Louisiana District Attorney Says Rape Survivors May Go To Jail If They Refuse To Testify

4-23-17 Louisiana:

Approximately two out of every three sexual assaults go unreported. People like Leon Cannizzaro are part of the reason why. The Louisiana District Attorney told WWL he’s perfectly okay with putting a rape survivor in jail if they refuse to testify against their attacker. “If I have to put a victim of a crime in jail for eight days in order to keep the rapist off of the street for a period years, and prevent him from raping or harming someone else, I’m going to do that,” he said.

His comments came on the heels of an report by Court Watch NOLA which criticized the practice of prosecutors using material witness warrants to incarcerate victims and survivors who refuse to testify. Executive director Simone Levine told the press said that the move to jail someone for refusing to testify is a “real disincentive.” The report says the practice of incarcerating assault survivors who are unwilling to testify should not be taken lightly. The prosecutor should consider “the seriousness of the offense, the strength of the case, and the public interest in punishing the defendant.”

What Cannizzaro fails to realize is how emotionally devastating testifying can be to someone who’s been through a sexual assault. These survivors are trying to process their own emotions surrounding what happened to them, along with the complex issues that come with stepping forward to speak out against your attacker. Sometimes the attacker is someone you have a history with, or is a member of your family. No matter what your relationship is to your attacker, there’s the chance that you’ll be blamed for what happened to you with questions about what you were wearing or if you were under the influence of any substances the night of the attack. And you could put yourself through all that just to have your attacker walk away anyhow. Remember Brock Turner? We sure do.

The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment does allow the defendant in a criminal prosecution to confront the witness against them. But facing your attacker can be extremely traumatic for some assault survivors. They need resources to help them deal with what happened, not being jailed and made to feel like they’re just as guilty as their attacker. Rather than threatening them with incarceration if they don’t want to testify, prosecutors should be doing whatever they can to avoid having to ask an unwilling survivor to testify. ..Continued.. by Megan Zander

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Appellate court reverses conviction of sex offender

11-15-2016 Louisiana:

Ruling: Jacobs should receive a new trial, chance at a fair jury

A registered sex offender who received a mandatory life sentence after being convicted of sexually assaulting a 12-year-old local girl is getting a second shot at justice.

The 6th District Court of Appeals, headquartered in Texarkana, threw out Joshua Jacobs' conviction for aggravated sexual assault of a child last week. Jacobs was found guilty in December 2015 by a Bowie County jury and received a mandatory life sentence based on his status as a sex offender required to register because of a prior conviction for felony carnal knowledge of a juvenile in Louisiana.

The higher court's reversal of Jacobs' conviction and order for a new trial stems from a ruling made by the trial judge during the jury selection process. The defense was not allowed to ask a panel of prospective jurors if an unrelated prior conviction for a sexual offense would lead them to believe Jacobs was guilty of committing the offense with which he was currently charged without making the state prove the elements required for a conviction under the law.

The ruling from 102nd District Judge Bobby Lockhart stemmed from concern that such a question might lead to a "poisoning" of the jury pool and make selecting a jury impossible. The defense was allowed to question the jury about their feelings concerning a prior "assaultive offense" but was not allowed to refer to the prior conviction as sexual in nature.

Among the elements the state must prove in any criminal case is that the offense occurred in the jurisdiction where the defendant is charged. The defense wanted to ask potential jurors if they would simply agree that elements the state must prove had been proven just because Jacobs had a prior conviction for a sexual offense.

In sexual abuse cases where a prior sexual abuse conviction exists, the state is allowed to present the information at trial. Jacobs' jury heard about the prior conviction during the state's opening statement and closing arguments and from the prior victim herself in the form of testimony.

The appeals court ruled that Jacobs' defense should have been able to question prospective jurors about their ability to follow the law in the presence of a prior conviction for a sexual offense so that potential jurors who said they would convict regardless of what the state proved based solely on the prior conviction could be excused from service. The higher court found that as a result, Jacobs' right to a fair and impartial jury was violated and that he should receive a new trial. ..Source.. by Lynn LaRowe

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Too Poor for Freedom: Sex Offender Registry and the Fourteenth Amendment

10-13-16 Louisiana:

Introduction

If a school mandated uniforms and suspended a child too poor to afford them, there would be an uproar. Media would excoriate the school for denying the impoverished an education due to their financial circumstances. Many would wonder at the cost of a uniform relative to the school’s budget, suggesting that the school simply offer the child a simple uniform. As ever, our instinctive notions of justice and fair play seem to end at criminal court.

In the state of Louisiana, a person required to register as a sex offender who cannot afford to do so, even if he or she turns himself or herself in to the police and asks for help, will be tried, found guilty, and sentenced to prison.[1] Inability to pay will not protect the sex offender from incarceration, nor will informing law enforcement and requesting aid. Under the current regulatory scheme, indigent sex offenders who have served their time have only prison in their future.

This comment argues that imprisonment and fines subsequent to a failure to register, when the offender cannot afford to pay registration costs, are unconstitutional under a substantive due process analysis, as per Bearden v. Georgia.[2] It explains the negative policy implications of the current system. Finally, the comment proposes a legislative solution—the Louisiana Legislature should establish a fund to cover the cost of registry for indigent sexual offenders. ..Continued.. by Gabriel Loupe, Senior Associate

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

U.S. Justice Department awards grants

11-3-15 Washington DC, Louisiana:

The U.S. Department of Justice announced 16 grants totaling more than $2.4 million awarded to 15 agencies within the Western District of Louisiana.

Two grants totaling $1.1 million were awarded to the Wellspring Alliance for Families in Monroe; more than $500,000 was awarded to the Tunica-Biloxi Tribe in Marksville; and more than $224,000 was awarded to Lafayette Consolidated Government. The remaining 12 grants were awarded to law enforcement agencies within the District.

Law enforcement agencies receiving the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant from the Bureau of Justice Assistance include: ..Continued.. by KATC.com

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

No chemical castration for convicted New Orleans rapist, Louisiana Supreme Court rules

5-6-15 Louisiana:

A 63-year-old New Orleans man convicted five years ago of knifepoint sexual assaults on two women in the early 1990s won’t be subject to a judge’s order for chemical castration because the law prescribing the procedure wasn’t around when he committed the crimes, the Louisiana Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.

The state high court also struck down convictions against Herbert Nicholson Jr. on counts of sexual battery, aggravated oral sexual battery and attempted aggravated rape.

Nicholson isn’t going anywhere, however. The Supreme Court maintained his three life sentences on two counts of aggravated kidnapping and a count of aggravated rape in separate attacks on female victims in 1991 and 1994 — crimes linked to him through DNA testing that came much later.

On the lesser counts, which carried terms of decades behind bars on top of the life sentences, the court found that the statute of limitations still applied at the time of the rapes, and that it had run out. The court found that those time limits still applied, despite a 2003 state law that retroactively reset the clock in cases where DNA testing uncovers perpetrators of long-ago sex crimes.

The court also found that chemical castration for some sex offenders — endorsed by the state Legislature in 2008 — amounts to additional punishment. That means a constitutional ban on ex post facto criminal punishment — punishment authorized after a crime was committed — applies, the court ruled.

Orleans Parish District Attorney Leon Cannizzaro’s office had argued that the chemical castration law was a remedial regulation, similar to sex offender registration requirements. A spokesman for Cannizzaro’s office declined to comment Tuesday, saying he hadn’t yet read the ruling.

The opinion, delivered by the court as a whole, signals that other convictions on sex crimes that aren’t punishable by life in prison can’t stand if the time limit for prosecuting them ran out before the DNA exception took effect 12 years ago. That could potentially affect several cases, such as Nicholson’s, that have cropped up from a push several years ago to test stacks of rape exam kits that had sat dormant for years or even decades on evidence room shelves.

In New Orleans alone, police in recent years have tested about 800 rape kits dating back to the late 1980s that had gathered dust, leading to several dozen matches. Just how many convictions stemming from those matches might be vulnerable under the court’s ruling was not immediately clear.

The greater impact on Nicholson, and perhaps others, is that the ruling indicates that nobody convicted of crimes committed before the 2008 chemical castration law took effect can be sentenced to the medroxyprogesterone acetate treatment.

Ben Aguinaga, an LSU Law Clinic member on a student team that litigated Nicholson’s appeal, said it’s uncertain how many sex offenders in the state prison system are subject to the controversial procedure.

“It’s a really drastic measure you certainly want to be careful about,” Aguinaga said. “One of the implications of this ruling is that this was a statute that wasn’t on the books until 2008, and it will only take effect on those people who have actually committed crimes after 2008.”

Justice Scott Crichton issued a separate, concurring opinion saying that, aside from the retroactivity problem, chemical castration for Nicholson “would otherwise be eminently reasonable and warranted based on this offender’s egregious and outrageous set of crimes.”

Criminal District Court Judge Robin Pittman handed down the sentences to Nicholson after a trial in which jurors heard evidence of even earlier assaults, from the 1970s, to which Nicholson had pleaded guilty, according to a nola.com report from 2010.

In another case, the story said, he’d been sentenced to death in the rape of a young girl, but the conviction was overturned. According to the report, Nicholson told Pittman to “rot in hell and suffer” following his sentencing.

Craig Mordock, one of Nicholson’s trial attorneys, said the legal questions addressed by the Supreme Court were raised early on in the case.

Mordock took broader issue with a law that allows a judge to sentence a defendant to chemical castration treatment on a first conviction for aggravated rape, forcible rape, second-degree sexual battery, molestation of a juvenile under 13 or aggravated crime against nature. The law mandates the sentence for a second offense.

“A person’s right to procreate is fundamental to their existence,” Mordock said. “The idea that the state Legislature wants to inhibit this, even on felons, means there’s virtually no limit to doing something like this.” by John Simerman

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Alabama sex offender files suit challenging Louisiana registry laws in federal court

4-21-15 Louisiana:

A New Orleans man convicted in Alabama of transmitting obscene material to a minor is challenging the constitutionality of recent Louisiana sex offender registration statutes in federal court.

In a lawsuit filed Tuesday afternoon (April 21) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, the plaintiff identified only as "John Doe" asks a federal judge to strike down two Louisiana statutes that he says violate his rights to equal protection and to freely travel that are guaranteed under the 5th and 14th amendments. The suit claims two state laws illegally intend to dissuade convicted sex offenders in other states from moving to Louisiana.

The suit, which names Gov. Bobby Jindal, Louisiana State Police Superintendent Mike Edmonson, NOPD Superintendent Michael Harrison, Department of Public Safety and Corrections secretary Jimmy LeBlanc and other state officials as defendants, asks a federal judge to strike down two state laws.

The first requires an offender's registration period to be that which would be required by Louisiana or the jurisdiction of conviction, whichever is longer. The second requires lifetime sex offender registrants who have moved to Louisiana to make in-person renewals every three months, regardless of whether terms were less onerous for Louisiana residents or in the state that convicted them.

New Orleans defense attorney Craig Mordock filed the lawsuit on behalf of "John Doe," who Mordock described as a father of two who merely wants to be treated fairly by his adopted home state.

"Every time somebody wants to look tough on crime, the legislature passes a restriction on sex offenders," Mordock said. "And, because (registration) is viewed as administrative and not punitive by the courts, a lot of it really can't be challenged. But on this one, I think the legislature and the governor crossed the line. They specifically said when the bill passed that the goal was to make it harder for out-of-state sex offenders to move here."

Indeed, in a newsletter posted on his official state website on June 4, 2012, Gov. Jindal lists among his selected highlights of the 2012 legislative package the passage of House Bill 558. Jindal wrote that the bill, sponsored by Rep. Joseph Lopinto (R-Metairie), "discourages out-of-state sex offenders from moving to Louisiana by requiring them to register for the time period provided by their state of conviction or as provided by Louisiana law, whichever period is longer."

Efforts to contact Lopinto for comment on the federal lawsuit Tuesday were unsuccessful. However, a spokesman for Attorney General Buddy Caldwell said the state law would be vigorously defended.

"We are in the process of reviewing the lawsuit," said Aaron Sadler, communications director for the Louisiana Department of Justice. "But we will aggressively defend against any challenge to laws enacted to make Louisiana safer for our children and families and to protect our citizens from sexual predators."

Mordock said his client would have been subjected to lifetime sex offender registry in Alabama, but only 15 years as a registrant if convicted of the same crime in Louisiana. Mordock said "John Doe" already was commuting between the states and had moved full-time to Louisiana prior to sentencing. He transferred his registration to Louisiana, but appealed his new home state's requirements on the basis that he already was a Louisiana resident before the law went into effect on May 14, 2012.

However, an administrative judge ruled that Mordock's client could not have legally established residency in Louisiana until after Alabama sentenced him in June 2012, meaning the new law applies.

"He was found guilty of a non-contact crime," Mordock said. "It was a police sting operation in Alabama. He got caught up on it, he pled guilty, he did his time, and he recognizes that he is going to have to be on the registry for some period of time. But it doesn't seem fair that he's on the registry in Louisiana, where there's some economic opportunity for him, for the rest of his life, whereas somebody in a similar situation who is from Louisiana would only be on for 15 years."

Mordock said his client was left with no choice but to challenge the constitutionality of the state laws in federal court.

"Mr. Doe, had he been convicted of the same offense in Louisiana, would only be required to register for 15 years, and would only renew his registration in person once every year," the suit says. "He is thereby treated more harshly than his fellow Louisiana citizens because of his decision to migrate to Louisiana."

That seems to have been the point of the new law, after all. But Mordock said such intent, coupled with the lack of public sympathy for registered sex offenders, doesn't make the statutes constitutional.

"We can't just disregard the law because we don't feel sorry for someone, or pick and choose what laws apply to what people," he said. "The law is designed to protect not just people you have sympathy for, but everyone. And if the law doesn't protect people you don't have sympathy for, then I don't know what the point of the law is.

"This statute was passed, clearly, to prevent people from moving to Louisiana. And the United States' constitution says you can't do that. This law violates the constitution, and it is unfairly punishing the plaintiff in this case." ..Source.. by Ken Daley

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Woman Can Fight Bogus Sex-Offender Registry

3-13-15 Louisiana:

Louisiana's probation authority must face claims that it made a sex offender out of a woman who pleaded guilty only to criminal mischief, an appeals court ruled.

The 12-page opinion emphasizes that woman in question, Meiko Prevo, had an eighth-grade education and that her probation officer, David Phillips, threatened her with arrest and jail on their first meeting if she did not register as a sex offender.

Against her protests, the officer maintained "that according to the State Police and everything that [he] could confirm at that time, she was [a sex offender]," the decision continues.

Prevo had been arrested for the offense of crime against nature in 2000, but she pleaded guilty that year to a reduced charge of criminal mischief.

She met Officer Phillips long after she completed her probation for that misdemeanor charge and received another term of probation in 2008 for distribution of cocaine.

Officer Phillips told Prevo that she would go to jail if she did not register as a sex offender because those two words were stamped at the top of her 2000 "crime against nature" disposition.

Though Prevo's attorney from 2000 explained to the officer that Prevo had pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of criminal mischief, Phillips was unmoved.

Prevo registered as a sex offender in Webster Parish and says Phillips never heeded her requests to look into the matter.

When Prevo failed to reregister in May 2010, authorities tracked her down at her residence and Prevo registered as a sex offender again the next month to avoid jail. Prevo got a new probation officer that fall when Phillips got a promotion.

This new officer immediately investigated Prevo's status when she told him she did not believe she was a sex offender, and he began the process to have her removed from the sex-offender registry in a matter of weeks.

Prevo filed suit in 2011, but the trial judge in Webster agreed with each of the defendants that Prevo had waited too long to sue.

In Louisiana civil law, defendants have what is known as a peremptory exception of prescription for claims like those brought by Prevo.

Prevo claimed on appeal that her one-year window to sue opened only after she was removed from the sex-offender registry.

Louisiana's 2nd Circuit Court of Appeal revived Prevo's claims last week against the state Department of Public Safety and Corrections Division of Probation and Parole.

"Plaintiff's opinions were overridden by a law officer, and his view that she was a sex offender was imposed through threats of arrest and jail," Chief Judge Henry Brown wrote for a three-person majority. "Such misrepresentations by one with authority resulted in the delay by plaintiff in filing her action. Considering plaintiff's limited education, the nature of defendant's conduct and position of authority, we find that plaintiff's action against the DOC should not be barred by prescription."

Judge J. Jay Caraway said that the dismissal of Prevo's claims should have been affirmed entirely.

Prevo "fully understood the impending harm and was not misled and thwarted by the DOC's
action from availing herself of her cause of action after her damaging registration occurred," Caraway wrote.

Judge Jeanette G. Garrett echoed this dissent separately, despite saying that "the callous indifference" Officer Phillips exhibited toward Prevo "is appalling."

"However, this record is clear that all of the events which gave rise to the plaintiff's cause of action and caused her damage occurred more than one year prior to the filing of the suit," Garrett wrote. ..Source.. by JEFF D. GORMAN

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Billing for rape: Louisiana sex assault victims often face hefty bills for medical care

9-29-2014 Louisiana:

She was questioned, prodded and photographed over the course of six hours. Nurses collected samples of tissue and fluid from her mouth and her body. They took her urine, drew her blood and bagged her clothes. They offered her drugs to prevent pregnancy, HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases. Then, they led her to a private shower and sent her home.

Her life, she felt, was now divided into two eras: Pre-rape and post-rape. Eight days into the shock of this new reality, she received a letter she couldn't comprehend.

The cost of some of the medical services she received totaled nearly $2,000, it said. Insurance would pay $1,400. She would owe the remaining $600 -- for her share of the cost of two HIV drugs and two other medications designed to stave off side-effects of those drugs.

She folded the papers, stuffed them in her purse and tried to calm down. A few days later, another bill would arrive, showing an additional $1,700 in charges for her care, including an $860 fee for her visit to the emergency room.

"You never really think, 'Is rape covered by insurance?'" the New Orleans woman said. NOLA.com | The Times-Picayune does not generally identify victims of sexual crimes.

The letter from the hospital was no aberration. In Louisiana, victims of sex crimes often face paralyzing bills for forensic medical exams and related care, even though state and federal guidelines require that many of these services be provided at no cost to the victim. And there's little continuity in how rape victims are treated from parish to parish and hospital to hospital.

While the state's Crime Victims Reparations Fund does permit victims to apply for reimbursement for some medical expenses, there are strict limitations regarding who can qualify, including a requirement that the victim file a police report. Research by the U.S. Department of Justice indicates nearly two-thirds of sex assault victims don't ever go to law enforcement.

Victim advocates worry that prohibitive costs will only increase the likelihood that rape victims will suffer quietly without seeking the medical assistance they may need.

"Sexual assault is already one of the most underreported crimes, period," said Amanda Tonkovich, a counselor at New Orleans Family Justice Center and coordinator of the New Orleans Sexual Assault Response Team. "Even if people don't want to report, we want them to come to the hospital and make sure they're OK, medically speaking." ..Continued ..LOADED with addition info.. by By Rebecca Catalanello, NOLA.com | The Times-Picayune

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Air Force releases sexual assault convictions

11-21-2013 Louisiana:

BARKSDALE AIR FORCE BASE, La. -- The Air Force has made available online a listing of the service's sexual assault convictions with offenders' names, to further emphasize that this criminal conduct is not tolerated.

Anyone can view the site, which contains more than 100 sexual assault convictions from across the Air Force listed by base.

This is a significant deterrent to potential offenders and lets Airmen know that our commanders take this crime seriously, according to Col. Ronald Ratton, AFGSC staff judge advocate.

Some of the cases involve Airmen assaulting fellow Airmen. Many times these victims were co-workers - people who trusted their assailant. These offenders violated that trust and were punished accordingly.

"This is the latest initiative undertaken by the Air Force to aggressively combat the problem of sexual assaults - further underscoring there is absolutely no tolerance for this crime in our ranks," Vicki Shepherd, AFGSC Sexual Assault Prevention Response coordinator, said.

As required by many state laws, convicted Airmen must also register in their jurisdiction's sexual assault registry. These sex offender lists include the names and addresses of convicted sex offenders and are publicly available online.

Airmen convicted of sexual assault will be held accountable by military judges and court-martial panels. Punishments often include jail time, rank reductions and punitive discharges. Airmen are encouraged to visit the website and review the facts of each case, then educate and warn fellow Airmen about the consequences of committing these crimes.

"If someone observes something unfolding they should be a good wingman and safely intervene," Shepherd said. "A few words of intervention can be the best remedy and prevention." U.S. Air Force Sexual Assault convictions online ..Source..

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Hundreds to be stricken from Louisiana sex offender registry after class-action suit's settlement

6-13-2013 Louisiana:

Hundreds of people who were convicted of soliciting oral or anal sex for money under Louisiana's "crime against nature by solicitation" law will have their names removed from the state's sex offender registry following the settlement of a class-action lawsuit.

U.S District Judge Martin Feldman on Tuesday approved the settlement agreement between the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights and Louisiana Attorney General James "Buddy" Caldwell's office.

Feldman ruled last year that nine plaintiffs who were convicted of the offense must be stricken from the registry. Plaintiffs' lawyers argued the ruling should be applied to roughly 700 others in the same position.

Alexis Agathocleous, one of the lead plaintiffs' lawyers on the case, said the registration requirement for people convicted of violating the law disproportionately punished black women and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.

"We are gratified that the state has agreed to vindicate the rights of hundreds of people who continued to be unconstitutionally registered as sex offenders," he said in a statement.

The settlement doesn't apply to people convicted of soliciting sex from a minor or anyone who was convicted of another sex offense subject to registration. State officials have up to 30 days to make an initial determination of who is entitled to be removed from the registry.

Feldman ruled last year that state lawmakers had no "rational basis" for requiring people to register as sex offenders if they were convicted of violating the law. The judge said the plaintiffs wouldn't have had to register if instead they had been convicted of soliciting sex for money under the state prostitution law.

The state Legislature amended the 200-year-old law in 2011 so that anyone convicted of a "crime against nature by solicitation" no longer will be required to register. But the legislative change didn't apply to hundreds who already were registered.

During a hearing in December 2012, a lawyer representing Caldwell's office argued that the recent change in state law leaves the potential class members without any valid claims. Feldman refused to dismiss the class-action suit, however, and expressed frustration at the pace of the process for deciding whether people already had a right to have their names removed from the registry

"I am incredulous and very concerned about why this process has been dragged out against the backdrop of politics for so long," the judge said. ..Source.. by MICHAEL KUNZELMAN

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Legislative auditor finds fraud in food stamp program

Folks need to review the Louisiana Auditor's Report and you will find that, persons with sex crimes had NOTHING to do with the problems LA had with their food stamp program. In fact, the report points to 84 drug offenders abusing the system in one way or another! The full LA Audit Report is HERE.

In Sen. Vitter's Press Release regarding the Amendment he mentions the LA Auditor's Report as his basis for his Amendment 1056, but there is NO correlation with the problems the LA Auditor found and anyone with a sex crime in their background. So What is his reasoning behind this Amendment? This Washington Post article may lend a clue: Vitter’s efforts in the Senate outlast the shadow of his scandal

5-6-2013 Louisiana:

About $1.1 million in federal food stamp money was spent over the past two years by people who were incarcerated and not eligible for the program, the state Legislative auditor found in a report released Monday. The audit encouraged the Louisiana Department of Children and Family Services to do a better job policing its own databases and other records to root out fraud.

More than 80 convicted drug felons who were not eligible for the program received $107,864 in benefits in 2011 and 2012. People convicted of felony drug offenses must wait a year from their release from prison before they can receive food stamps, according to the report.

DCFS could prevent these problems from recurring by checking people who sign up for the program against data from the Louisiana Department of Corrections, the report suggested.

The auditor also found signs of potential fraud that should be more fully explored. This included more than 3,000 of the state's 866,335 recipients who spent all of their benefits in other states, an indication that they perhaps no longer live in Louisiana and might be double dipping. These participants spent $2 million last year.

Another example of potential fraud were 154 cases identified by the auditor that involved a recipient using a benefit card in Louisiana and within an hour spending the food stamp money in another state.

"DCFS takes seriously our responsibility to be good stewards of the resources provided," Secretary Suzy Sonnier said in a statement released on Monday. "DCFS is reviewing all the cases cited in the report for potential fraud and will work with authorities to prosecute those who have purposely tried to defraud the system."

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, as the program is now called, is a federal program managed by state agencies. In Louisiana, DCFS determines who is eligible, giving out benefit cards that each month are loaded with a family's allotment of money. Those benefits range from $200 for a single person to $1,202 for a family of eight.

The Louisiana program had $1.4 billion in expenditures in 2012.

In a written response to the report, Sonnier said her agency will get better documentation about prisoners from the corrections department to prevent the kind of fraud detailed in the report. Sonnier also pledged to expand the agency's data analysis.

Auditors found a few problems that could be examined by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which certifies the stores allowed to accept food stamps and is responsible for monitoring potential fraud at the retail level.

Investigators found two stores where participants travel long distances to shop, a sign of possible problems. "According to DCFS, participants who travel long distances to certain retailers may do so because they know that certain retailers will traffic benefits," the report stated.

They also found a couple smaller stores, including a donut shop in New Orleans, with numerous purchases over $100. One small grocery store in Monroe had 7,787 transactions where participants spent more than $100, receiving $1.64 million.

In her letter, Sonnier said that DCFS will refer the auditor's findings to federal authorities, as well as the Louisiana Inspector General. ..Source.. by Laura Maggi, NOLA.com | The Times-Picayune

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Judge refuses to toss suit over La sex registry

12-19-2012 Louisiana:

NEW ORLEANS (AP) — A federal judge refused Wednesday to dismiss a class-action lawsuit that seeks to have removed from the state's sex offender registry roughly 400 people who were convicted of soliciting oral or anal sex for money under Louisiana's "crime against nature by solicitation" law.

U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman ruled in April that the names of nine plaintiffs who were convicted of the same offense must be stricken from the registry. A separate suit, filed after Feldman issued his decision, says the ruling should be applied to anyone in the same position.

Louisiana Attorney General James "Buddy" Caldwell's office urged Feldman to dismiss the latest suit, arguing that a recent change in state law leaves the potential class members without any valid claims.

Feldman rejected that request after challenging Phyllis Glazer, a lawyer for Caldwell's office, to explain why the hundreds of potential class members aren't immediately entitled to the same relief as the nine plaintiffs who sued last year.

"Sometimes I wonder if anything the state has done in this case has passed the laugh test," he said.

Feldman expressed frustration at the pace of the process for deciding whether people already have a right to have their names removed from the registry

"I am incredulous and very concerned about why this process has been dragged out against the backdrop of politics for so long," he said.

The state Legislature amended the 200-year-old law last year so that anyone convicted of a "crime against nature by solicitation" no longer will be required to register. But the legislative change didn't apply to the nine original plaintiffs or roughly 484 other people statewide who already were registered.

Feldman's earlier ruling said state lawmakers had no "rational basis" for requiring people to register as sex offenders if they were convicted of violating the law. The judge said the plaintiffs wouldn't have had to register if instead they had been convicted of soliciting sex for money under the state prostitution law.

Several weeks after that ruling, state lawmakers changed the law again. Glazer said the change requires people to prove they didn't solicit sex from a minor before they can be removed from the registry.

"The Legislature made a concerted effort to provide relief to the people it applied to," she said.

Plaintiffs' attorney Bill Quigley said virtually all of the potential class members are people who were arrested in sting operations for soliciting sex from undercover police officers.

"It's never a minor," he said in an interview after the hearing.

Quigley said dozens of people already have gone to court since Feldman's April ruling and successfully petitioned to have their names removed from the registry, but many don't have the means to follow suit.

Feldman said he has tried to bring a "commonsense approach" to his review of the case.

"Equal protection of the law in not rocket science. It's commonsense," he said. ..Source.. by MICHAEL KUNZELMAN

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Court: Child porn victims can get restitution

10-1-2012 Louisiana:

NEW ORLEANS (AP) -- Child pornography victims can recover money from people convicted of viewing their abuse without having to show a link between the crime and their injuries, a federal appeals court ruled Monday.

The decision conflicts with rulings by several other federal circuits, possibly setting the stage for a Supreme Court challenge.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a woman, identified as "Amy" in court documents, was entitled to restitution from Texas resident Doyle Randall Paroline and New Orleans resident Michael Wright, both of whom pleaded guilty in separate cases to possessing child pornography that included images of Amy.

Amy sought more than $3.3 million from Paroline to cover the cost of her lost income, attorneys' fees and psychological care. A federal judge rejected her request. ..continued... by MICHAEL KUNZELMAN

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Cab Owner Raked Over Coals on Murdered Child

9-5-2012 Louisiana:

I totally disagree with the court's reasoning, which is based on a willing passenger, and the child was not. No child is likely to hail a cab to go somewhere. i.e., the court's thinking. Here the cab driver misused the cab, and the owner could not have for-seen this when he hired him. If we were to accept the court's reasoning, then whatever instrument used in a sex crime could subject the manufacturer to liability. i., a home builder (or previous owner) if he sold home to a sex offender, etc.

9-6-2012 Louisiana:

A taxicab company owner may be personally liable for hiring a known sex offender now accused of murdering a 12-year-old boy, a Louisiana appeals court ruled.

Prosecutors say that Brian Douglas Horn lured 12-year-old Justin Bloxom into his cab in 2010 by sending the child text messages in which he posed as a girl.

Horn, then 34, allegedly smothered Bloxom and dumped his body in the woods.

As Horn awaits a criminal trial on the charge of first-degree murder, he also faces a civil complaint from the child's mother, Amy Nicole Whitham Bloxom.

The city of Shreveport, an insurance company and Horn's boss David McFarlin dba Action Taxi are also named as defendants in the civil action.

Though the Louisiana's Second Circuit Court of Appeal originally found that McFarlin deserved summary judgment on the negligence claim, a sharply divided panel reversed last week after a rehearing.

"McFarlin knew that Horn was a convicted and registered sex offender, having been convicted for felony sexual assault in Missouri, and before that in Louisiana for indecent behavior with a juvenile," Judge John Larry Lolley wrote for the three-member majority.

"From the facts discovered thus far, it appears that McFarlin chose to hire Horn, despite his knowledge of Horn's proclivities," Lolley added. "McFarlin lightly accepted the fact, personally chose to disregard the importance of the information, and gave Horn the protective shield of the taxi cab to pursue his victim."

The majority emphasized how McFarlin hired Horn for a job that holds a unique position in society.

"Whereas most people, certainly children, would not get into a random vehicle with a complete stranger, custom tells us that a taxi is safe and dependable," the 8-page ruling states. "This despite the fact that the passenger is at the complete and utter mercy of a perfect stranger, who has full dominion over the passenger, a virtual sitting duck."

The decision asks later: "Who has the control to ensure that the taxi cab driver is not dangerous? In this case, one person had control of that decision: McFarlin. One person made the decision that Horn, a known sex offender, could be entrusted with the public's safety, the highest degree of care, even though his legal status reflected he could not be so trusted. McFarlin knowing that Horn was a dangerous person, still made the choice to set him loose among the public under the guise of a secure taxi cab. McFarlin's gross misjudgment should not allow him the cover of the corporate shield that is allowed most corporate officers who make careless and unknowing mistakes."

McFarlin's attorney Ronald Raney with Lunn Irion Salley argued that the risk Horn posed was not foreseeable, but the court disagreed.

"In fact, placing a known sex offender in a taxi cab, with unfettered access and control over his passengers who assume they are in a position of safety is akin to placing the proverbial fox in the hen house," Lolley wrote.

"This employee had the 'unique opportunity' to commit the precise sort of tort McFarlin was informed Horn might commit," he added. "This horrific case is intensely fact specific. In this particular case, for this particular employee, who was hired by McFarlin for the particular purpose of driving a cab, we believe there exists a genuine issue of whether McFarlin had a personal duty to Justin and, now, his mother. In fact, this case is the exception, not the rule, for which prior jurisprudence has allowed a crack, even a sliver, to pierce the corporate veil and find the corporate officer personally liable. We are willing to slip through that crack in this particular case and give the trial court the opportunity to open that door at trial. McFarlin's overt degree of negligence should not allow him to stand in the shadows of the corporate veil to avoid personal liability for the murder of Justin Bloxom."

The dissenting members of the court, Judge D. Milton Moore and pro tempore Judge Fred Sexton, disagreed on this point.

"The extraordinary and horrific nature of Horn's acts is precisely what takes this case out of the ambit of the reasonably foreseeable," Moore wrote (emphasis in original). "The defendant's reasonable duty does not extend to all risks."

Within months of Bloxom's murder, the Louisiana Legislature passed a law to forbid sex offenders from serving as bus, cab or limousine drivers. The law is called the Justin M. Bloxom Act.

Moore notes that the court cannot use this law against McFarlin "because it was not on the books when McFarlin approved Horn's hiring." ..Source.. by JEFF D. GORMAN

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Louisiana School Forces Students to Take Pregnancy Tests, Kicks Out Girls Who Refuse Or Test Positive

School is out of control. Hope ACLU wins.

8-7-2012 Louisiana:

One Louisiana school is dealing with the state’s high rates of teen pregnancy by taking an “out of sight, out of mind” approach. No pregnant students are welcome at Delhi Charter School in Delhi, Louisiana — a policy that the institution enforces by requiring students who are “suspected” of being pregnant to submit to a mandatory pregnancy test.

If students are pregnant, they are no longer allowed to attend classes on the school’s campus and will be forced to either switch to another school or begin a home school program. If a student refuses to take the test, she is “treated as a pregnant student” and also kicked out of Delhi Charter School, according to the student handbook: ..Continued.. by Tara Culp-Ressler

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Lake Charles sex offender ordinance on hold

7-12-2012 Louisiana:

The controversial Lake Charles sex offender ordinance is on hold tonight.

Judge Michael Canaday issued a temporary restraining order Thursday preventing the city from imposing the new restrictions on sex offenders, like a $400 registration fee.

The restraining order will stand until Aug. 22 when a hearing on a legal challenge to the ordinance will be held. ..Source.. by E'Lyn Taylo

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Lake Charles man files suit against the sex offender registration ordinance

7-5-2012 Louisiana:

LAKE CHARLES, LA (KPLC) - Lake Charles sex offenders are being warned to comply with the strict new city ordinance dealing with sex offender registration.

The new ordinance first approved in January 2011 sought to require sex offenders to pay a local registration fee of $600. But after a legal challenge the ordinance was amended to $400 and that may, in some cases, be over and above the $60.

A lawsuit challenging that was dismissed but now a new one has been filed. Letters like this one have been sent out to sex offenders in Lake Charles putting them on notice about the new ordinance.

The letter says each should make an appointment at the police department to ensure they are in compliance or risk being arrested for failure to register.

Sex offender Clinton Fruge has filed a new lawsuit to challenge the amended ordinance which he believes is unconstitutional. "Now the City of Lake Charles is trying to broaden the punishment for sex offenders by adding the extensive fees that will go to Lake Charles Police Department," said Fruge.

He considers the now $400 Lake Charles registration fee and other provisions of the ordinance to amount to more punishment on those who completed their sentences. "They don't want registered sex offenders living in Calcasieu Parish or within city limits of Lake Charles. People have challenged these ordinances and they have been successful on their challenges," said Fruge.

Fruge pleaded guilty 20 years ago to attempted forcible rape. He is now married with a step child. His wife Amy says the over the top law causes financial hardship for struggling families. "They served their time when they were in jail. When they got out they had their parole to serve. I do not believe that we should continue to add money to add money to these people and continue to dig in their pockets and hurt them and their families because of something they may have done twenty, thirty even up to fifty years ago," said Fruge.

Police officials say the $400 fee is to recoup money the police department spends dealing with sex offenders and registration requirements. The state fee for sex offender registration is $60.

Assistant City Attorney Chris John says the lawsuit will likely delay enforcement of the ordinance. No word yet on a hearing date.

Fruge had sued earlier but says the suit was dismissed without prejudice. He said he didn't oppose because he thought there was going to be a compromise and the matter resolved. He says it hasn't been so he has filed a new lawsuit.

Basically, Fruge says the ordinance is unconstitutional. He says the registration fee and rules pertaining to residency heap on additional punishment and that the $400 fee is aimed at raising money for the Lake Charles Police Department.

In the last week or so, letters were sent out to known sex offenders in Lake Charles. Fruge received a letter saying the ordinance takes effect July 18 and that he is to contact one of the police officers named in the letter to update his sex offender registration status. The letter says, "Failure to contact and schedule an appointment will subject you to arrest for Failure to Register."

The letter goes on to say, "If you have registered since January 1, 2012 and paid the Louisiana state $60 fee you are still required by law to register and pay the Lake Charles Police Department an initial registration fee of $400." ..Source.. by Theresa Schmidt

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Suit: Names must be removed from sex registry

6-27-2012 Louisiana:

NEW ORLEANS — A class-action lawsuit seeks to have nearly 500 people convicted of soliciting oral or anal sex for money under Louisiana's "crime against nature by solicitation" law removed from the state's sex offender registry.

A federal judge in New Orleans ruled in April that the names of nine plaintiffs who were convicted of the same offense must be stricken from the registry. The class-action suit filed Wednesday in federal court argues the ruling should apply to anyone in the same position.

The state Legislature amended the 200-year-old law last year so that anyone convicted of a "crime against nature by solicitation" no longer will be required to register.

But the legislative change didn't apply to the nine people who sued or roughly 484 people statewide who already were registered. ..Source.. by MICHAEL KUNZELMAN

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Judge orders 9 names removed from sex registry

4-11-2012 Louisiana:

A federal judge has ruled that the names of 9 people who were convicted of soliciting oral or anal sex for money under Louisiana's "crime against nature by solicitation" law must be removed from the state's sex offender registry.

A lawyer for the nine anonymous plaintiffs covered by Wednesday's order says it could clear the way for roughly 400 other people convicted of the same crime to have their names removed.

A March 29 ruling by U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman said state lawmakers had no "rational basis" for requiring people to register as sex offenders if they were convicted of violating the law.

Feldman said the plaintiffs wouldn't have had to register if instead they had been convicted of soliciting sex for money under the state prostitution law. ..Source.. by WXVT15.com (see discussion and opinion at Constitutional Law Profs Blog)

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

'CRIMES AGAINST NATURE' NAMES REMOVED FROM STATE REGISTRY

4-10-2012 Louisiana:

People convicted under Louisiana's centuries-old law against solicitation of "crimes against nature" no longer have to register as sex offenders, thanks to Gov. Bobby Jindal's signing of HB 141 last year — and to a recent federal court decision.

The law passed last year equalizes the penalties for prostitution and solicitation of "crimes against nature" (oral and anal sex), including not having to register as sex offenders — but that law was not retroactive. That meant that persons previously convicted of solicitation of crimes against nature remained on a long list of sex offenders. Persons convicted of prostitution never had to register.

All that changed in late March when U.S. District Judge Martin L. C. Feldman, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan, granted a motion by unnamed plaintiffs challenging the unequal treatment of persons previously convicted of solicitation. The judge agreed that it was unconstitutional to leave persons previously convicted of the offense on the list, while those convicted of solicitation after the law took effect are not listed. The federal suit was filed last year against Jindal, in his capacity as governor, and others.

"The defendants fail to credibly serve up even one unique legitimating governmental interest that can rationally explain the registration requirement," Feldman wrote. The judge added, "The issue presented in this case is not about approval or disapproval of sexual beliefs or mores. It is about the mandate of equality that is enshrined in the Constitution."

Unless overturned by a higher court, Feldman's ruling will remove the plaintiffs' names as well as hundreds others from the state's sex offender registry.

The 2003 U.S. Supreme Court case of Lawrence v. Texas declared sodomy laws unconstitutional, yet eight states, including Louisiana, still prohibit crimes against nature. The Louisiana statute is more than 200 years old. In 2005, the Louisiana Supreme Court struck down a statute criminalizing certain consensual sex acts, but the court upheld the solicitation statute. ..Source.. by Alex Woodward

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...