ACLU loses appeal in challenging sex offender GPS monitoring

See: Delaware's sex offender GPS monitoring upheld

3-6-17 Delaware:

DOVER, Del. — Delaware’s Supreme Court has rejected a challenge from the American Civil Liberties Union to a law requiring GPS monitoring of certain sex offenders who have been released from prison and are on probation.

After hearing arguments Wednesday, the court issued a two-sentence order Friday upholding a Chancery Court decision in favor of the state.

The ACLU sued on behalf of three high-risk sex offenders, including a rapist and a female accomplice to rape and sodomy. They complained that wearing GPS monitors was embarrassing, sometimes painful and an invasion of privacy. The ACLU said the monitoring amounted to an unconstitutional search under the Fourth Amendment.

The Supreme Court previously ruled that such GPS monitoring was not punitive, meaning the 2007 law could be applied retroactively to criminals convicted before its passage. ..Source.. by Randall Chase

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Supreme Court weighs sex offender GPS monitoring

UPDATE: ACLU loses appeal in challenging sex offender GPS monitoring

3-2-17 Delaware:

An attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Delaware is arguing to the state Supreme Court that it is unconstitutional for some sex offenders to automatically be required to wear and pay for GPS monitoring while on probation.

The state Legislature passed a law in 2007 that required all Tier 3 sex offenders – or those convicted of the most serious offenses including first-degree and second-degree rape – to wear an ankle bracelet so that probation and parole officers can track their movements.

Attorney Richard H. Morse called this unconstitutional and told the justices in Dover on Wednesday that a Chancery Court judge erred by tossing out the ACLU's lawsuit challenging the law last August.

He argued the monitoring is an invasion of their privacy and does not increase public safety because not all of the Tier 3 sex offenders wearing monitors are considered a high risk of re-offense. Instead, the monitoring should be used only on a case-by-case basis for those the court or prison deems high risk, he said.

"If the sentencing judge says, 'Once this person gets on probation, given what I know about this person, he should be monitored,' we have no argument with that," Morse said at the hearing. "But there is enough of a privacy interest to not have the government know where you are every minute, and you lose that privacy interest only if the judge or parole board says you should lose it."

Deputy Attorney General Joseph C. Handlon, however, argued that the law is constitutional and that Tier 3 sex offenders can have no legitimate expectation of privacy.

Chief Justice Leo E. Strine Jr. questioned Handlon about how the monitoring was not an additional form of punishment, especially when the offender must pay $4.65 per day for the device and can incur a debt if they do not do so.

Handlon said it helps reintegrate sex offenders back into the community, just like giving a drug addict treatment while he or she is on probation or parole.

"This requirement ... is but one component of a broader, comprehensive regulatory scheme in place designed to successfully reintegrate sex offenders back into society in lieu of incarceration without causing further harm to the public as a result," he wrote in court documents. "Delaware is not alone in establishing a system that pays heed to sex offenses and their societal costs."

The arguments Wednesday stemmed from a lawsuit filed by the ACLU against former prison Commissioner Robert Coupe in May 2015. It was brought on behalf of two sex offenders whose identities are being kept confidential with court approval.

The ACLU claimed the law was unconstitutional because it invaded the offender's privacy and retroactively applied to those convicted for crimes that happened before 2007. The lawsuit said the GPS monitor caused soreness and bruising around the ankle of the offenders.

In August, a judge granted summary judgment to Coupe, rejecting the ACLU's challenge. The ACLU appealed to the Supreme Court.

The court is expected to make a decision in the coming months. ..Source.. by Jessica Masulli Reyes

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Judge: Sex offender GPS monitoring lawsuit can proceed

7-16-15 Delaware:

A judge has refused to dismiss a Chancery Court lawsuit challenging a state law that requires certain sex offenders on probation to wear an ankle GPS monitor.

The suit, filed in May by the American Civil Liberties Union, claims that the GPS monitoring law, enacted in 2007, is unconstitutional because it is being applied to those convicted of crimes that happened before 2007.

The law requires certain high-risk sex offenders, categorized as Tier III, wear and pay for GPS monitors.

Vice Chancellor Donald F. Parsons, Jr. ruled Tuesday that the suit against Department of Correction Commissioner Robert Coupe can proceed.

The judge rejected the Department of Correction’s argument that the case belonged in Superior Court, rather than Chancery Court.

He also rejected the argument that the suit could usurp the Superior Court’s authority to enforce Delaware’s laws or open a floodgate for other criminal defendants to seek relief from the Department of Correction.

“This case does not threaten to disrupt that balance,” Parsons wrote. “It is not a criminal action.”

The suit is being brought on behalf of three sex offenders who were convicted of crimes before 2007. ..Source.. by Jessica Masulli Reyes

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

ACLU of Delaware sues over sex offender GPS rule

5-6-15 Delaware:

The American Civil Liberties Union of Delaware has filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a state statute requiring certain sex offenders on probation to wear a GPS monitor and pay a daily charge.

"The plaintiffs in this suit and many others in the state are being forced to wear and pay for GPS monitors even though it has never been determined that monitoring them increases public safety," said ACLU-DE Legal Director Richard H. Morse, in a statement.

The requirement was enacted in 2007 for high-risk sex offenders, categorized as Tier III. The ACLU says the rule is unconstitutional because it also is being applied to those convicted of crimes that happened prior to 2007.

The suit is being brought on behalf of three plaintiffs whose identities are being kept confidential with court approval. All three were convicted of offenses before the 2007 law was enacted, the ACLU said.

The state Supreme Court in 2011 ruled that the requirement could be applied to those convicted before 2007. ..Source..w/complaint.. by Delwaware On Line

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Misguided legislation won’t protect children

2-27-2015 Delaware, National:

This week, my graduate seminar at the University of Delaware hosted several scholars who study sex trafficking, both trafficking laws and the people they affect. Together, this group of scholars and activists from around the world share some common concerns about what happens when well-meaning policymakers use the wrong tools to address problems. Sen. Chris Coons has the opportunity to address one aspect of this with the bill pending now in the Senate Foreign Relations committee, H.R.515, International Megan's Law to Prevent Demand for Child Sex Trafficking.

While the proposed law would like to end exploitation of children, the approach it proposes will not help.

The law focuses on people listed in sex offender registries (or Megan’s law databases). The core problem with this approach is that empirical research has established that people on the registry are not the ones who will commit new sex crimes.

The U.S. Department of Justice’s own 2002 study shows this: New sex offenses are much more likely to be committed by people not already caught or registered as sex offenders. When the concern is sex trafficking, this is even more misguided, since no connection has ever been made between the two groups. Despite our fears of sex offenders, there is no empirical reason to expect registered sex offenders to be the ones exploiting children abroad.

Beyond this basic mistake in the target of the bill, it would create more unneeded bureaucracy: The U.S. Marshals Service already notifies receiving countries of registered sex offender travel.

Finally, in addition to not helping children, my own research shows how restrictions like these actually harm them. The family members of people on the registry experience many of the same restrictions. Just this week I spoke with someone who was not be able to have her brother walk her down the aisle, because he is registered for “sexting” six years ago. Even though his local and state law enforcement offices had approved his travel, when he changed planes in California he was prevented from leaving the country. On top of missing the wedding, he lost the $2,000 ticket.

Rather than add to the stigmas and other burdens that affect the families of sex offenders (who are also often the victims, since much sexual violence occurs within families).

I urge Sen. Coons to oppose H.R.515, in the interest of fairness, small government and the recognition of what will actually work to protect children. ..Source.. by Chrysanthi Leon is associate professor of sociology and criminal justice and women and gender studies at the University of Delaware.

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Delaware Supreme Court upholds constitutionality of bill barring sheriffs from making arrests

10-7-2013 Delaware:

The Delaware Supreme Court on Monday upheld a ruling that sheriffs in the state do not have police powers.

Currently, the duties of sheriffs in Delaware consist primarily of serving court papers and conducting property sales.

But after taking office in 2010, Sussex County Sheriff Jeff Christopher, a Republican elected with the help of tea party supporters, ordered his deputies to stop dangerous drivers and to execute arrest warrants. That led to efforts by state and county officials to rein him in.

His deputies were told by the county administrator in 2011 not to make traffic stops or take people into custody unless ordered by a court, and to remove emergency lights from sheriff's vehicles.

The attorney general's office, meanwhile, issued several nonbinding opinions concluding that sheriffs do not have police powers.

After state lawmakers stepped into the fray last year and explicitly barred sheriffs and their deputies from making arrests, Christopher sued the state and county, arguing that he is embodied with police powers by Delaware's constitution of 1897.

In a 26-page opinion, the justices affirmed a March ruling by a Superior Court judge who upheld the constitutionality of the bill passed in June 2012.

Christopher, however, argued that lawmakers exceeded their authority in passing the legislation, and that they could not limit the power of sheriffs in such a drastic fashion without passing a constitutional amendment. The sheriff argued that because the Delaware constitution names sheriffs, among other officials, as "conservators of the peace," they have constitutional — not common-law — powers, which include arresting people in criminal cases.

The Supreme Court ruled that while the General Assembly cannot abrogate a constitutional office or take away the core duties of a constitutional officer without amending the constitution, the sheriff's common law arrest power is not a fundamental or a core duty of his constitutional role as a "conservator of the peace."

"Because the common law arrest power of a sheriff was not fundamental, but was merely incidental, to his role as a 'conservator of the peace' when the 1776, 1792, 1831, and 1897 Delaware Constitutions were adopted, the arrest power can be modified or even eliminated by statute," Justice Randy Holland wrote for the court.

Holland is the author of a reference guide to the Delaware constitution and a separate 100-year retrospective of the state's constitution of 1897, He said the term "conservator of the peace" has been used only to describe certain public officials and has never defined the powers of any specifically named constitutional office holder.

"The sheriff's argument to the contrary is without merit," he wrote.

In a history-laden opinion, Holland reaffirmed an 1863 court ruling that the legislature's power to enact laws regulating the duties of a constitutional office does not extend to taking away "the substance of the office itself..." But he said case law suggests that the "substance" of the office of sheriff was to assist the courts, not act as a law enforcement officer.

"Our examination of Delaware history reflects that throughout the eighteenth, nineteenth and most of the twentieth century, the sheriff retained his common law power to arrest for offenses committed in his presence. However, general law enforcement responsibilities were never the substance of the office of sheriff in Delaware," Holland wrote.

Spokesmen for Sussex County and the attorney general's office had no immediate comment on the ruling. An attorney for Christopher did not immediately respond to messages seeking comment. ..Source.. by RANDALL CHASE

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

ACLU Settles Lawsuit Over Sex Offender Residence

10-2-2013 Delaware:

WILMINGTON, Del. (AP)- The American Civil Liberties Union has agreed to settle a federal lawsuit challenging a Dover ordinance that prohibits sex offenders from living within 500 feet of day care centers.

The ACLU filed the lawsuit in February on behalf of Michael A. Justice, a registered sex offender who began living at his mother's apartment before the ordinance was adopted.

The ACLU said in a statement Tuesday that because the city has added a grandfather clause to the ordinance and Justice can stay in his home, there's no need for a court ruling.

But ALCU officials said the ordinance is still problematic, and that they are ready to file another lawsuit on behalf of other sex offenders who want to move to a prohibited area or work near a daycare center. ..Source.. by WBOC16.com

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Dover amends sex offender registry ordinance in response to federal lawsuit

6-7-2013 Delaware:

DOVER, Del. — The city council in Dover has revised an ordinance that bars registered sex offenders from living near day care centers.

The council voted 6-2 on Tuesday to allow residents on the registry who already live within 500 feet of a day care center to stay in their homes.

The change is aimed at resolving a federal lawsuit brought earlier this year. The American Civil Liberties Union of Delaware sued on behalf of Michael Justice, an offender who would have been forced to move.

Council President Dave Bonar says the change allows Justice and another offender to stay in their homes. He says the city will work to have the lawsuit amicably dismissed and ask state legislators to address the issue so municipalities won’t have to. ..Source.. by Washington Post

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Suit: Pastor gave sex offender chance to kill

4-24-2013 Delaware:

A Delaware pastor is accused of contributing to a woman's death by allowing a violent sex offender to temporarily keep his church job, according to a civil suit.

According to the suit filed by the woman's husband last week, Pastor Danny Tice of the Bay Shore Community Church in Millsboro learned that his janitor was on probation for multiple sex crimes.

But instead of firing Thomas Burton, Tice gave him two weeks to find another job.

Burton's last day was June 14, 2012.

It was also the day Nicole Bennett, mother of three young daughters and the director of the church day-care, disappeared.

A hiker found Bennett's body the next morning along a dirt road just over the Maryland state line.

She had been raped and strangled, police said.

In his wrongful death suit, Kevin Bennett says Tice is at fault because he never alerted his wife that Burton had a violent criminal history.

"The death of Nicole Bennett was a direct and proximate cause of the negligent actions of Tice, who was acting in the scope of his employment when he failed to adequately warn Nicole Bennett of the risk presented by fellow employee Burton, and this failure led to Nicole Bennett's death," the suit states. The Bennett family is represented by Wilmington attorney Bart Dalton.

Nicole Bennett, 35, was devoted to her family and her church. On June 14, she called home to let them know she would be working late at the church to finish up a day-care mailing. She was left alone with Burton.

Two weeks before, according to the suit, Tice learned that Burton had been previously charged in 2004 with 12 counts of rape in multiple sex assaults on a child. Burton ended up pleading guilty to related misdemeanor charges and was released on probation. But Burton, according to a statement put out by the church, did not initially disclose that information to Tice.

It's unclear what happened the night Nicole Bennett was slain. Police found her minivan at the church. But on July 16, police arrested the 28-year-old Burton on the basis of DNA evidence.

In August, a grand jury in Maryland indicted Burton on charges of first and second-degree murder, rape in the first degree, rape in the second degree, sex offense in the fourth degree, kidnapping and assault in the first degree.

Burton remains in a Maryland prison where he is awaiting trial. ..Source.. by Sam Wood

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Sex offender sues Dover for day care ordinance

2-8-2013 Delaware:

The city of Dover has been sued by a registered sex offender who says an ordinance enacted last year that bars him from living near a day care center and would force him to move from his current home is unconstitutional and should be struck down.

The Delaware chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union filed suit today on behalf of Michael A. Justice, who will be forced to vacate his Dover apartment when the ordinance takes effect in the coming months.

City Council enacted the ordinance last April, making it illegal for registered Tier II and Tier III sex offenders to live or work within 500 feet of commercial day care centers in the city. The ordinance specified that sex offenders residing too close to day care centers when the measure was enacted would have one year to find somewhere else to live.

Delaware ACLU director Kathleen MacRae said today that her group believes the part of the ordinance that will force some sex offenders to move constitutes “retroactive punishment” for their crimes.

“This case highlights the irrational and, frankly stupid, assumptions underlying the Dover ordinance,” McRae said. “Not only is this ordinance unconstitutional, it places an unfair burden on individuals who have already paid their debt to society and endangers the Dover community. It should be revoked.”

According to the lawsuit, Justice moved into his mother’s apartment on Long Island Court, located near a day care center, in January of last year after serving a jail sentence for fourth-degree rape. Justice, 45, had sex with a woman in December 2005, three months before her 18th birthday.

MacRae said Justice would not comment publicly on the case at this time.

State law prohibits sex offenders from living within 500 feet of schools, but when it was enacted, it did not compel sex offenders to vacate their established residences.

The ACLU says Dover’s residency restriction is outside the state’s existing framework for sex-offender punishment.

“By imposing restrictions greater than those imposed by the state, [the ordinance] conflicts with the state law in policy and operational effect, and interferes with the effective management and treatment of offenders by corrections, law enforcement, and social service agencies,” the lawsuit reads.

City officials received the court documents today and had no comment about the lawsuit.

“Copies were sent to the chief of police, the mayor has a copy, and our response will be based on advice from our attorney once we’ve had a chance to review the information,” said City Manager Scott Koenig.

The ordinance was drafted by Councilman Sean Lynn, who said day care centers should be afforded the same protections as schools when it comes to sex offenders residing nearby.

The ACLU lodged its opposition to the ordinance in the form of a letter sent to Council in late March, arguing that sex-offender residency restrictions have been shown in some studies to boost homelessness, joblessness and crime.

Lynn’s measure was partly a result of an ACLU lawsuit from last year in Wilmington, where city officials made an effort to evict sex offenders from the Harriet Tubman Safe House group home when a day care center opened in the neighborhood. MacRae said that suit is still pending. ..Source.. by Doug Denison

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Dover increases restrictions on sex offenders despite objections of ACLU

4-10-2012 Delaware:

Dover, Del. — Dover City Council approved an ordinance that would forbid Tier II and Tier III sex offenders from living or working within 500 feet of licensed day cares and from participating in activities related to children.

Tier III and Tier II are the most serious classifications, respectively, under federal law.

City Council approved the measure shortly after 10 p.m. Monday despite opposition from the American Civil Liberties Union of Delaware. The vote was 6-1, with one abstention. There were also at least three opponents of the ordinance in the audience who waited for the last agenda item of a nearly three-hour meeting.

Councilman Sean Lynn drafted the ordinance in response to concerns raised by his constituents in the Third District, specifically at homeowners association meetings and neighborhood watch meetings.

Delaware state law states that Tier II and Tier III sex offenders cannot live within 500 feet of a school, leaving the law open to a ridiculous interpretation, Lynn said.

“A strict application of that law would lead to an absurd result where day care centers are concerned,” he said. “As the ACLU acknowledged, the current state law prohibits sex offenders from residing within 500 feet of a school. However, commercial day care centers do not squarely fall within the definition of ‘school’ as set forth in the Delaware Code.”

Dover Interfaith Mission for Housing Vice Chairman Herb Konowitz and Dover resident Heather Smith-Chandler expressed their opposition to the ordinance during public comment. Dover resident Lori Alberts, who spoke against the ordinance during its first reading March 12, also watched City Council’s vote intently.

“I believe that the state law prohibiting sex offenders from living and/or working within 500 feet of a school is restrictive enough to control the lives of these sex offenders,” Konowitz said. “The ordinance is not needed.”

“Federal statistics show that only 7 percent of sex offenders victimize someone that they do not know,” he said. “In our case studies and my direct interviews with the men at the shelter, we have found those statistics locally to be true.”

Building upon Konowitz’s comments, Smith-Chandler said there are hundreds of articles and academic journals that cite the lack of evidence that would be provided by the ordinance’s restrictions. If anything, the restrictions would inhibit offenders’ attempts to reintegrate back into society, she said.

“These restrictions cause isolation, remove individuals from the urban areas where they can access transportation, jobs, housing and things like that,” Chandler-Smith said.

In the ACLU of Delaware’s March 22 letter to City Council, Executive Director Kathleen MacRae and Legal Director Richard H. Morse said the proposed sex-offender ordinance, if enacted, would actually put children at greater risk.

“Such laws also drive offenders into the shadows and away from supervision by law enforcement, one of the most effective tools against recidivism,” MacRae said in a press release.

Lynn applauded opponents for expressing their opinions, but he stuck to his guns on Monday night.

“We need to err on the side of caution and the side of caution is protecting our kids.” ,,Source.. by DenverPost.com

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Appeals Court Rules Against Del. Sex Offender

A disturbing case but to understand one must read the decision. It looks like he is being punished twice for the same crime, once in a foreign country and then again in the USofA. Double jeopardy may not apply given a foreign conviction?

9-10-2011 Delaware:

OVER, Del. (AP) - A federal appeals court has upheld the conviction of a sex offender sentenced to 30 years in prison for molesting a boy in Germany.

Thomas Pendleton argued that the government had no authority to prosecute him for engaging in noncommercial illicit sex overseas. He also said his case should have been heard in New York, where he boarded a plane for Germany in 2005, rather than Delaware, where he was arrested after returning and charged with failing to register as a sex offender, based on previous convictions.

The appeals court rejected both arguments this week. In a case of first impression, the court said the government can prosecute people who travel to other countries to abuse children, just as it can prosecute those who cross state lines to do so. ..Source.. by WBOC TV

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Task force not getting to root of society's view of sex offenders

8-30-2011 Delaware:

Lt. Gov. Matt Denn has been handed a formidable assignment by Gov. Markell: chair of a Justice Reinvestment Task Force. Denn says it will consider whether more money should be directed into crime prevention, in such areas as drug treatment and assisting released inmates.

It's that last goal that became so clearly crystallized this month when police action forced the eviction of released sex offenders from one of the few havens they can find.

Denn told the Delaware Law Weekly his 18-member task force intends to speak with "policy experts, prosecutors, public defenders, parole officers, corrections officers, judges, law enforcement officials, advocate organizations and crime victims."

Remarkably missing from that list are men and women still incarcerated or who have been released. Their viewpoint must certainly be considered before any guidelines can be formed for reducing our prison population, paying less for enforcement and reducing recidivism.

The failure of Vice Chancellor John W. Noble to allow some breathing space for legal issues involved in the eviction, by granting a temporary restraining order, is evidence how hard-ball authorities are playing. What would have been lost by debating some of the issues before the sex offenders had to find new housing.

The men being ousted from the rooming house in the 700 block of Buttonwood Street are joined by the American Civil Liberties Union in raising serious questions about the evictions from a home Wilmington police said was seven feet closer than a 500-feet restriction. (A few General Assemblies ago a bill failed to pass that would have extended that to 1,300 feet.)

Title 11, Section 1112 says offenders involved with a sexual offense "upon a child under 16 years of age" may not loiter or live within 500 feet of a school. That's defined as "any preschool, kindergarten, elementary school, secondary school or any other institution which has as its primary purpose the education or instruction of children under 16 years of age."

Did the day care center in the Christina Community Center fall within that definition? Didn't Edgar Woodlen Jr.'s rooming house exist before it was established? Has the day care lost its license, making this entire action moot? Does the law's definition include a home where individuals care for a few children, a question Noble also pondered? All questions remaining to be determined in court.

Woodlen tells me the affected residents have found places to live but that he is looking to buy another safe house where he can rent rooms as he has been doing since 2003.

The suit says he has a waiting list of 14 looking for a place to live. He says he does not charge any ex-felons, including the sex offenders, any rent for the first 30 days while the man tries to find the ground under him. Then rents range from $350 to $500, if they can afford it, but often if the former prisoners are not getting disability payments, they have no source of income.

Getting a job to earn rent and buy food is always tough for ex-cons, but in these economic times even many people without any criminal record cannot find work. Woodlen says he helps the men with their problems.

Denn's task force needs to consider these problems. Are there enough community resources for released offenders, and again not just those convicted of sexual crimes, to find a place to live outside of that 500-foot barrier? If the task force report hopes to recommend how to relieve the pressure on our prisons, then it must suggest what should be done to show a path forward for the ex-cons, and particularly the sex offenders already shunned by society and often their fellow inmates.

The designation given sex offenders and the requirement they register and be publicly listed should also be examined. There are now three levels of offenders, depending on the nature of their crime, ranging from various degrees of rape to sexual exploitation of a child to possession of child pornography. As Roger Lancaster, author of "Sex Panic and the Punitive State, " wrote in the Aug. 21 New York Times, "Our sex offender laws are expansive, costly and ineffective -- guided by panic not reason." ..Source.. by Harry Themal

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Delaware judge refuses to halt eviction of sex offenders living near Wilmington daycare center

Under these circumstances, i.e., the sex offenders are not the owners of the property they are living in, this is the usual result absent a grandfather clause provision.

8-19-2011 Delaware:

DOVER, Del. — A judge has refused to issue a temporary restraining order prohibiting authorities from evicting registered sex offenders from two Wilmington safe houses.

The Chancery Court ruling Friday means any sex offenders still being sheltered by Harriet Tubman Safe House Inc., which operates two homes for newly released inmates, will be arrested if they don't leave by Monday.

Authorities targeted the offenders for eviction after a daycare center opened nearby last year. Under state law, sex offenders cannot live within 500 feet of a school.

More than a dozen sex offenders already have moved from the safe houses, leaving only one, 52-year-old Richard Paredes, who has been unable to find other living arrangements.

Paredes, convicted of unlawful sexual contact with a child, said that come Monday morning, he will be homeless. ..Source.. by RANDALL CHASE

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

ACLU: Don't evict sex offenders

8-16-2011 Delaware:

Suit seeks to stop Wilmington from ejecting men from safe houses near day care

WILMINGTON -- The ACLU is asking a court to stop the city of Wilmington from evicting sex offenders this week from a safe house on the city's East Side because a day care center recently opened nearby.

The request for a temporary restraining order and expedited hearing -- along with a lawsuit that names the city of Wilmington and the state of Delaware as defendants -- was filed late Friday in Delaware Chancery Court, according to the Delaware American Civil Liberties Union. This follows an earlier federal civil lawsuit filed by Earl Woodlen Jr., the owner of Harriet Tubman Safe House Inc., in late July without an attorney.

It is now expected that the federal lawsuit will be dropped.

"The city appreciates the predicament faced by the residents of the Harriet Tubman Safe House but we are following the advice of the Attorney General's Office and cannot comment further due to the pending court action," William Montgomery, Mayor James M. Baker's chief of staff, said in an email Saturday.

The Delaware Attorney General's Office previously has declined to comment.

ACLU Delaware Executive Director Kathleen MacRae said Saturday that the situation for men living at the two homes and the operator seems "very unfair and very rushed by the city."

Woodlen has operated two safe houses -- one in the 700 block of N. Buttonwood St. and one on the 900 block of E. Seventh St. -- since 2003, offering newly released inmates, including sex offenders, a place to stay for free for 30 days. The men can then pay rent to stay on after the 30 days.

The day care center began operating less than 500 feet from both homes in September. Wilmington police informed operators of the safe houses on June 28 that any sex offenders living at either house would have to leave or face arrest after Aug. 19 because state law prohibits sex offenders from living within 500 feet of a school.

The convicted sex offenders live in the Buttonwood Street house and would not be able to move to the East Seventh Street house because of its proximity to the day care center.

"It is already difficult for men who have been convicted of a sex offense to find a place to live," MacRae said. "State law should not force these men to move, or prevent facilities like the safe house from housing them, every time a private citizen decides to open a day care center."

She said the ACLU has questions about how the police measured the distance between the homes and the day care center, whether a day care center qualifies as a "school" under state law and, if it does, the constitutionality of evicting men because the state law does not contain a "grandfather" provision for existing facilities like Tubman House.

Attorney Daniel Wolcott Jr., who is part of the legal team fighting the evictions, said they are hoping to allow three sex offenders who live at the facility to remain "until the application and constitutionality of the law in this case is resolved." According to the operators, 11 registered sex offenders -- including the only rent-paying residents -- already have moved out because of the threats made by the Wilmington police. ..Source.. by SEAN O'SULLIVAN, The News Journal

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

With nowhere to go, sex offenders file suit

8-9-2011 Delaware:

New school ousts nearby safe house residents

For nearly three years, 52-year-old Richard Paredes has lived on Wilmington's East Side, sharing quarters with men recently released from prison who have nowhere else to live.

Paredes, a former teacher, also works out of the home as a case manager trying to find jobs and permanent housing for the former offenders.

But by next week, Paredes and the other registered sex offenders living at the Harriet Tubmans Safe House -- one of the few places in the state that takes in homeless registered sex offenders -- must move out. That's because of a learning center and preschool that recently opened less than 500 feet from the safe house.

"I understand the law, but there also should be like a pre-existing clause like in some other states," said Paredes, who was convicted of two sexual offenses. "This program has been here first, and this program actually is respected by the community."

Under Delaware law, certain sex offenders are not permitted 500 feet from a school, even if the school opens after the registered sex offender began living there.

Harriet Tubmans Safe House, which consists of two homes less than a block away from each other, housed about 24 people at one time.

But since Wilmington police informed them of the coming evictions, 11 registered sex offenders have moved out. Five others remain there hoping a federal lawsuit will allow them to stay in at least one of the houses.

Paredes said they know they will not be able to stay at the house in the 900 block of E. Seventh St. because it is 365 feet from the learning center on the grounds of Old Swedes Church, which is leasing out the rooms. But they have filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court asking to be allowed to stay at the second safe house in the 700 block of Buttonwood St., which is 493 feet from the school -- or seven feet short of the 500 feet the law mandates.

"These people got nowhere to go," said Earl W. Woodlen Jr., owner of both homes and CEO of Tubmans Safe House. Woodlen, a convicted drug dealer, said he purchased the homes to help former offenders enter society. ..For the rest of this story.. by ESTEBAN PARRA
The News Journal

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

UD study says state wastes millions of dollars on treating low-risk juvenile sex offenders

6-26-2010 Delaware:

An examination of Delaware's approach to juvenile sex offenders finds the need for reform. Research released today shows the system costs taxpayers millions each year, treating many kids as high risk who simply do not fall into that category, while distracting the state from the truly risky offenders.

University of Delaware professor Chrysanthi S. Leon, J.D., Ph.D., will speak about the overuse of sex offender registration and residency laws in Washington, D.C. on Saturday, June 26 in the opening session of the conference of the national group, Reform Sex Offender Laws.

On Monday June 28, Leon and others will lobby Sen. Tom Carper and other members of Congress to amend the federal Adam Walsh Act, which can withhold funding from states that do not comply with its terms. At noon, Leon will participate in a press conference across from the Hart Senate Office Building, 245 2nd Street, NE. Leon and Smith College professor David L. Burton, Ph.D., authored, “Net Widening in Delaware: The Overuse of Registration and Residential Treatment for Youth Who Commit Sex Offenses,” which will be published in an upcoming issue of the Widener Law Review.

Last year, Delaware spent more than $5.1 million to send 62 youths out of state for treatment (FY09). In FY04, that expenditure was $2.9 million. These costs, Leon and Burton say, can only be justified if the youths are serious offenders who cannot be treated in the community and pose high risk of re-offense. But, the Delaware Youth Needs Evaluation, included in the article, shows they are low-to-moderate risk.

Leon and Burton argue Delaware's compliance with the federal Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act goes far beyond what is necessary. The unintended consequences of Delaware's registration laws are forcing the state to pay for unneeded treatment out of state. In total, Leon and Burton write, “the juvenile sex offender registry is the exact opposite of evidence-based corrections.”

They say the law needs revision, using methods proven effective in other states. Doing so would not entail new costs to the system. In fact, it would likely provide a cost-savings by properly focusing resources. ..Source.. Newark Post

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...