1-19-17 New Jersey:
A trio of paroled sex offenders from New Jersey, is challenging state Parole Board rules that require them to submit to periodic polygraph examinations to determine whether they are properly complying with terms of their release.
The state Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the issue Tuesday on the regulations, which were issued by the Parole Board in 2006.
The state Appellate Division, as well as state and federal courts across the country, have upheld requirements that paroled sex offenders submit to polygraph examinations.
The three paroled sex offenders in New Jersey are arguing that mandatory polygraph exams violate their constitutional rights. They were convicted of unrelated sex crimes and are currently on parole and subject to the polygraph tests, in which they are asked about their routines and whether they may have been involved in illicit activities. The parolees were not identified by name.
Gordon Vaughan, of the Colorado Springs, Colorado, office of Vaughan & DeMuro and the general counsel to the American Polygraph Association, said nearly every state and federal jurisdiction has issued similar regulations. "Polygraph tests are authorized either by statute, regulation or post-conviction relief condition," Vaughan said.
The New Jersey Appellate Division, while upholding the Parole Board to administer polygraph tests, has ruled that the results cannot be used to impose further restrictions on parolees. The results can be used, however, to institute further investigations into a parolee's behavior.
"For centuries, humans have sought to detect lies. That continues today," said the parolees' lawyer, Michael Woyce. Polygraph tests, however, remain "inaccurate and unscientific," he said. "They are used as a fishing expedition," said Woyce, of Murphy & Woyce in Ringwood, during the hearing.
Woyce said a parolee who fails a polygraph test can be held until a parole violation hearing is held, which could stretch from one to three months.
Justice Faustino Fernandez-Vina asked if polygraph tests should be barred for paroled sex offenders.
"Yes, unless they are accompanied by counsel" and are allowed to invoke Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination," Woyce said, adding that parolees can be held pending violation hearings if they refuse to answer questions.
"Are these custodial hearings?" asked Justice Barry Albin. In a custodial hearing, a defendant can refuse to answer questions or demand to be represented by counsel.
"Yes. They are meant to extract information," Woyce said in response.
The Office of the Public Defender is not directly involved in the case since all three parolees have private counsel. The office did, however, receive permission to act as an intervenor. Deputy public defender Fletcher Duddy said the office objects to the use of the tests.
"They are historically inaccurate," he said, but added that the results often have an impact on a parolee's liberty interests.
At the least, Duddy argued, parolees should be allowed to be represented by counsel and be allowed to not answer questions without being charged with violating the terms of their parole.
Often, he said, the questions amount to: "Have you raped anybody today?" he said.
Deputy attorney general Daniel Vannella urged the court to uphold the regulations.
The use of the polygraph tests, he said, is intended to assist with the sex offender's therapy, not as a means to violate his or her parole.
"These challenges were properly rejected," Vannella said. "The questions asked [by a polygraph examiner] are no different than those asked by a parole officer, which [a parolee] is required to answer truthfully."
The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey, while not involved in the case, believes that paroled sex offenders should be afforded the right to counsel, and be warned that any answer they give to a polygraph examiner could be used against them at any further proceedings, said senior staff attorney Alexander Shalom. ,,Source.. by Michael Booth, New Jersey Law Journal
Showing posts with label Lawsuit - NJ. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lawsuit - NJ. Show all posts
January 19, 2017
Sex Offenders Challenge Constitutionality of Mandatory Lie Detector Tests
February 26, 2014
Alpha defamation lawsuit against anonymous online users dismissed
A defamation lawsuit filed by Alpha and a coalition of borough council members against anonymous online users has been dismissed.
New Jersey Superior Court Judge John Purcel tossed the 31-page lawsuit, citing a "failure to prosecute," court records say. According to a rule cited in the decision, if a civil complaint has been pending for four months and a required proceeding has not occurred, the judge will dismiss the case without prejudice after notifying the parties involved.
Court records indicate no action had been taken on the suit since it was filed last summer.
The judge's Jan. 31 dismissal of the lawsuit without prejudice allows for it to be refiled, but borough attorney Christopher Troxell said that was unlikely.
"The Borough of Alpha has chosen to not move forward," Troxell said today.
The borough, along with council members Louis Cartabona, Carol Schwar and Michael Schwar, as well as then-members Craig Dunwell and Michael Savary, filed the six-count suit in July against the anonymous users, including those behind a pair of Save Alpha social media accounts.
The council members claimed statements made by the posters, which included accusations of illegal activity and misconduct, hurt the borough and irreparably damaged their reputations.
Included in the lawsuit were pictures of posts made on the Twitter account @Save_Alpha and Facebook account of save.alpha.NOW as well as a posting on the "Defeat Dunwell" blog.
Among the statements the suit declared were defamatory was an accusation Dunwell had demanded a six-pack of beer in exchange for keeping a neighbor's utilities from being turned off for nonpayment. The lawsuit also cited a post which claimed five council members broke the New Jersey Open Public Meetings Act by meeting privately.
In August, several legal experts said the borough and council members may have been fighting an uphill legal battle in their defamation claims.
Cartabona declined to comment today, saying he was choosing silence "just in case the borough decides to tackle this problem of anonymous posters making comments that hurt the borough business in the future."
Dunwell, who lost a re-election bid in November, and Councilwoman Carol Schwar also declined comment when reached by phone. ..Source.. by Matthew Bultman
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
