3-20-15 New York:
Lawsuit is one of more than 2 dozen similar suits since start of last year
A former undergraduate student sued Cornell University, alleging the Ivy League school wrongly accused him of forcing himself on a female student.
The lawsuit, filed Thursday by a man referred to as John Doe, is the latest to be brought against a school amid a crackdown on campus sexual assaults. It contends Cornell violated his due-process rights when the school concluded he raped a fellow student after a party in December 2013 and then withheld his diploma.
The suit says the Ithaca, N.Y., university “cherry-picked witness statements,” “ignored important…statements” and judged the credibility of witnesses “without any ascertainable rationale or logic.”
A spokesman for Cornell declined to comment.
Since the start of last year, more than two dozen men have sued colleges and universities over such cases, largely alleging that the schools’ disciplinary processes are stacked against them. The number is a dramatic jump from just a few years ago.
Last week, a Boston College graduate sued the school, saying it failed to give him a fair hearing after accusing him of sexual assault.
A spokesman for Boston College said the school “stands by the findings of its administrators who adjudicated the case, and we intend to defend our decision in court.”
Some of the suits have already fallen flat. But actions brought against Swarthmore College in Pennsylvania and the University of Colorado led to settlements in which the schools either set aside sanctions or reduced them. Others have led to judicial rulings that questioned whether the schools’ disciplinary processes afford men a fair shake.
In recent years, colleges have made it easier for female students to initiate actions against men they accuse of sexual assault.
In 2011, citing hotly debated statistics that about 1 in 5 women is a victim of “completed or attempted” sexual assault in college, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights set forth new procedures for schools to follow when handling sexual assault and harassment claims.
Among other things, the Education Department recommended that alleged victims be required to prove only that it was “more likely than not” the harassment or violence occurred to hold an accused responsible. ..Continued.. by Ashby Jones
March 20, 2015
More Men Fight College Allegations of Sexual Assault
January 15, 2015
Sex Offender Battle Heading to Court
1-15-2015 New York:
West Seneca, NY – New York State moved seven registered sex offenders into group homes in West Seneca last year without telling the community. Ever since that happened, neighbors have been trying to get them to leave.
The sex offenders moved into the two group homes on Leydecker Road without warning last January. It has already been more than a year, and neighbors are still trying to find out how and why the state chose those houses on their road.
A group of concerned families meets regularly at the VFW on Leydecker Road. Wednesday night, they got an update from Assemblyman Mickey Kearns. Kearns told them a court date is tentatively set for next Friday in Albany for the judge to hear oral arguments.
When a Freedom of Information request revealed limited information, Kearns filed what's called an Article 78. It is designed to appeal the state's decision to release very little about the sex offenders in West Seneca.
"They're creating a policy, an insular policy, without informing us and informing the public. The public is scared. They don't like the decision that they made, and when I as an Assemblyperson, as an elected official, has to sue the state to get answers, that's wrong," says Kearns.
Neighbors vow to stay involved in the process, but many are not sure whether they will be able to take the day off to travel to Albany for the court date. Kearns will be there though.
"We don't want his to happen in any neighborhood. It's going on throughout all New York State. And, if we don't have a policy that takes care of all three groups of people, we're going to have a lot of problems not only in West Seneca or on Leydecker Road, but everywhere," says neighbor Lina Damore.
The three groups of people Damore is referring to are neighbors, the registered sex offenders, and the people who lived in the group homes before the sex offenders moved in. Neighbors are also worried about whether those individuals are still getting the care they need.
Kearns thinks the judge will make a quick decision about whether the state has to release more information. He is also calling on legislators to come up with new laws to protect communities this year.
"That's our job as legislators, to come up with a policy to make sure that where ever they are, they have to live somewhere, that it's not in a neighborhood, and it's in a safe place," Kearns said Wednesday.
In October, a judge granted the state's Office for People with Developmental Disabilities, the department in charge of group homes, a change of venue in the legal battle to reveal the state's policy on housing and moving sex offenders. Instead of being heard in Erie County, the Article 78 case will be heard in Albany. ..Source.. by Kelly Dudzik, WGRZ
May 25, 2013
County Executive Bellone announces implementation of Community Protection Act
5-25-2013 New York:
Implementation of "the strongest and toughest [sex offender] monitoring, verification and enforcement program in the nation" is now underway in Suffolk County, according to County Executive Steve Bellone, who called a press conference yesterday at Suffolk Police Headquarters in Yaphank to announce the recent arrests of eight registered sex offenders thanks to the stepped up enforcement program.
The Community Protection Act, unanimously adopted by the Suffolk County legislature in February, established a program for monitoring, verification and enforcement measures for convicted sex offenders required to register their addresses with local law enforcement agencies. Bellone proposed the measure after examining the county's existing policies regarding emergency housing for the county's approximately three dozen homeless sex offenders.
The county executive had pledged last May to close the two trailers — one in Riverside at the county jail and the other on county-owned land in Westhampton — which have been used by the county social services department as emergency housing for homeless registered offenders.
Early in 2013, Bellone announced that he wanted a more comprehensive policy and had tasked the county's police department with developing and overseeing its implementation.
"We are focusing on the more than 1,000 sex offenders who reside in this county ever single day, not just on the 3 or 4 percent, the handful, of sex offenders who may require emergency housing on any given night," Bellone said at the press conference.
Asked yesterday for an update on the timeframe when asked about the status of closing the homeless sex offender trailers located in Riverside and Westhampton, Bellone said he had "nothing new to report."
Bellone has called another press conference for 2 p.m. Friday afternoon at Riverhead Town Hall.
Resources required to enforce the new law will be funded by money originally allocated to the building and staffing of multiple sex offender facilities throughout the county, each facility housing multiple offenders, Bellone said. The Community Protection Act will come at a lower cost to the county than the original plan for sex offender facilities, he said.
"The message is loud and clear," regarding the arrest of eight sex offenders during only the first few days of enforcing the Community Protection Act, Bellone said.
"If you are a sex offender living in Suffolk County, you better tow the line or you will end up back in prison."
Of the eight people arrested, four of them, ___ were arrested for failing to have their photo taken. ___ was arrested for participating in computer activity involving sexually stimulating material, ___, of Central Islip, for failing to register a change of address, ___, of Bay Shore, for a vehicle and traffic law warrant and ___, of Amityville, for failing to report for his 90-day appearance.
A group of registered sex offenders have brought a federal lawsuit against Suffolk County seeking to overturn the Community Protection Act as well as county and town codes that place residency restrictions on registered offenders, which the plaintiffs argue make it impossible for them to find housing.
The county executive said if registered sex offenders don't want more monitoring, verification and enforcement, "thats too bad." ..Source.. by Emil Breitenbach Jr
August 31, 2011
Geneva can't pre-empt state SORA residency laws, says U.S. District
8-31-2011 New York:
The city of Geneva cannot impose residency requirements for convicted sex offenders that exceed state law.
U.S. District Judge Michael A. Telesca of the Western District of New York ruled last week that the state's Sex Offender Registration Act pre-empts the Ontario County municipality's local law. The suit was brought by Danny Terrance, 41, a Level 3 sex offender who notified the city of Geneva on April 26, 2010, that he had moved to a location within 500 feet of a playground.
Terrance was 29 on March 2, 1999, when he was convicted of first- degree sexual abuse of a 13-year-old girl in St. Lawrence County and sentenced to up to nine years in state prison. He was released in 2007 and adjudicated by the state Division of Criminal Justice Services as a Level 3 sex offender. The state classifies Level 3 as having a high-risk of committing another sexual offense.
State law, as a condition of parole or probation, prohibits Level 3 sex offenders whose victims were younger than 18 from living within 1,000 feet of a school.
Terrance had served his time and was no longer under state parole or probationary supervision when he notified the city he had moved. The location of his new residence violated the city's ordinance, Chapter 285, passed April 2, 2008, which prohibits Level 2 and 3 sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet from a school or 500 feet from a park, playground or daycare center, regardless of their parole or probationary status.
The city told Terrance he had 90 days to find new housing, according to the ordinance, or he would face a civil fine. Terrance challenged the local law. He was represented by Darius K. Lind and Jeffrey L. Hogue, attorneys with Legal Assistance of Western New York Inc.
Judge Telesca ruled there was a conflict because Terrance's new residence was not prohibited under state residency restrictions that apply only to Level 3 sex offenders who are also subject to a sentence of probation or parole.
Terrance filed a complaint in state court, asserting that Geneva's Chapter 285 is pre-empted by the state SORA law and that his rights under the ex post facto, equal protection, due process and contract clauses of the Constitution were violated.
Based on the constitutional challenges, Geneva removed the complaint to federal court. Terrance did not object.
The city, represented by Harris Beach PLLC attorneys H. Todd Bullard and James P. Nonkes, moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing Geneva's law was a proper exercise of a local government's police power to protect the safety and welfare of its citizens. Judge Telesca ruled the local law is pre-empted by the state's "comprehensive, detailed and thorough scheme for regulating sex offenders" and that Geneva's law is invalid.
"New York courts have on numerous occasions dealt with the issue of whether a municipal ordinance is invalid because the state Legislature has pre-empted the area that the municipality had sought to enter," Judge Telesca wrote, citing Village of Nyack v. Daytop Vil. Inc., 78 N.S. 2d 500, 505 (1991). "The pre-emption doctrine represents a fundamental limitation on a municipality's 'home rule' powers."
He notes because of the disposition, it was not necessary to rule on Terrance's federal constitutional claims.
"Our office felt this was a pretty clear-cut issue in that the state had developed a pretty comprehensive plan for the management of sex offenders," Lind said. "We're happy with the results and how quickly the court recognized it. The question is if his constitutional rights have been violated, does he pursue some sort of suit for damages?"
Lind said the next step will be to determine the extent of harm Terrance suffered. He said the initial complaint included a claim for damages that he does not believe has been extinguished by Judge Telesca's ruling.
"This has really been about Mr. Terrance being able to live with his family and not have to move," Lind said. "His goal has never been to get any money from the city or anything like that. Whether or not we pursue it, we're going to have to determine that."
Lind said he can understand why local municipalities pass such restrictions, but that he doesn't think they are aware that there are restrictive rules that have been put in place by the state.
"To the extent that people are unhappy with them, they have to look to the state Legislature," he said. "When the state determines [sex offenders] can live back in society, our feeling is they should be able to live back in society. If people feel they still pose a threat, the state should pass more restrictive regulations."
That is what Geneva intends to pursue. City Attorney David Lee Foster said he doesn't believe it was the state's intention to pre- empt towns and cities from having their own statutes. He said state legislation usually allows local municipalities their own remedies.
Foster said he suspects the matter will be resolved either legislatively or on appeal, although the former resolution is more likely. He thinks the solution should eliminate pre-emption.
"Different-size municipalities have different issues," he said. "What would be OK for a dense population like New York City may not be acceptable for something like a small city in upstate. It seems to me that the Legislature did not intend to pre-empt this field."
Bullard said the city will not appeal. He said Geneva will redraft its resolution to make it more consistent with the court's ruling.
"There have been a lot of cases like this being raised across the state," he said. "Our intention is to protect children and we believe that our ordinance was reasonable. I think this is a very important issue and I think that it's something that Geneva holds at a higher light of great importance. Obviously, we weren't trying to stigmatize anyone or do anything improper."
Bullard said the state law should be broader and that municipalities should be able to craft legislation to protect their children and communities.
Hogue hopes the decision discourages other municipalities from pursuing legal action. He said Legal Assistance of Western New York is the only legal services provider in a five-county area so it does not take cases unless they have strong legal merit.
"When this city or another agency hears that we're taking a case, it means it made it through our triage process," Hogue said. "Our hope is that they'll pick up the phone and discuss the merits of the case with us and hopefully resolve the matter so we can go about helping other low-income people in our service territory."
Several local ordinances across the state have been struck down. Nassau County's law was ruled invalid in March by a federal judge for similar reasons. Judges in Albany, Rensselaer and Schuyler counties have also ruled similar laws were pre-empted by the state or unenforceable because they conflicted with state law.
Three counties in the Fourth Department -- Cayuga, Niagara and Seneca -- have their own sex offender residency restrictions.
"No one has challenged the local law in Seneca County," said County Attorney Frank R. Fisher. "When they do, we will deal with it appropriately."
Seneca County's law, passed in October 2006, prohibits convicted sex offenders from living within 500 feet from a camp, daycare center, park, playground or school. Certain exemptions are allowed such as permitting people who already lived within the restrictions to remain.
See also Doe v. County of Rensselaer 24 Misc. 3d 1215 (A), 901 N.Y.S. 2d 898, (2009) and People v. Blair 23 Misc. 3d 902, 873 N.Y.S. 2d 890 (2009). ..Source.. by Denise M Champagne
August 22, 2011
Law on sex offenders' residences spurs suit
8-22-2011 New York:
North Tonawanda rule exceeds state buffer zone
NORTH TONAWANDA -- Three-time child molester Dale L. Goff wants to live in North Tonawanda and is suing the city to overturn a law that he says prevents him from doing so.
Goff, who is on the state's list of its most dangerous sex offenders, has been eligible for parole from state prison since March, but he remains behind bars because the state Division of Parole has vetoed his proposed residence.
North Tonawanda has a law that bars major sex offenders from living within one-quarter mile of any school, park, playground or other facility where children congregate.
That's 1,320 feet, and according to the lawsuit, that is exactly the distance between a school and the place where Goff wants to live.
Attorney Kathy Manley of Albany said the North Tonawanda law must be overturned because the state Division of Parole has a 1,000-foot buffer zone rule between schools and sex offenders' residences.
If the state prohibits something, no local government may pass a tougher law on the subject, the lawyer contends.
The lawsuit doesn't mention where Goff wants to live nor the school it would be near.
Manley succeeded in invalidating sex offender buffer zone laws of more than 1,000 feet in Albany, Rensselaer and Schenectady counties, and other attorneys have won similar cases in Rockland and Saratoga counties.
North Tonawanda City Attorney Shawn P. Nickerson isn't taking the lawsuit lying down.
"We will certainly defend our legislation to prevent those folks from living near where children frequent," he said.
Nickerson said Level 3 offenders, such as Goff, are "the highest risk factor for recidivism."
Manley, who is on the legal committee of the Albany chapter of the New York Civil Liberties Union, said she thinks buffer zone laws are constitutional, but unwise.
"It probably would be upheld as a condition of probation or parole. They have a lot of leeway," she said.
But the Sex Offender Registration Act should be enough for the public to keep track of offenders, Manley says. It requires sex offenders to report their home addresses to the state, which posts them online in the cases of Level 2 and 3 offenders.
Because of buffer zone laws, some sex offenders avoid reporting as finding a place to live becomes difficult, and that defeats the purpose of registration laws, Manley said.
Buffer zone laws "drive people underground because they can't find any place to live," she said. "It basically banishes them. There are no statistics showing they're effective in any way."
The same point was made earlier this month in a State Supreme Court hearing by John R. Nuchereno, a local defense attorney who represents sex offenders when the state tries to commit them to mental institutions for life under New York's civil confinement law.
"It's my understanding that people being released from prison as sex offenders ... are being returned to prison for lack of suitable housing," Nuchereno said.
The state Division of Criminal Justice Services seems to agree with Manley. In a "Myths and Facts" page on the sex offender registry website, the agency writes, "Myth: Residency restrictions make communities safer."
It cites statistics from the U.S. Justice Department that show 93 percent of sex crime victims under age 17 were assaulted by someone they knew, and 84 percent of sexual assaults on children under 12 occurred in a home.
Goff's lawsuit says the North Tonawanda law impinges on his liberty "by effectively preveting him from being released from prison."
Goff's conditional release date was March 17, the day he became eligible for parole on a six-year sentence he received in 2006 from then-Niagara County Judge Peter L. Broderick Sr. for a guilty plea to a reduced charge of attempted first-degree sexual abuse.
Goff, who was living on Hawley Street in Lockport at the time of his crime, knocked on the door of a Walnut Street home to ask to use the phone, and while he was in the house, Goff reached under a 5-year-old girl's clothing.
Goff remains in Gowanda Correctional Facility because of his determination to live in North Tonawanda and the parole department's ruling that his preferred address violates the city's buffer zone law.
Goff already was a Level 3 sex offender because of a 1992 conviction for molesting two boys, ages 6 and 10, in Lockport.
Another Level 3 sex offender recently tried to overturn Niagara County's 1,000-foot buffer zone, but his case was dismissed Aug. 4 by State Supreme Court Justice Richard C. Kloch Sr.
Lamont Walker, 47, said he was being barred from Niagara Falls by the law, but Kloch said he is aware of other sex offenders living in the Falls whose addresses were approved by parole. He said Walker didn't offer any addresses for consideration.
Walker, a former Falls resident, was convicted of first-degree rape in Schenectady in 1994 and was approaching parole on a 20-year sentence. ..Source.. by Thomas J. Prohaska
February 17, 2011
Sex offender sues county over laws that limit his options on where he can live in the community
2-17-2011 New York:
BALLSTON SPA — An anonymous sex offender using the pseudonym John Doe is suing Saratoga County in Supreme Court, challenging a county law that restricts where sex offenders can live and work.
Local law 1-06 prevents registered sex offenders from residing or working within 1,000 feet of schools, child-care facilities, parks, playgrounds or public swimming pools.
It was enacted by the Board of Supervisors in 2006, and in the past six months, three people have been charged with violating the law; one in Moreau, one in Ballston Spa and another in Mechanicville. All three have challenged the law.
In Moreau, the judge found in favor of the defendant and against the law. In Ballston Spa, the judge decided against the defendant, and the case was appealed.
"I used essentially the identical motion that I used in Moreau," First Assistant County Attorney Richard Kupferman said.
The case in Mechanicville is still pending.
John Doe’s case, though, is different. The lawsuit contends that Saratoga County Local Law 1-06 is unconstitutional and violates New York state preemption principles.
"It is not filled with any of the complications of someone having been charged," Kupferman said.
While his identity remains anonymous, the lawsuit states that Doe is a level-one sex offender. There are three levels of sex offenders; level one is described as "low risk" by the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services.
Doe was convicted of a third-degree criminal sexual act and two related misdemeanors after having sexual contact with a 15-year-old girl in Essex County in 2008. He served 15 months in jail, according to the lawsuit, and is not on probation or parole.
The lawsuit states that Doe lives in Clifton Park but wants to move to Ballston Spa to live with his girlfriend. He was informed by the Saratoga County Sheriff’s Department, though, that local law 1-06 would prevent him from doing so.
Kupferman said he discussed the Moreau case with the public defender’s office about the differences between the two rulings and "that is why they brought the appeal into county court."
Doe’s case contends that the law violates both the New York state and U.S. constitutions by denying him due process to "show that he does not pose any risk to children." It also contends that other New York state laws, such as probation and parole regulations and the Sex Offender Registration Act, preempt the law.
"When the Supreme Court of Saratoga County speaks, it will be the highest precedent to date," he said, which would mean that lower courts would have to abide by the court’s decision. However, he pointed out that whichever way it goes, it could still be appealed to a higher court. ..Source.. by LUCIAN McCARTY, The Saratogian
