other states are being challenged in court and their efficacy is debated by experts and law enforcement. Locally, those in charge of the sex offender registry don’t want to see Fort Wayne or Allen County take a similar tack.
Messages left for the Hartford City attorney and the ACLU seeking additional comment were not returned.
A step further
Enacted in 2008, the Hartford City ordinance is to protect from the “extreme threat to the health, safety, and welfare of children” posed by sex offenders who are required to register.
The ordinance is designed to create areas around locations where children regularly congregate, and prohibits registered sex offenders from loitering or establishing residence in those areas.
The ordinance prohibits residency within 1,000 feet of schools, public parks, playgrounds, child care institutions or other places where children regularly congregate. Such a prohibition is consistent with state law.
But Hartford City took its ordinance a step further. It bans registered sex offenders from loitering within 300 feet of the “child safety zones” and bars them from entering the premises of these places. It defines loitering as “standing or sitting idly.”
The ordinance identifies child safety zones as public parks, private and public schools, public libraries, amusement arcades, video arcades, indoor and outdoor amusement centers, amusement parks, public or commercial or semiprivate swimming pools, child care facilities, child care institutions, public or private athletic complexes, crisis shelters or centers, bowling alleys, skate parks or rinks, public or private youth centers, movie theaters, Scouting facilities or offices of child protective services.
Those caught violating the ordinance are given a $200 fine. According to court records, Valenti was ticketed for violating the ordinance just days after he filed his lawsuit.
On Jan. 23, a Hartford City police officer ticketed Valenti as he waited in his brother’s car across the street from a school, waiting to pick up his child.
“He does not believe he was in the vehicle ‘idly,’ although, admittedly, he does not know what that word means,” Valenti’s attorney, Kenneth Falk, wrote in the lawsuit. “There are numerous other areas throughout Hartford City, such as homes that are licensed to provide day care, near which he may not ‘loiter’. In addition to not knowing what ‘loiter’ means, he also does not know the location of all these areas.
“Moreover, the inability to ‘loiter’ near Child Safety Zones is burdensome,” Falk continued. “He is unable to wait for his child, for example, if (the child) were to go bowling or were to join the YMCA, because he cannot even stay in these locations’ parking lots.”
According to the lawsuit, Valenti’s wife is disabled and cannot drive.
In his lawsuit, Valenti claims the ordinance is vague, arbitrary, and irrational, and in violation of the due process clause of the 14th Amendment to U.S. Constitution.
He also alleges it represents unconstitutional retroactive punishment, also in violation of the U.S. Constitution as well as the Indiana Constitution.
Because he is unable to attend church, under the advice of law enforcement because of the law, Valenti also alleges the ordinance violates his rights to freely practice his religion.
And when he tries to vote in person in an election, he is prohibited from doing that as well, as his polling place is located inside an elementary school. That, Valenti, said is a violation of another constitutional right.
He is seeking preliminary and permanent injunctions to keep the ordinance from being enforced, as well as costs and damages.
Adding rules
In Allen County, Sheriff’s Department Cpl. and Detective Jeff Shimkus is one of the people responsible for monitoring the sex offender registry.
He is not a fan of the registry restrictions, and he believes the idea of child safety zones is crazy. To his knowledge, no other community in northeastern Indiana has enacted such a rule.
“It is really, really difficult for these people to find some place to live,” Shimkus said. “We do not need to add any more logistical problems to the registry. It really makes it difficult for them to reintegrate into the society and have some kind of normal life.”
“You keep adding rules and adding rules,” he continued. “That could cause someone to give up and act out.”
Why should an offender, who has obeyed the law and served his or her time and not re-offended, be prohibited from attending a grandchild’s school play, he asked.
Shimkus would rather have a registered sex offender living next to his home, and next to an elementary school, than have a sex offender choose not to register in order to have an easier time finding a place to live.
The registry is about narrowing the victim pool, by saying to parents, look this is not the person you want to hire as a baby sitter. It is to give information, to place flags around the mines in the minefield, he said.
“The main thing is that parents need to be parents,” Shimkus said.
Thomas Stucky, an associate professor at IUPUI and the director of criminal justice and public safety programs, has been researching this issue for years.
And research, his and others, have been pretty consistent on the effectiveness of registries and other highly-restrictive laws concerning sex offenders.
They are not as effective in preventing sex crimes as they are intended to, he said.
He said such laws come out of the public’s desire to know their risks. But such logic is often faulty because there is frequently an assumption that those on the lists are the only dangers.
“There are clearly people who their desire is to commit sex offenses. Those people are a danger to the public. There’s no question about that,” Stucky said. To assume that those are the people on the registry is dangerous, he said.
Even the most serious offender will at some point in their life likely stop the behavior. According to Indiana court records, Valenti’s name appears only in his recent ticket handed to him by Hartford City police.
At some point, a person’s past behavior becomes less and less predictive of their future behavior, Stucky said.
But it is very difficult in today’s society for those individuals to climb out of that “always and forever a felon” category.
“We put a lot of roadblocks in place for people to follow the law after they have gotten out of prison,” he said. “The more roadblocks you put in front of people to follow the law, the less likely they are to do that.”
Sex offender registries are but one tool in combating sex crimes.
“The tragedy is that you are focused so much on physical proximity question,” Stucky said. “If I thought that actually did what it was purported to do, then I would support it. The data just doesn’t support it. This is in no way to try to impact the victimization of the victims,” Stucky continued. “The goal is to try to find the most effective public policy to reduce victimization.” ..Source.. by Rebecca S. Green
May 31, 2012
Judge hears fight to sex offenders' Facebook ban
5-31-2012 Indiana:
A federal judge said Thursday she plans to rule within a month on the constitutionality of an Indiana law that bans registered sex offenders from using social networking websites where they could prey on children.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana is heading the class-action suit on behalf of a man who served three years for child exploitation, along with other sex offenders who are restricted by the ban even though they are no longer on probation. Federal judges have barred similar bans in Nebraska and Louisiana. Similar restrictions remain in effect in New York, Illinois and North Carolina.
In a one-hour hearing at U.S. District Court in Indianapolis, Judge Tanya Walton Pratt questioned attorneys about convicted sex offenders' civil rights and whether the state law is outdated in the age of Facebook, LinkedIn and dozens of other social networking sites.
ACLU attorney Ken Falk argued that even though the 2008 law is only intended to protect children from online sexual predators, it also prevents sex offenders from using social media for political, business and religious activity such as using Facebook to follow the pope or comment on newspaper websites, posting a profile on LinkedIn or following presidential candidates on Twitter.
Falk said the law violates the rights of communication, receiving information and association, all of which the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled are guaranteed by the First Amendment. He also argued that the ban was unnecessary because Indiana already has a law that makes it a crime to use the Internet to contact a child for the purposes of sexual gratification.
Indiana Deputy Attorney General David Arthur argued that the 2008 ban is limited only to social networking sites that allow access by children, and that Facebook, Twitter and similar sites aren't the only forms of communication.
"We still have television. We still have radios. And believe it or not, people still talk face-to-face," he said. Arthur also said the ban doesn't apply to email or Internet message boards.
Falk said social media are almost indispensable. "It's not enough to say that the plaintiffs can still write letters or go to meetings," he said. "These are not adequate alternatives for instant communication."
Courts have long allowed states to place restrictions on convicted sex offenders who have completed their sentences, controlling where many of them live and work and requiring them to register with police. But Falk told Pratt that the social networking ban was far broader, restricting a wide swatch of constitutionally protected activities.
Arthur compared the social networking ban to laws barring sex offenders from school property and other places frequented by kids. Only in this case, he said, the place is virtual.
Similar social networking bans have been struck down in two other states.
In February, U.S. District Judge Brian Jackson found that Louisiana's prohibition was too broad and "unreasonably restricts many ordinary activities that have become important to everyday life."
Louisiana lawmakers passed a new law this month that more narrowly defines which sites are prohibited. News and government sites, email services and online shopping are excluded from the new rules, as are photo-sharing and instant-messaging systems. The measure takes effect Aug. 1.
In Nebraska, a federal judge in 2009 blocked part of a law that included a social networking ban. A second legal challenge by an Omaha-area sex offender is set for trial in July. ..Source.. by CHARLES WILSON
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
