Judge strikes down Kentucky’s social media ban for sex offenders

10-20-17 Kentucky:

Frankfort Kentucky’s registered sex offenders have the constitutional right to use Facebook, Twitter and other online social media, a federal judge ruled Friday.

Ruling in a lawsuit brought by a Lexington child pornography defendant identified only as “John Doe,” U.S. District Judge Gregory Van Tatenhove struck down Kentucky’s sweeping restrictions on Internet access for registered sex offenders.

“This is a very important decision,” said Scott White, a Lexington attorney who represented Doe. “The laws effectively deprived anyone on the sex offender registry of access to the most effective forms of communication that we have today. It was a complete suppression of speech.”

One law prohibited sex offenders from using social networking websites or instant messaging or chat rooms that potentially could be “accessible” to children — which is to say, much of the Internet. The other law required sex offenders to keep their probation or parole officers updated on all of their email addresses and various online identities. ..Continued..

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Records show deep ties between FBI and Best Buy computer technicians looking for child porn

4-4-17 Kentucky:

Technicians for Best Buy’s “Geek Squad City” computer repair facility had a long, close relationship with the FBI in “a joint venture to ferret out child porn,” according to claims in new federal court documents, which also note that Best Buy’s management “was aware that its supervisory personnel were being paid by the FBI” and that its technicians were developing a program to find child pornography with the FBI’s guidance.

The allegations are made by lawyers for a California doctor charged with possessing child pornography, after the doctor took his computer to a Best Buy store for repair. Computers which require data recovery are typically sent from Best Buy stores around the country to a central Geek Squad City facility in Brooks, Ky., and customers consent to having their computers searched — and turned over to authorities if child porn is found.

While there is no question that Geek Squad technicians have notified authorities after finding child porn, the new court documents assert that there is a deeper relationship than has previously been revealed between the company and federal authorities. The court is now considering the extent of that relationship and whether it is grounds to throw out a pending child porn case, though it could also have ramifications for the dozens of cases which originate from the Kentucky facility annually.

[If a Best Buy technician is a paid FBI informant, are his computer searches legal?]

Defense lawyers for the doctor argue that Geek Squad City’s technicians acted as government agents by receiving payments from the FBI, regularly speaking with and referring cases to the FBI, and creating a program to search for child porn. If a government agent wants to search a computer, they need a warrant, and the case has raised issues of privacy invasion and violation of constitutional search and seizure rights.

Both Best Buy and the U.S. attorney’s office in Los Angeles deny any violations in the search of surgeon Mark Rettenmaier’s hard drive, for which the FBI obtained a warrant after being contacted by a Geek Squad supervisor. That in turn led to a warrant and search of Rettenmaier’s home, which led to the discovery of “thousands of images of child pornography,” according to a reply brief by assistant U.S. attorneys Anthony Brown and Gregory Scally.

“The Fourth Amendment is offended by none of this,” the federal prosecutors wrote. “Nothing unreasonable occurred here, and there was no arbitrary invasion of anyone’s privacy by governmental officials…and there’s not a shred of evidence that anyone at the FBI directed anyone at Geek Squad City to detect and locate child pornography for the purpose of reporting it to the FBI.” ..Continued.. by Tom Jackman

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Kentucky opening secret files to help prevent ‘a mother’s worst nightmare’

Mar 2017 Kentucky:

To protect children from the people who are paid to care for them, the General Assembly this month passed a bill that will crack open confidential files at the Kentucky Cabinet for Health and Family Services for prospective employers.

Senate Bill 236 will allow parents hiring babysitters — and it will require public schools and publicly funded youth camps hiring anyone who will work with minors — to ask job applicants for a letter from the cabinet that shows if they are one of the 92,418 people who presently have a “substantiated finding” of child abuse or neglect, as determined by a child protection caseworker. The bill prohibits schools and camps from hiring people who have such a black mark.

Licensed child-care centers already are required to vet their job applicants against the cabinet’s database of people with a substantiated finding of abuse or neglect. In 2016, the cabinet performed 26,608 searches at the request of daycares. Of those, 211 searches, or not quite 1 percent, turned up a finding.

The bill will take effect in July 2018 if Gov. Matt Bevin signs it into law. (Bevin’s office had not announced his plans for the bill as of Friday morning.) It’s one of several that lawmakers filed during this session either to strengthen background checks for the tens of thousands of people who work with Kentucky children or to create a public registry of people who have been accused or convicted of mistreating them.

“There’s a lot of people out there who don’t have good intentions, who have a history, and I don’t want them working with our children,” said Sen. Julie Raque Adams, R-Louisville, sponsor of the Senate bill.

“My expectation is that if you’re trying to get a job with a school system and you know you have a finding on your record, once you’re told to provide this letter, you’re going to want to save face,” Adams said. “You’ll say, ‘Thanks very much, I’ll get right back to you,’ and then you’ll just move on to another job. You won’t even continue with your application.” ..Continued..

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Anonymous online critics can’t be easily unmasked, Kentucky Supreme Court rules

9-24-16 Kentucky:

Anonymous critics on the internet can’t be unmasked by a defamation lawsuit unless the plaintiff proves with evidence that what they said was false, the Kentucky Supreme Court ruled in a significant First Amendment decision released Thursday.

“Without free comment on matters of public concern, totalitarianism can arise. And naturally, when public speech is ‘free,’ that speech will contain comments critical of those who seek to govern,” Justice Mary Noble wrote for the court’s majority. “Indeed, it is inherent in a democracy that only by exercising one’s voice can the individual citizen truly participate in the governance of society. Sometimes, negative things just need to be said.”

In the case at question, Pikeville lawyer Bill Hickman sued two people, labeled as John Does number 1 and 2, for scathing but anonymous comments they made on the website Topix about his work as chairman of the Pikeville-Pike County Airport Board. His critics accused him of various bad acts, such as manipulating land appraisals, building himself an airplane hangar at airport expense and generally wasting millions of dollars in public funds.

“BILL HICKMAN ... If you were any man at all you would lower your head in shame and leave that hill with what you have on your back. NEVER show your face again in circles where people are aware of what you have done wrong and failed to do right,” someone who posted under the name “Observer” wrote in one such comment on May 16, 2013.

Hickman sued the John Does for defamation in Pike Circuit Court and filed an affidavit that said their comments were “not true and are totally baseless.” Hickman hoped to unmask his critics through the use of subpoenas issued to Topix and the local internet service provider. He also demanded that their lawyer, Larry Webster, reveal their identities.

Webster praised the ruling Thursday as “a victory for free speech,” although he added that he would have preferred for the defamation suit to be dismissed.

“Especially in a small community, when you take on the establishment it can lead to consequences, to ostracism, to repercussions,” said Webster, who is a contributing columnist for the Herald-Leader. “There can be more freedom of expression when people don’t have to fear what will happen to them for speaking out.”

The Supreme Court on Thursday returned the case to circuit court with orders that the judge issue a writ of prohibition to protect the identities of the defendants for now. If Hickman wants to force a court to unmask his adversaries, he first must show with evidence that their individual claims about his conduct at the airport were false, Noble wrote.

“Under that perspective, it cannot be said that Hickman has adequately proved that the claims of malfeasance or official misconduct are false. A bare denial does not suffice,” Noble wrote.

“Some specific proof is necessary to invade the anonymity of a critic,” Noble continued. “Here, Hickman could address the expenditure claims or outright dispute that he got a favorable hangar by showing that he got his spot through the normal process or that it was not actually all that favorable, or that someone else was the decision maker regarding expenditures and land sales, or any manner of other factual reasons why the allegations are false.”

Hickman is confident he can satisfy the high court’s newly established standard at a hearing where he will use Pike County airport documents and witnesses to prove that the allegations made against him were false, said his lawyer, Richard Getty.

“We think we know who they (the John Does) are, anyway. Frankly, we have some suspicions,” Getty said. “But it’s been a matter of proving it.”

The U.S. Supreme Court has yet to weigh in on internet anonymity and defamation, leaving the individual states to chart their own course, Noble wrote in the court’s opinion.

Noble was joined in the majority opinion by Chief Justice John Minton Jr. and justices Lisabeth Hughes and Michelle Keller, with Justice Daniel Venters concurring in a separate opinion that said most of the negative comments about Hickman fell short of defamation. Justice Bill Cunningham wrote a dissenting opinion for himself and Justice Samuel Wright III that said the court’s majority set an “overly restrictive” standard for plaintiffs like Hickman.

As a public figure in Pike County, Hickman must prove that the comments were false, damaging and made with actual malice in order to win a defamation suit, Cunningham wrote. But for the narrow purpose of identifying his tormentors so he can force them into a courtroom, Hickman’s affidavit disputing the accuracy of their claims should be enough, Cunningham wrote.

“Because our culture is becoming increasingly saturated by malicious memes and other online chatter, this case presents a novel claim that is likely to have a great impact on the citizens of our commonwealth,” Cunningham wrote. ..Source.. by John Cheves

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Kentucky court to consider if underage sex is a crime

See Also: Kentucky high court hears underage-sex case -and- Kentucky Supreme Court looks at underage teen sex case

2-13-15 Kentucky:

Kentucky's highest court considered on Thursday whether teen-agers should be treated as criminals when they have sex and send nude photos to each other. Here are some of the key questions being asked in the case:

IS CONSENSUAL SEX BETWEEN TEENAGERS A CRIME?

In many states, yes. The age of consent in Kentucky, for example, is 16, meaning that anyone younger cannot legally have sex, no matter how willing they are. Many states have "Romeo and Juliet" laws that protect some teens from prosecution when they engage in consensual sex.

BUT AREN'T TEENAGERS ENTITLED TO PRIVACY WHEN IT COMES TO SEX?

The boy's lawyer says yes, but authorities were called by the girl's mother in this case after the young couple texted nude photos to each other. She found the images on her seventh-grader's phone, learned she was having sex at home with her eighth-grade boyfriend, and sounded the alarm.

WHEN UNDERAGE CHILDREN HAVE SEX, CAN BOTH BE CHARGED WITH A CRIME?

In theory, the 15-year-old boy's mother also could have called police and demanded that his 13-year-old girlfriend be prosecuted. His lawyer argues that his right to equal protection under the law was violated when the state sent him, but not her, to a secure youth center as a sex offender.

DO MANY OTHER TEENAGERS FACE THIS RISK?

The boy's lawyer cited a nationwide study in 2013 that found about one-third of all U.S. adolescents are sexually active by age 16. ..Source.. by SFGate.com

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Teen sex a crime? Ky high court to hear case

UPDATE 2-12: Kentucky Court Takes Case Involving Juvenile Sex Offender

2-6-2015 Kentucky:

The eighth-grade boy and his seventh-grade girlfriend had been dating about 1½ years when they decided to have sex, which they did twice at her house when nobody was home.

The boy, 15, also texted two nude pictures of himself to the girl, 13, who sent him one back.

When the girl's parents found the pictures on her phone, they took out a warrant in Woodford Circuit Court, and the boy was charged with sexual misconduct, a misdemeanor, and possessing matter portraying a sexual performance by a minor, a felony.

Even though "B.H," as the boy is identified in court records, was too young to consent to sex — the minimum age is 16 in Kentucky — he was charged with a crime for engaging in it. And even though the boy's parents could have gone to the county attorney's office and taken out charges against the girl — just as C.W.'s parents had done — only B.H. was charged.

In a case that has captured national attention, the Kentucky Supreme Court will hear arguments Thursday about whether voluntary sexual conduct between children should be prosecuted as a crime.

"This case matters to any parent who has a teenage child, or will have a teenage child," B.H.'s lawyer, assistant public advocate John Wampler, said in an interview. "The simple fact is that unfortunately, many young teens under 16 are having sex with each other and engaging in sexting.

"If the Commonwealth's position is held to be correct, then approximately one third of all teenagers, according to recent statistics, could be charged with a felony sex offense," Wampler said. "That should strike fear in the hearts of every parent who has bought their child a smartphone."

The Kentucky attorney general's office, which is defending the prosecution, says that punishing only the boy was justified because he initiated the acts and because he had a prior offense for indecent exposure.

But the nation's oldest public interest law firm for children, the Juvenile Law Center in Philadelphia, and the Children's Law Center of Covington say in a friend-of-the court brief that criminalizing "sexual explorations" among consenting teens is bad law and policy and stigmatizes youths.

"Dealing with sexual feelings is an important part of adolescence," they say in their brief, which notes that most states impose no punishment, or reduce punishment, when teen partners are of similar ages.

Wampler says B.H.'s prior offense is irrelevant to the constitutional issues in the current case.

"There is no dispute that B.H. and C.W. had sex, and it is clear that the sex was consensual," Wampler writes in his brief. "Yet B.H. is painted as villain, C.W. as victim."

Wampler also notes that while both texted nude pictures to each other, only B.H. was charged with a crime — violating the constitutional right to equal protection under the law.

Recalling the infamous example of U.S. Rep. Anthony Weiner, Wampler argues that prosecuting B.H. for sexting — while adults would go unpunished for the same conduct — is also unfair. "While the former congressman's sexting did unquestionable damage to his political career (and presumably, to his marriage as well), he did not find himself in jail over his actions."

Neither Wampler nor the youth law centers say that underage youths like B.H. and C.W. should have "carte blanche to engage in gratuitous sex without culpability," as Wampler put it.

Instead, the lawyers say both could have been referred as status offenders for counseling and ordered to take classes on sexual boundaries and appropriate interactions with their peers.

B.H. pleaded guilty to two misdemeanors in May 2011 and District Judge Vanessa Dickson designated him a juvenile sex offender, which under the law required that he be removed and placed in a secure youth center for treatment for about 11 months as a sexual predator.

Appeals to the Woodford Circuit Court and state Court of Appeals were unsuccessful, but the state Supreme Court agreed to hear his case.

Arguing to uphold the prosecution, Gregory Fuchs, the assistant attorney general, says that by pleading guilty, B.H. lost the right to challenge the constitutionality of his conviction.

Fuchs also says it's important to note that the boy's problems began more than a year before when he adjudicated on the indecent exposure charge, for knocking on a neighbor's door dressed only in a towel, removing it, then fondling himself in front of the neighbor when she asked him to go away.

B.H. was still on probation when the other offenses arose, justifying the court's decision to punish him rather than the girl, Fuchs said.

He also cites the girl's testimony that B.H. said he "would tell me what to do and how to do it," and says B.H. was more culpable because he sent the first photo and threatened to tell friends they were having sex if she didn't send him one back.

"There was only one victim in this case, C.W.," Fuchs writes, "and it was just as illegal" for B.H. to "possess child pornography" — the sexted photos — "as it would have been if he was 51 years old."

Wampler said B.H.'s conduct might not earn him "any points for boyfriend of the year."

But the youth center lawyers — Rebecca Ballard DiLoreto for the Kentucky group and Marsha Levick for the national organization — say that engaging in sexting, "while arguably stupid or reckless," is "a normal part of modern adolescent behavior."

Wampler, citing a 2013 pediatric study that found about one-third of all adolescents in the United States are sexually active by age 16, says it would "double the damage" if they were all charged with crimes.

"It is misbehavior, not criminal behavior," DiLoreto said in an interview.

Wampler also asserts it makes no sense for the state to say a 15-year-old lacks the maturity to consent to sex with an adult, then hold him criminally liable for the same behavior with a juvenile.

That has resulted in absurd results elsewhere. In Ogden, Utah, for example, a 13-year-old girl was charged as both an offender and named as a victim in the same act of consensual sex with her 12-year-old boyfriend. Utah's high court dismissed the charge, calling it "absurd."

Several states have adopted what are dubbed Romeo and Juliet laws to prevent teens of roughly the same age from being prosecuted for rape or other crimes for consensual sex with one another.

In Texas, for example, either partner has a defense if the couple is older than 14, in a consensual relationship and within three years of each other. Indiana statute provides an affirmative defense if the defendant can prove that he had an "ongoing or dating relationship" with the victim.

And in neighboring Ohio, the state Supreme Court in 2010 held that it was unconstitutional to criminally charge a child who was himself legally unable to consent when he engaged in sexual conduct with a same-aged peer.

"Each child is both an offender and a victim," that court said, "and the distinction between those two terms breaks down."

erry Brooks, executive director of Kentucky Youth Advocates, which is not involved with the case, said that if what happened between B.H. and C.W was truly consensual, it was a "classic case of adolescents being adolescents and making careless and less-than-well-reasoned decisions."

He said the courts and society need to "reset" the future path of such teenagers, rather than adopt policies that "forfeit" their future.

"It is complicated — but imperative — to be smart about kids when they make an ill-advised decision," Brooks said. ..Source.. by Andrew Wolfson

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Judge Orders Sex Offender To Pay $1.8 Million

10-23-2014 Kentucky:

BOWLING GREEN, Ky. (AP) - A convicted sex offender from southern Kentucky has been ordered to pay $1.8 million to the victim of five years of molestation.

U.S. District Judge Thomas B. Russell on Wednesday concluded that 35-year-old Jeffrey Lawan Renfrow of Morgantown made no effort to stop the abuse.

"Conversely, the Court has heard extensive testimony on Plaintiff's emotional suffering and the long-lasting impact (Renfrow's) sexual abuse has caused," Russell wrote in a six-page decision.

The judgment stems from a civil suit brought by the victim against Renfrow in federal court in Bowling Green.

Russell awarded $850,000 in compensatory damages, $1 million in punitive damages and $46,800 for toward future medical treatment.

Renfrow is serving a 30-year prison sentence after being convicted of three counts of second-degree sodomy and three counts of first-degree sexual abuse.

Renfrow sexually abused a boy in his care between Nov. 24, 2005, and July 17, 2010. The victim, now an adult, no longer lives in Butler County.

The victim testified at an Oct. 8 hearing that Renfrow sexually abused him about 10 times a week by inappropriate sexual contact and comments.

Prior to the sexual abuse, the victim considered Renfrow his closest friend and referred to Renfrow as his brother, according to the order.

"Plaintiff did not expose the sexual abuse earlier because he was told by a doctor that he would be taken from his mother and placed back in foster care," Russell said.

The judge found that the victim's childhood sexual abuse by Renfrow led to "severe and persistent emotional distress" and struggles in all facets of his life.

The plaintiff in the suit is now an adult. ..Source.. by LEX18.com

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Donegal sex offender fights lifetime registration

7-4-2014 Kentucky:

A Donegal man convicted of assaulting a 14-year-old girl on a walking trail is challenging the constitutionality of lifetime registration with police ordered for certain sex offenders.

Jeffrey Ritenour's contention that he should not be required to register for life because it exceeds the maximum prison sentence for his offense is one of several such appeals filed through the Fayette County Public Defender's Office.

A Fayette County jury in January convicted Ritenour, 53, of statutory sexual assault, aggravated indecent assault, corruption of minors and simple assault.

At trial, the teen testified Ritenour forced her to have sex as the two walked on the trail in May 2012. The Tribune-Review does not identify victims of sexual assault.

President Judge John F. Wagner Jr. in April sentenced Ritenour to three to 10 years in state prison and ordered him, under the Adam Walsh Act, to register with state police as a sex offender for the rest of Ritenour's life.

Wagner denied a post-sentence motion seeking to modify the registration requirement.

In an appeal brief filed on Wednesday in Superior Court, Ritenour's public defender, Michael Garofalo, argues lifetime registration is unconstitutional in Ritenour's case because it exceeds the maximum prison sentence for the crimes.

“That registration requirement is totally beyond the statutory maximum sentence for statutory sexual assault,” Garofalo wrote in the appeal. “Appellant believes that to require such a registration period constitutes an unusual punishment, as barred by the Pennsylvania and U.S. constitutions.”

In addition, Garofalo argues in the appeal that prosecutors failed to prove the girl was assaulted. Although the girl testified Ritenour forced her to have sex, Garofalo argues prosecutors failed to present any evidence indicating whether the girl resisted, fought Ritenour or went to a doctor for a physical exam.

Garofalo wants a judge to grant a new trial or to stay Ritenour's sentence.

Ritenour's appeal is one of several in which Fayette public defenders have challenged the lifetime registration requirement.

In May, Judge Nancy Vernon denied a motion by attorney Jeremy Davis to modify the lifetime registration imposed on Ronald Burwell III, 28, of Smithfield.

Burwell pleaded guilty to statutory sexual assault, indecent assault, aggravated indecent assault and corruption of minors for sexually assaulting a 12-year-old girl. Vernon sentenced him to 31⁄2 to 7 years in prison and imposed the lifetime registration requirement.

Davis argued unsuccessfully that lifetime registration is unconstitutional in Burwell's case because it exceeds his maximum sentence. The case has been appealed to state Superior Court.

In two other cases, public defenders filed motions this week in Fayette County Common Pleas Court challenging lifetime registration requirements imposed on Donald H. Hagner IV, 40, of Smithfield, and Shaun Douglas Fitzgerald, 20, of Uniontown.

Hagner pleaded guilty in April to aggravated indecent assault and corruption of minors for assaulting a 12-year-old girl in 2009 at a Point Marion residence. Senior Judge Gerald R. Solomon on June 27 sentenced Hagner to 33⁄4 to 71⁄2 years in state prison and ordered him to register quarterly with state police as a sex offender for life.

Fitzgerald pleaded guilty to rape of a child, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, statutory sexual assault and aggravated indecent assault. Uniontown Police said Fitzgerald sexually assaulted an 11-year-old boy in May 2012 under an overpass on East Main Street.

Solomon on Tuesday sentenced Fitzgerald to six to 20 years in state prison and imposed the lifetime registration requirement. ..Source.. by Liz Zemba

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Viewing child porn not victimless crime; Kentucky punishment fair

Original Article: Sex-offender registry misguided thinking. Letter to Editor: Letters to the editor: March 12. Now response below..

3-31-2014 Kentucky:

I am a clinical psychologist, lately retired after 12 years of service to the state as an approved provider of sex-offender evaluations to the courts.

I wish to address misconceptions in the Guy Hamilton-Smith commentary, in which he complained that he was being unduly punished by being required to register as a sex offender and the subsequent letter of support from Marjorie Valentine of CAUTIONclick National Campaign for Reform.

First, possession of or viewing child pornography is not punished as a violent crime in Kentucky, as the letter's headline suggests. While other states may have draconian sentences for this offense, Kentucky does not.

It is a Class D felony punishable by one to five years, and the statute does not apply to minors. Valentine advocates for supervision and rehabilitation, and that is already the main focus for these offenders in Kentucky.

Second, while I agree with her statement that "current technology has contributed to the ease of online access," her portrayal of these offenders as mere victims of that technology is a real stretch, because they made the decision to possess that material.

I disagree with her contention that "first-time simple possession of child pornography" should not have criminal punishments attached because those folks have "otherwise led clean, productive lives."

Possession of child pornography is not a "simple" matter. While possession of child porn may seem like a victimless crime, there are indeed many victims created in the production of the material, and each viewing may give more incentive to those who produce the child pornography.

Michael Seto, one of the leading researchers in pedophilia, argues that possession of child pornography is diagnostic for pedophilia, a persistent sexual interest in prepubescent children. It seems logical that the person who is charged with possessing child pornography had some prior sexual interest in children, as the statute does not apply to accidental viewing.

Each time a person indulges in masturbation while viewing child porn, they not only receive a powerful reinforcement, thus increasing the likelihood that the behavior will happen again, but also receive a normalizing effect.

Over time, this practice may lead to a hands-on offense because the behavior starts to seem so normal and victims in these films are often portrayed as willing participants.

As to the argument that these offenses should be decriminalized because offenders had "otherwise led clean, productive lives," this argument would also apply to about half of hands-on sex offenders.

So would they all be dismissed with a slap on the wrist? If these offenses are decriminalized, what incentive does the offender have to seek the supervision and rehabilitation that Valentine advocates? ..Continued.. by Nancy L. Smith is a clinical psychologist in Clearfield.

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Kentucky Sup court rejects rehearing in sex offender case

3-20-2014 Kentucky:

The Kentucky Supreme Court has turned away a request from a convicted sex offender to reconsider his bid to take the bar exam and become a practicing lawyer. The seven justices on Thursday unanimously rejected a rehearing in the case of Guy Padraic Hamilton-Smith.

The case is the first of its kind in Kentucky. The court in December declined Hamilton-Smith's bid and a move by the state Office of Bar Admissions to create and endorse a blanket rule that would have kept all registered sex offenders from gaining access to the bar.

Hamilton-Smith was convicted of a charge related to child pornography in 2007. He graduated in the top third of his class from the University of Kentucky law school but has not been allowed to take the bar exam. ..Source.. by Daily News (See HERE)

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Kentucky Authorities warn parents about Internet predators

The implication here is that 750,000 former registered sex offenders are the source of Internet sex crimes which is far far from the truth. The study they quote (study containing the stats they quote) supports the opposite, former registered sex offenders were a minute portion (4%) of the perpetrators of these crimes.

1-28-2014 Kentucky:

The Kentucky State Police used their latest episode of KSP-TV to warn parents about the dangers of Internet predators. The video shares an inside look at the agency’s Electronic Crimes Branch and the intricate work that takes place to protect children from online predators.

KSP spokesman Tpr. Paul Blanton says the Internet has become an important part of everyday life – for information, communication and entertainment.

“The most technology receptive segment of our population is young people,” says Blanton. “It’s an unfortunate fact of life that along with the many resources the Internet provides there are also online predators stalking our youth.”

Blanton says the problem with the Internet is that parents can’t see the predators that may be after children. That’s why he says it’s important for parents to talk to their children about what can happen with strangers on social media.

“Parents need to be open and honest with their teens. They need to tell them about the dangers that are out there. Sometimes we don’t think our teens listen to us, but they do,” he said.

According to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC), there are nearly 750,000 registered sex offenders in the United States. An increasing number of those individuals are utilizing the Internet to find their victims.

KSP Detective Josh Lawson works in the Electronic Crimes Branch and says a majority of victims of Internet-initiated sex crimes are between the ages of 13 and 15 years old.

“The key to safeguarding your children is an open line of communication. You want to know who your children are talking to face to face. You wouldn’t let them talk to any stranger on the street, especially about intimate things,” says Lawson. “Why would you let them talk to someone on the Internet about even more intimate things?”

In 82 percent of online sex crimes predators used the victim’s social media site to gain information about the youth. Only 18 percent of youth use chat rooms but a majority of the Internet sex crimes are initiated in chat rooms.

Blanton says parents need to set ground rules with their children.

“Have the computer in a common room. Know your children’s passwords on social networking sites and talk to your children about what they are doing online,” adds Blanton. “If parents won’t, someone else will and that person could be a sexual predator hiding behind a computer.”

Blanton hopes the KSP-TV video segment will be a tool used by parents and teachers to create an open dialogue with young people about the dangers lurking beyond their computer screens.

The NCMEC recommends the website www.netsmartz.org as another valuable resource for parents and educators to utilize when talking to youth about Internet safety. ..Source.. by Claiborne Progress

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Cleared of abuse, father sues to get off state list

10-29-2013 Kentucky:

Four children were taken after son's accusation, later recanted; list can keep dad from jobs or volunteering

COVINGTON — The nightmare for Kenneth Lalley started when a state social worker showed up at his door on a late April 2012 night to take away his children, for whom he had sole custody.

Lalley got his children back the next month after authorities found no truth to an allegation that he sexually molested one of his children – but that didn’t end Lalley’s nightmare.

“This is a single father of four children who for no reason lost his kids for weeks,” said Lalley’s civil attorney, Shane Sidebottom, who advised his client not to speak with reporters. “He had to prove he didn’t do anything wrong ... just to see his kids again.”

Eighteen months later, the burly 51-year-old Union resident still has custody but is fighting to get off a little-known list of people in Kentucky who have been accused of abusing or neglecting children, called the Child Abuse and Neglect Registry, or CAN Registry for short. It is a registry for people who have been accused but not necessarily convicted in court.

Lalley filed a federal lawsuit earlier this year in Covington against Lisa Prewitt, the regional administrator for the Cabinet for Health and Family Services, and Geri Purvis, a state social worker, over their handling of his case.

“The purpose of the lawsuit is to send a message to the cabinet they can’t ruin people’s lives like they have done in this case,” Sidebottom said.

The cabinet, whose in-house legal team is representing Prewitt and Purvis, claimed in a written statement that it believes the facts of the case support its social workers and their supervisors.

“Our social workers are highly trained, caring professionals who followed Standard of Practice at all times during this difficult referral,” the statement reads. “We are very supportive of these staff and are confident that court proceedings will demonstrate that their focus, as always, has been to protect children.”

Son makes accusation against father and judge

Troubles started for Lalley when his oldest son checked into a hospital that specializes in mental health disorders and drug and alcohol addictions on April 8, 2012, in Louisville, according to the suit. The son told hospital officials his father sexually molested him.

Purvis, accompanied by a state trooper, showed up at Lalley’s door on April 10. Lalley’s three other children were taken to their maternal grandmother’s home.

The cabinet got Boone Family Court Judge Linda Bramlage to sign an Emergency Court Order, or ECO, authorizing the children to be removed on April 12 – two days after the fact, according to the suit.

One of the problems with the ECO was the affidavit the cabinet used to obtain it contained lies, according to the suit. The cabinet has admitted in court that its employees redacted an allegation from Lalley’s oldest son that Bramlage molested him more than 50 times. The son also claimed his father was also having sex with Bramlage.

“The allegations are that the social worker intentionally withheld critical information from the judge,” Sidebottom said. “In my mind that is no different than lying to the judge.”

The oldest son knew Bramlage because she presided over his parents’ divorce and had awarded Lalley sole custody of the children.

The first court hearing held on the allegation Lalley abused his son was April 13 in Boone Family Court. That’s when the allegation that Bramlage also abused the child was revealed in open court. Bramlage didn’t know she had been accused when she signed the order granting the children to be removed, according to the suit.

Bramlage declined to comment. Sidebottom said the allegation against Bramlage was so far-fetched that it was never investigated.

Bramlage was taken off the case. It was taken over by a senior judge who travels around the state relieve crowded dockets and take cases where a conflict exists with the local sitting judge.

The senior judge ordered that all the children, except the oldest son, be returned to Lalley’s sole custody on May 24. The suit states the oldest son remains in a hospital to receive treatment for emotional and dependency problems. He has received psychiatric treatment on at least seven other occasions, according to the suit.

Sidebottom said the son has since recanted the allegations and said he lied because he wanted to live with his mother.

Even after being cleared, the troubles were not over

Despite the court proceedings finding that no sexual abuse or neglect had occurred against the children, the cabinet sent Lalley a letter on June 21, 2012, stating it had substantiated the son’s claims of abuse. The suit claims that is when the cabinet placed Lalley on the CAN Registry.

It’s different than the publicly accessible Kentucky Sex Offender Registry. Only people convicted of certain sex crimes are placed on that list. Someone can land on the CAN Registry if social workers find that person abused or neglected a child.

The CAN Registry isn’t accessible to the general public. Some instances of when this registry is used included background checks for employers at child care centers in their hiring process and background checks for the state’s prospective foster and adoptive parents, according to the cabinet. Volunteer groups that have staff working with children may also use it for background checks.

As long as he is on the list, anyone can stop him from volunteering at his children’s schools or being involved with other youth-related agencies.

“For all practical purposes, it is blocking him from being a complete parent to his kids,” Sidebottom said.

Lalley is still fighting to get off the CAN Registry, Sidebottom said. Individuals placed on the registry can request an administrative hearing.

Lalley has requested that hearing, and Sidebottom said the cabinet has indicated it will not object to Lalley’s request to be removed from the CAN Registry. A year and a half later, the state has yet to set a hearing date.

Sidebottom said Bramlage was never placed on the CAN Registry. ..Source.. by Jim Hannah

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Sex offenders deserve love, help

6-1-2013 Kentucky, National:

Churches shouldn't spurn the sinners

I am a licensed marriage and family therapist certified to provide court ordered sex offender assessments and treatment. Most of my clients are extremely socially isolated. I have indicated to those in my treatment group that they are welcome to come to my church.

Recently I was pleased when a member of my sex offender treatment group accepted my invitation to attend my church. Because he was required by his probation officer to notify the church's leadership of his desire to attend the church, I arranged a meeting to introduce him to our pastor and the moderator of the cabinet.

The meeting, however, did not go well. It seemed clear from the start that our leaders were uncomfortable with the idea of having a sex offender in our worship even though he would be accompanied by another responsible adult and would never be involved in any children's programs. My premonition was confirmed when they informed the petitioner, "that we would have to deny your request to attend our church."

It seems to me that there are two serious problems with this decision. The first problem is that it is based either on ignorance or an irrational fear or both.

On September 29, 2012, the Herald-Leader reported on the sexual abuse of a 15-year-old girl at Southland Christian Church. According to Matt Branaugh, editorial director of the church law tax group at Christianity Today, "In 2011, allegations involving child sex abuse were the top reason that churches were in state appellate and federal courts nationwide."

According to Kentucky State Police Lt. Shane Bates, commander of the electronic crimes unit, "It's not the scary, demonized, back-alley person that we always warn kids about in 'stranger danger' talks. It could be the person coaching your team. It could be the person at your church."

In contrast to the danger posed by those already ministering to children, I have never heard of the abuse of a child at a church by a convicted sex offender on a public registry.

Children in a church are more at risk of being abused by staff or volunteers than by a convicted and supervised sex offender who attends. Turning a sex offender away from the church in order to protect the children has no rational basis.

The second problem with the refusal to allow a sex offender to attend my own church is the inconsistency with that decision and the mission of the church to continue the ministry of Jesus, who did not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance. A hospital exists to serve the sick. A church exists to serve the sinner. A hospital that refuses to admit the sick has denied its reason for existence. A church that refuses to admit the sinner has denied its reason for existence. The words of Pope Francis are relevant: "Being with Jesus demands that we go out from ourselves, and from a tired and habitual faith."

Paradoxically, excluding sex offenders with restrictive laws regarding where they can live and rejecting them in public worship serves to increase the risk of reoffending. We put our children more at risk when we do not reach out to these men and women in compassion in order to reintegrate them into our community.

Thankfully, some churches have policies that both guide their ministry to sex offenders and protect children. As a professional credentialed by the Commonwealth of Kentucky to assess and treat sex offenders I would like to offer my services to any church or other group that would like to learn more about these criminals and how we can responsibly reintegrate them into society as productive citizens. ..Source.. by James Robert Ross

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Kentucky Supreme Court to consider fairness of child-abuse registry

9-4-2012 Kentucky:

A Louisville Sunday school teacher for 25 years, “W.B.” was appalled when he found out he might be listed on Kentucky’s Central Registry of substantiated child abusers because of an accusation for which he was never charged, says his lawyer, J. Fox DeMoisey.

W.B. feared that being listed would cost him his teaching post — and worse, his reputation, DeMoisey said. So W.B. skipped the normal appeals process and sued, saying he deserved to have his case heard by a jury.

A Jefferson Circuit Court judge and the Kentucky Court of Appeals ruled against him, saying that while the state should not “stigmatize the innocent,” it has an overriding interest in “keeping child abusers out of the ranks of child-care workers.”

Now, the state Supreme Court has agreed to hear oral arguments Sept. 12 in the case, deciding just how much due process individuals deserve before they are branded as abusers.

Unlike the sex-offender registries that every state makes available on the Internet, child abuse lists maintained in Kentucky, Indiana and virtually every other state generally aren’t accessible to the public.

But day care centers, schools and adoption agencies must check with the state to see if a prospective employee is listed, and individuals may ask for that information if, for example, they are hiring a nanny.

A person doesn’t have to be convicted or charged with a crime to be listed. In Kentucky, people are placed on it because a social worker substantiates an allegation of abuse or neglect.

There are 83,917 Kentuckians on the registry, which lists people for at least seven years, according to the Cabinet for Health and Family Services, which maintains the list and ran 41,872 checks last year.

DeMoisey said his client sued using his initials because it would have defeated the lawsuit’s purpose if he were named. DeMoisey said W.B. supervises maintenance and the physical plant at a large health care facility in Louisville.
Ensuring children safety

Nobody disputes the value of child offender ...continued... by Andrew Wolfson

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Sex-crime victim could be jailed for tweeting her attackers' names

7-22-2012 National:

A Kentucky girl who was sexually assaulted now faces jail time for talking about it publicly.

Savannah Dietrich, 17, could be locked up on contempt-of-court charges for tweeting the names of her attackers after they allegedly got a sweetheart plea bargain, according to a published report.

Dietrich, who was molested while passed out at a party by the sick creeps, told the Louisville Courier-Journal newspaper that she was outraged because the boys were given a deal that she thinks is “very, very light.”

The judge in the case had further protected the sex fiends by placing a gag order that barred Dietrich from talking about what happened to her.

“I was crying as she [the judge] was reading that,” Dietrich said. “They got off very easy . . . and they tell me to be quiet, just silencing me at the end.”

But she tweeted her attackers' names anyway, and now faces time behind bars for violating the order.

“There you go, lock me up,” tweeted Dietrich, who agreed that her name be made public although she is a sex-crime victim. “I’m not protecting anyone that made my life a living Hell. ..Source.. by TODD VENEZIA

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

How a ‘Tough-on-Crime’ State Became Smart on Crime

4-19-2011 Kentucky:

Kentucky’s overhaul of its criminal justice system this spring is a textbook example of genuine bipartisanship.

For three decades, Kentucky politicians proved they were tough on crime. At every opportunity, they stiffened sentences and added offenses to the state’s penal code.

They nearly bankrupted the state.

Kentucky’s corrections budget grew from $30 million in 1980 to nearly $470 million in 2010, even as lawmakers cut $1.8 billion from the state’s budget in the grip of a deep recession. The prison population grew 80 percent between 1997 and 2009, the year Kentucky led the nation in the rate of incarceration.

Of 22,000 state felons that year, 8,000 were in county jails that became dependent on state funding.

But the crime rate remained relatively flat, below the national average, and about what it was when the tough on crime movement began.

The state’s justice system seemed ripe for change. But no one expected it to be easy.

When some legislators in the Kentucky General Assembly tried to reduce the strain imposed on the state budget by prison overcrowding in 2009, by inserting parole credit provisions in the budget to release around 1,500 prisoners, prosecutors and law enforcement howled.

A challenge from a local prosecutor and the state attorney general to remove the provisions lost in court.

Nevertheless, few could have predicted what happened in late February this year. After a year of study, Kentucky lawmakers overhauled the state’s drug laws, as well as its sentencing, probation and parole system. The bill became law upon the signature of Gov. Steve Beshear the following week.

The reform is expected to lower prison populations, expand drug treatment and save the state more than $420 million over the next decade.

It was a landmark of bipartisanship, accomplished in the face of the kind of polarized political climate that has defeated similar reform attempts elsewhere.

Democrats and Republicans each control one chamber of the legislature, and the leader of the Republican Senate was openly planning to challenge the incumbent Democratic governor in the 2011 election.

The story of how it happened might serve as an object lesson to other states.

‘Stars in Alignment’

“(It happened) because all of the stars came into alignment and because of our ability to build on prior work,” recalls Justice and Public Safety Secretary J. Michael Brown.

Indeed, the tentative steps to reduce costs and prison populations two years earlier by granting inmates parole credits set the template for what happened this year. Two committees had studied the problem. But the discussion became serious when the legislature appropriated $200,000 to help fund a Pew Center of the States study of the problem.

A bi-partisan task force representing all three branches of government, and including a prominent defense attorney, former prosecutor and a county executive, was appointed.

Recognizing Kentucky’s conservative trend and its burgeoning illicit drug problems, the task force decided to involve stakeholders to build as much support as possible for reforms.

According to Brown, the fact that the “early parolees” released under the 2009 cost-cutting measures didn’t go on a crime spree was crucial to easing lawmakers’ fears about the consequences of reducing prison populations.

That may have helped win a joint endorsement from Beshear, Democratic House Speaker Greg Stumbo and Republican Senate President David Williams of a task force working with Public Safety Performance Project of the Pew Center for the States to formulate statutory reforms.

“You sort of had the top lined up,” Brown adds. “So the task became (reaching) the individual stakeholders who had deeply divided interests.”

That still could have meant trouble. Those stakeholders included law enforcement, prosecutors, and county governments whose jails depended on state funding for housing felons whom the prisons couldn’t accommodate.

Bleeding County Budgets Dry

Jails were bleeding county budgets dry, but counties feared the task force would recommend changing low-level felonies to misdemeanors, thus shifting inmates and additional costs to them.

The task force included a noted defense attorney, Guthrie True, and an equally noted former prosecutor, Tom Handy. They co-authored an op-ed piece arguing that reform reduced costs and increased public safety. The Supreme Court Chief Justice was a member, as was Brown and a county judge/executive.

The co-chairs were the legislature’s Judiciary Committee chairmen: Democratic Rep. John Tilley, a former prosecutor; and Republican Sen. Tom Jensen, a criminal defense attorney.

Pew provided research about what had worked in other states, such as Texas, which reduced costs while lowering the crime rate. Polling showed the public preferred “swift and certain punishment” to long, costly sentences. The polls also indicated the public favored treatment over incarceration for nearly three-quarters of Kentucky inmates who were addicts.

Beginning in June of last year, the task force held public meetings, asking stakeholders for suggestions, hoping to head off public anxiety and political fears of lawmakers.

Sometimes the entire task force met with the groups, often incorporating suggestions. It convened in June of 2010 and met through early January 2011 when the state General Assembly convened in Frankfort. Tilley and Jensen traveled the state, meeting with prosecutors, county officials, and law enforcement.

Describing the process later, Jensen said the task force decided to focus on drug crimes, treatment options and recidivism.

He and Tilley were in constant talks with Chris Cohron, a prosecutor and past president of the Commonwealth Attorneys Association who helped sooth prosecutors’ fears. They softened the financial blow to counties by allowing state inmates to serve their final months in jails at state expense, and mandated a portion of savings produced by reform be set aside to help counties with jail costs.

Cohron said prosecutors understood the budget situation. “It was abundantly clear that they were going to do something,” he said. “If we didn’t participate in the process we’d be stuck with whatever they came up with.”

At the last minute, hospitals got an amendment to the bill, over Tilley’s and Jensen’s objections, to prohibit so-called “prisoner dumping,” or furloughing inmates for treatment without county liability for costs.

Counties weren’t happy with this amendment. Jensen immediately gathered both sides and told them to work out an agreement “by tomorrow morning.”

Tommy Turner, the county Judge/Executive on the task force and Vince Lang, head of the County Judge/Executives Association, jointly determined that counties would live with the provision in exchange for guaranteed Medicaid rates for prisoners.

Public Vote

However reluctantly, stakeholders were now on board. The next and possibly hardest step loomed ahead. Lawmakers―vaguely aware of what the task force had been doing―suddenly faced a public vote on the bill.

The debate at first followed familiar rhetoric.

“You’re not asking us to vote for being soft on crime, are you?” asked a House committee chairman.

Tilley responded that the bill “is not soft on crime; it’s smart on crime."

It didn’t, for example, soften sentences for violent offenders or sexual crimes, he and other defenders noted. For further proof, they could point to Texas, which―though hardly known for a light touch on crime―passed similar legislation which saved millions even as its crime rate went down.

Another lawmaker told skeptics to talk to their local prosecutors, judge/executives and jailers.

“It’ll be all right,” the lawmaker insisted. “Just ask your people back home.”

They found them ready for change.

In the legislature meanwhile, Jensen told Senate President Williams he’d resign his Judiciary Committee chairmanship if he were unable to persuade colleagues to pass the bill. He also told a member of the Democratic House leadership.

House Democrats concluded they could comfortably support the bill without having the Republican Senate exploit their votes for political advantage.

And the relaxation of Kentucky’s often-heated partisan climate was mirrored at the top. Jensen and Tilley, who had barely known each other previously, developed a bond and trust. Neither feared being grandstanded or sandbagged by the other.

Together they briefed each party’s caucuses in both chambers. The relationship was critical, said Chief Justice John Minton, who looked on as the bill passed the House with only two nay votes.

“They were from two different parties, from two separate parts of the state, but their perseverance caused all of us to lay down our differences for the greater good,” he recalled.

The key, Tilley said, for any state, especially a conservative one like Kentucky, was the willingness “to meet with anybody who had any interest in these issues and to give lawmakers assurance (that) their local officials’ voices were heard.

After House passage, the more conservative Senate passed the bill unanimously.

Members in both chambers rose to their feet and cheered.

Kentucky’s lawmakers had finally decided to be smart on crime. ..Source.. by Ronnie Ellis writes for CNHI News Service and is based in Frankfort, Ky.

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...