Federal court says state can put sex offender status on driver's licenses

11-29-17 Oklahoma:

Federal judges say red letters on driver’s licenses are not cruel and unusual

OKLAHOMA CITY — A federal court has ruled that Oklahoma can include aggravated sex offender status on driver’s licenses.

The 2007 state law allows for the note to be included in red letters in three places on the driver’s license. Ray Carney, who was convicted of sexually abusing a child, filed the lawsuit. He is scheduled for release in 2018 and must register as a sex offender.

The case made its way to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled that the law does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment, nor does it treat him unfairly compared to sex offenders who do not receive “aggravated” status. ..Continued..

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Tulsa Police Worried About Sex Offender's Legal Victory

9-14-15 Oklahoma:

TULSA - Tulsa Police are worried now that a convicted child molester has won a legal victory against the Tulsa County District Attorney's office.

Stephen Barnes was convicted in 1999 of rape and lewd acts involving a minor. According to Department of Corrections records, he was released in 2012. He's a registered sex offender, but now that he's out of prison, he wants to live with his mother in east Tulsa.

A 2003 Oklahoma law prevents sex offenders from living near schools and daycare centers. In January 2015, Barnes asked the courts for an injunction against the Tulsa County District Attorney's office, Tulsa Police and the Tulsa County Sheriff's Office, arguing that since the law was passed after he committed his crimes, it didn't apply to him.

Earlier this month the judge ruled in his favor, saying he can live wherever he wants.

Tulsa police fear this will lead to a similar situation for many more convicted child molesters.

"The whole premise of the sex offender registry is to protect our children. Safe zones were created for families to at least feel comfortable knowing there were no sex offenders living nearby. The ruling will open the door for sex offenders to file similar lawsuits and be granted the freedom to reside next to an elementary school, if they so choose," said Tulsa Police Sgt. John Adams. ..Source.. by Lori Fullbright

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Federal court ruling could soon affect Oklahoma sex offenders

11-29-2014 Oklahoma:

OKLAHOMA CITY – Thousands of Oklahoma sex offenders could soon have free reign on the internet after a federal appeals court ruled it’s a 1st amendment violation to monitor their online activity.

Right now, most sex offenders in our state are not allowed to use the internet.

The recent ruling was on a California case (Doe, Roe, CA-RSOL -v- Harris), but it’s expected that the federal court that oversees Oklahoma cases will likely review it and make a similar ruling.

That has a lot of metro parents concerned.

It’s no secret that most kids spend a lot of time online whether it’s Facebook or image-sharing sites.

Soon, sex offenders in Oklahoma could be on those same sites too.

A federal court has just ruled that sex offenders have the constitutional right to use the internet.

“It`s going to happen here too. It`s just a matter of time before a case goes before the court and some sex offender challenges it and says, ‘I have a first amendment right to get on the internet just like anyone else,’” attorney David Slane said.

For years, most sex offenders in Oklahoma haven’t been allowed to use the internet.

It’s a blanket rule that goes along with keeping them away from parks, schools, and day cares.

Some attorneys who represent sex offenders say not being able to use the internet is unfair, at a time when everything is online.

“If someone’s on the computer looking at child pornography, clearly we need to have rules for that person getting on the internet. But if someone simply urinates on the side of the road coming from a bar, we have no reason to believe they`re going to get on the internet and do anything wrong anyway,” Slane said.

The thought of more potential predators online has parents concerned.

“There`s no telling what could be going on, when you step away for a minute and you can`t watch over their shoulder all the time, as they get older especially,” Lauren Chandler said.

There are ways to protect your kids.

Social media expert Patrick Allmond says the easiest way is the parental controls on your wireless router.

“There are settings usually inside of a wireless router where you can say this computer can go to these websites or can’t go to these websites,” Allmond said.

Some parents think they shouldn’t have to take these precautions.

“I think sex offenders should be locked up, throw away the key, and not let out,” Courtney Botts said.

If a registered sex offender creates a Facebook page, the company monitors that, and it will delete the page.

Some legal experts think this case will go to the Supreme Court. ..Source.w/Video. by Abby Broyles

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Confusion Continues Over Sex Offender Registry In Oklahoma

8-17-2014 Oklahoma:

After years of revisions laws concerning Oklahoma sex offenders, there is still confusion over the offender registry.

Seven years ago, Oklahoma amended the state's Sex Offender Registration Act that requires the Department of Corrections to assess offenders by assigning them to one of three risk levels.

A sex offender's level determines how long they have to register.

"Except, this is the confusing part, unless your case was before 2007, and if it was before 2007, those rules don't apply to you unless aggravated applies to you," said defense attorney David Slane. "The legislature has changed the rules repeatedly, then the Department of Corrections is trying to interpret it to thousands of people, and in the meantime, the average policeman is trying to figure out what am I supposed to do, am I supposed to arrest this individual or not."

Slane said the rules are not as black and white as they used to be and calls it legal chaos.

Last month, a convicted sex offender was arrested in Edmond for public intoxication. He had been living by a school and told police the 2007 law prevented him from having to re-register as a sex offender. We tried looking the offender up on the Oklahoma Sex Offender Registry, but he wasn't even listed.

The confusing laws are troubling for parents.

"Of course it concerns me, you know, especially, when you have little kids around, I would like to know who is living next door to me," said Ivan Alvarez or Tulsa.

Stephanie Rodriguez of Amarillo, said she's used the App "MobilePatrol" to see a list of sex offenders nearest her.

“It's kind of scary because it will show you in red circles how many, and it's amazing to see how many are on the list, people who aren't on the list, it's just kind of creepy, especially, with what happened," Rodriguez said.

There are currently more than 7,000 offenders on the Oklahoma Sex Offender Registry. The Department of Corrections say it is currently reviewing about 1,000 sex offender cases. ..Source.. by Heather Hope

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Oklahoma Removes 2,400 Registered Sex Offenders After Supreme Court Ruling

5-8-2014 Oklahoma:

Oklahoma has removed 2,400 sex offenders from its registry since a Supreme Court decision six months ago. The legislature passed a law in 2007 increasing the number of years sex offenders have to register, and it was applied to people already convicted, but the U.S. Supreme court said the law could only apply to people going forward. (This is in error, it was the OK Supreme court)

When I was in the sex offender registration office, I met a man who was crying because he'd just learned he no longer has to register.

His crime at 17 was having sex with a girl he thought was also 17, but she was actually 14. For nearly two decades he's been registering as a sex offender.

The man, we're calling Dave, will never have to register his address with Tulsa police again, after doing so every three months for the past 19 years.

Records show he's never failed to register and never been accused of another sex crime.

"I know people who deserve to be on this, but I never deserved to be on this," Dave said.

Dave pleaded guilty and served 14 months in prison. He's had to live with his mother, because most addresses are outlawed for sex offenders, and he's struggled to get a good job and has never been able to take his kids to the park or attend their activities at school.

"They told me when I started, it would only be for 10 years, then I got to the 7th year and I got another letter saying I had to do it for my lifetime," he said.

Because the Oklahoma law was applied to those already convicted, that led to a lawsuit that went all the way to the Supreme Court.

The court said it wasn't fair to change the registration of people convicted years before, who were complying with the law that it was like moving the finish line just as they approached it without giving them a hearing or a chance to tell their story.

So, the Department of Corrections is going through all 7,000 registered sex offender cases, to determine who's already registered long enough and who should be taken off.

Dave said not all sex offenders are the same, although they get treated that way.

"They think every person on the sex offender list molested an infant and it's not true," he said.

Since the law passed in 2007, those considered level one sex offenders, who are a low risk of danger to the community, must register for 15 years.

Level two offenders, who are a moderate risk to the community, must register for 25 years and level three offenders, people considered to be a serious risk, must register for life. ..Source.. by Lori Fullbright

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Court tosses ex-Oklahoma State player's conviction

4-24-2014 Oklahoma:

An Oklahoma court has overturned the conviction of former Oklahoma State basketball player Darrell Williams, who was accused of sexually assaulting two women at an off-campus party in 2010.

In its 10-page decision released Tuesday, the Court of Criminal Appeals said the testimony of jurors at a special hearing last year suggested that at least two jurors made unauthorized visits to the crime scene, and that those visits were discussed during deliberations.

Williams was convicted in 2012 of two counts of rape by instrumentation and one count of sexual battery. He was not sentenced to any jail time but was ordered to register as a sex offender.

It was not immediately clear what the appeals court ruling would mean for Williams' status as a registered sex offender.

Payne County District Attorney Tom Lee said Thursday that his office would decide in coming weeks whether to seek a new trial.

Williams was not immediately available for comment. His aunt, Mildred Williams, said the family could issue a statement later Thursday but needed to meet with the attorneys first.

''We've been crying, shouting. It's good news. It's great news!'' Mildred Williams said in a phone interview Thursday from her home in Chicago.

Associated Press left a message seeking comment for Williams' current defense attorney. His defense attorney during his trial, Cheryl Ramsey, applauded the reversal.

Two women testified at trial that Williams groped them against their will at the party.

Williams' attorneys argued that he was misidentified, noting that the women identified Williams as their attacker after police showed them a lineup of the Oklahoma State basketball team. The women testified that they identified Williams after police showed them a photo of the team.

One woman said Williams held her against her will and dragged her in a yard. She said the attack happened in the basement of the house and that no one came to her aid.

''It made me feel violated and sick to my stomach,'' she testified.

Witnesses for the defense testified that several players at the party wore similar Oklahoma State warm-up suits, and Williams' attorneys said that could have led to a misidentification.

Williams' attorneys maintained that no one at the party heard anyone scream, saw any struggles or reported anything inappropriate. Neither of the women suffered any cuts or scratches, and no clothing was torn after the alleged incident.

The basketball player's family said Darrell, who is black, was an innocent victim of misidentification by the white women at the party and of racial profiling by a jury of 11 whites and one Asian member who were picked from a largely white jury pool. ..Source.. by Sports Illustrated.com

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Convicted sex offender sues to stay in his home

2-18-2014 Oklahoma:

PRYOR, OK — A convicted sex offender has sued the district attorney and city of Pryor over housing dispute.

Gary Hunt bought a home near Jefferson Elementary School in Pryor before the sex offender law was passed which would prevent him from living within 2,000 feet of the school.

He was convicted of a child sexual offense in 2008. When he was released from prison in 2013, law enforcement told him he could not live in his house because of it’s proximity to a school.

Hunt’s position is he owned the home before the sex offender law took effect and he believes he should be able to live in the home.

Hunt, represented by attorney Gerald Lee, filed a petition for a declaratory judgment Feb. 7 listing the defendants as District Attorney Janice Steidley, the City of Pryor Creek and Pryor Police Department.

The petition states that Hunt, the plaintiff, “acquired his home at 2773 Oakwood Drive, Pryor, on Nov. 8, 2000,” and lived there until Jan. 14, 2009.

According to Lee's request, on Aug. 8, 2008, the plaintiff pleaded guilty to possessing “material involving the sexual exploitation of minors/possessing a visual depiction.”

Hunt was released from prison Aug. 10, 2013, according to the judgment.

“After Plaintiff's release from custody of the City of Pryor, by and through the Pryor Police Department, told the Plaintiff in August 2013 that his home is within 2,000 feet of Jefferson Elementary School and that he could not reside in his home pursuant to Title 57 O.S. Section 590A.”

The title in question states it is “unlawful for any person registered pursuant to the Sex Offenders Registration Act to reside within 2,000 feet of any public or private school,” and that “it is a penal statute by reason of the statute states any person who violates the residency restriction is subject to imprisonment and fine,” all according to the request. The title became effective in November 2003.

Hunt then wrote the district attorney's office, requesting the district attorney agree that Hunt could reside in his home.

“The District Attorney's Office has not offered any written response to the Defendant's Attorney's letter. The only response from the District Attorney's Office was a verbal response from the Assistant District Attorney stating that the plaintiff could not reside in his home in reliance on opinion of the Oklahoma Attorney General,” Lee's petition states.

Further , it states that no state shall pass an ex post facto law. That means a law written “after the fact” will not apply.

“The Plaintiff is unable to obtain or purchase another residence due to the fact that Plaintiff is 71 years old, has health problems, he is permanently, physically disabled, and his only income is his state retirement and social security benefits,” the petition states.

Online court records describe this case as a civil case in which relief sought exceeds $10,000, though no monetary amounts were listed in the official request.

In a declaratory judgment, a judge will decide how the law relates to this case. Lee believes the declaratory judgment will be Hunt should be allowed to stay in his home. ..Source.. by Cydney Baron

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Man with sex offense on record must serve time despite change in law

The essence of this case is, that the man is being held illegally, and that calls for a Habeas corpus filing. We must remember that Starkey RELIEF was applied retroactively to remove certain folks (this man for one) from the registry. That should be argued by a qualified lawyer and appealed if necessary, which I doubt. It is clear the judge incorrectly decided this case.

12-13-2013 Oklahoma:

A district court judge has ruled a Comanche County man currently incarcerated for sex offender registry violations committed after his required registration period had expired will remain in jail for the remainder of his term.

Comanche County District Court Judge Mark Smith filed an order Tuesday denying Edward D. Turner's application for post-conviction relief, filed in October after he received a letter from the Department of Corrections stating he had been removed from the state's sex offender registry.

DOC reviews thousands of cases

DOC officials began reviewing every name on the list individually after the Supreme Court ruled in June some convicts in Oklahoma were being kept on the registry past their lapse dates when changes to registry laws were retroactively applied.

In October, when Turner filed his motion asking to withdraw his previous guilty plea, the DOC had reviewed just over 1,300 of the over 7,000 offenders on the state's registry and removed 679 offenders who were no longer subject to registry requirements. Turner was one of those offenders who was removed from the list in early October. (...Continued...)

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Sex offender takes action against deputy who wrongfully arrested him

Maybe CLEET is not the correct course of action. Sounds more like a complaint for Police Internal Affairs is needed. i.e., Who Controls Local Police?

11-19-2013 Oklahoma:

A man from Hulbert convicted of rape 19 years ago spent nearly two decades on the sex offender registry.

This summer a state Supreme Court ruling got James Center Jr. off the list, but now he says he's being harassed by at least one investigator who is disregarding the law.

When Center was 19 he dated a girl four years younger. "We had just went out once or twice and wound up sleeping together and that was you know that was basically it," he said.

But that wasn't it. The 15-year-old girl's parents pressed charges for statutory rape and Center became a sex offender. He registered as one for 19 years.

"It has basically ruined my life," he said.

Since then a lot's changed. He has a girlfriend now, and a family. And this summer the Supreme Court ruling struck down the law that would make him register for life. Instead, he's responsible for just 10 years.

"He registered nine more years than the law required," said Center's attorney David Slane.

Center says Cherokee County Investigator James Brown, who keeps up with sex offenders in the county, constantly follows him or has other officers following him whenever he goes into town. And despite the ruling, on November 2, Brown arrested Center.

"He had moved and changed his address he hadn't notified us of the change of address so that's why he was arrested," said Undersheriff Jason Chennault.

Center says he showed Brown his official court order, proving he was off the registry since early October. He keeps it on him at all times.

"I had it in my back pocket, I pulled it out, handed it to Mr. Brown, he laughed at me, told me it was no good...and also told me he was my God and I would answer to him," Center said.

Chennault says his investigator can't just take a possible criminal's word at face value.

"He said that, but we hadn't gotten any notification about that, there was nothing in the database about that," Chennault said.

Center's attorney thinks Brown should lose his job over the wrongful arrest. He's filing an official complaint with CLEET.

"Officers have got to understand that if people have a court order like this they need to stop and they need to use those investigative tools that they've been trained with to see if this is valid," said Slane.

Meanwhile the county maintains it's people did their jobs. "So as far as you know everything happened the way it was supposed to happen?" asked reporter Rebecca Schleicher. "Correct," Chennault responded.

Center says he doesn't care whether or not Brown loses his job, he just wants the unwanted attention to stop.

"I feel I've been cheated...this has been going on for 19 years, I would like the chance to live my life." ..Source.. by Rebecca Schleicher, Primetime Reporter

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Oklahoma Sex Offender Law Successful Challenge Sets Stage for Other Jurisdictions

10-24-2013 National, Oklahoma:

JURIST Guest Columnist Adam R. Banner discusses three recent Oklahoma Supreme Court decisions relating to sex-offender registration laws and the effects of the decisions beyond the state's borders...

Recent decisions have relied on the reasoning of the US Supreme Court in Smith v. Doe when analyzing challenges to sex offender registry laws. The Smith decision notoriously held that Alaska's sex offender registry did not violate the US Constitution's prohibition on ex post facto laws. The US Supreme Court held that the Alaska registry was constitutional by applying a two-step analysis: first, determining whether the legislation was intended to have a punitive effect and if so, analyzing the results of the "intents-effects" test established by the court in Kentucky vs. Mendoza-Martinez.

The Oklahoma Supreme Court wisely broke from Smith when it decided Starkey v. Department of Corrections on June 25, 2013. Although the Starkey decision relied on the same framework established in Smith, the Oklahoma Supreme Court acknowledged that the challenged state sex offender statutes were not at all the same as the Alaska registration scheme examined by the US Supreme Court in Smith.

The inconsistent nature of the two cases was largely due to the fact that Smith was decided prior to the state-level application of the federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) which, once adopted, completely altered the complexion of the Oklahoma Sex Offender Registration Act (OSORA). Oklahoma codified the SORNA amendments on November 1, 2007, and effectively ushered in an era of unconstitutional restrictions on its citizens. Most notable was a new tiered registration scheme, which retroactively changed the length of registration required by every individual subject to the registry.

Before the 2007 amendments, registration was only required for ten years. However, the 2007 "tier" or "level" system was retroactively applied to all sex offenders required to register in Oklahoma. As such, individuals were required to register for either fifteen years (Level 1), twenty-five years (Level 2) or for life (Level 3).

Starkey, an individual who pled nolo contendere and received a deferred adjudication in Texas on October 12, 1998, subsequently moved to Oklahoma and challenged the OSORA as violating the ex post facto clause of the Oklahoma Constitution. Consequently, the Oklahoma Supreme Court had to first ascertain whether the amendments to the Oklahoma registration scheme were intended by the legislature to be applied retroactively. Although OSORA was created in 1989, it has been amended almost every year since to increase the obligations of sex offenders. Many of those changes are substantive, and not merely procedural, as they increase the registration length for registrants.

Ultimately the Oklahoma Supreme Court found that, although the Oklahoma Department of Corrections had been applying all of the amendments retroactively, the Oklahoma Legislature did not intend to apply the new three-tier-scheme retroactively. The court used canons of construction to gauge the legislative intent; it focused on the portions of OSORA which expressly included prospective language, and also invoked the long held presumption that any doubt regarding legislative intent must be resolved against a retroactive application. Therefore, the Department of Correction's retroactive application of the level-assignment amendments to anyone subjected to the Oklahoma registry prior to November 1, 2007, without any express legislative intent to do so, violated the ex post facto clause of the Oklahoma Constitution.

A good portion of the Starkey opinion also focused on other amendments to OSORA which had been enacted prior to the level-assignment scheme. Specifically, the court examined the 2004 amendment which required registration to be 10 years from the date of completion of the sentence, described further as "the day an offender completes all incarceration, probation and parole pertaining to the sentence." Prior to 2004, registration was only required for ten years, regardless of the length of probation or the sentence in general. A retroactive application of the 2004 amendment would effectively double the registration requirements for individuals such as Starkey, who was initially sentenced to only ten years of probation.

Regardless, the court found that the 2004 amendment was intended to be applied retroactively by the Oklahoma Legislature. Consequently, the court conducted its analysis as to whether the 2004 amendment violated the ex post facto prohibition, which only applies to penal laws. Thus, the Oklahoma Supreme Court had to determine if the amendments were intended to be punitive or merely regulatory. ..Continued..

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Sapulpa man jailed wrongly for 12 weeks on child-rape allegation sues sheriff

10-23-2013 Oklahoma:

He was accused of raping his former girlfriend's 4-year-old daughter.

A Sapulpa man who was in jail for 12 weeks before court-approved DNA evidence cleared him in the rape of his then-girlfriend's 4-year-old daughter filed a lawsuit this week against Creek County Sheriff John Davis alleging wrongful arrest and malicious prosecution.

Tommy Braden, 26, was arrested four days after the April 6, 2012, rape and was not released until defense attorney Lowell Howe got a judge to approve a DNA test, which cleared Braden on July 3, 2012.

The DNA evidence indicated a match for Patrick Edward Misner, 28, who lived in the same mobile home park as the victim.

Misner was charged July 10, 2012, in Creek County District Court with first-degree rape of a victim younger than 14, lewdmolestation and first-degree burglary, court records show.

Misner was arrested in Portland, Ore., that month.

His next Creek County court date is set for Nov. 5.

Braden alleges in the lawsuit, which was filed Monday in federal court in Tulsa, that the experience left his life in "utter ruin" and makes him forever have "to live with the stigma of being wrongfully accused of sexual abuse of a minor."

The complaint alleges that in his "zeal" to put Braden behind bars, Davis "wrongfully targeted and arrested an innocent man and accused him of committing the most heinous of crimes against a child (the) plaintiff had raised as his own."

Chrissie Underwood, who the complaint says initiated the criminal investigation on behalf of the Creek County Sheriff's Office, also is named as a defendant in Braden's lawsuit.

The complaint alleges that Davis and Underwood "were determined to arrest and prosecute" Braden and that the defendants "continually and recklessly refused to conduct any DNA testing, asserting it would be a waste of taxpayer dollars."

"In their eyes, he was guilty until proven innocent," according to the lawsuit, filed on Braden's behalf by the Tulsa law firm of Smolen, Smolen & Roytman.

Attempts to contact Davis for comment were unsuccessful Tuesday.

Creek County Sheriff's Sgt. Les Vaughan said any comment is unlikely until the lawsuit has been reviewed. ..Source.. by David Harper

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Oklahoma City lawsuit challenges constitutionality of sex offenders sharing a residence

10-11-2013 Oklahoma:

The city of Oklahoma City and local law enforcement were named in a suit filed Tuesday afternoon claiming the unconstitutionality of a law prohibiting sex offenders from living together.

A convicted molester and a ministry are suing officials over a law making it a felony for sex offenders to live together.

Hand Up Ministries and convicted sex offender Bernard Richard Lagrow are seeking to overturn a provision of the state's sex offender registration act.

Oklahoma City Police Chief Bill Citty, Oklahoma County District Attorney David Prater, Oklahoma County Sheriff John Whetsel and Attorney General Scott Pruitt are named as defendants.

“This specific issue has been going on now for almost two years. This law has forced people to live in tents. It's forced them to live in cars. It's put them in a position where they're transient. Nobody knows where they're living,” said attorney David Slane, who filed the suit Tuesday in Oklahoma County District Court.

“It's about doing the right thing. It's about human dignity, in my opinion. People have a right to live in a home with who they want,” he said.

“If there was two murderers, we wouldn't say they couldn't live together. Two robbers, we wouldn't say that. Two drug dealers. The only person that they say could not live together would be a sex offender, and that makes no sense.”

The complaint does not challenge other provisions of the act, including restrictions on living within 2,000 feet of a school, park or day care.

“Keep in mind, before this law was passed, these people were living in Hand Up Ministries as roommates and there was no incidents. There were no crimes. There were no problems there,” Slane said.

Slane said the agencies and law officers involved were not being targeted directly, but were being sued because they had taken an oath to enforce local laws. ..Source.. by Matt Dinger

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Oklahoma Housing Rule Upsets Sex Offenders

10-11-2013 Oklahoma:

(CN) - An Oklahoma bans on the co-habitation of sex offenders is hindering the mission of a housing and counseling program, the group claims in court.

Hand Up Ministries and Bernard Lagrow sued Oklahoma City and its police chief, Bill Citty, as well as Oklahoma County District Attorney David Prater, Oklahoma County Sheriff John Whetsel and Oklahoma Attorney General E. Scott Pruitt.

The complaint in Oklahoma County District Court says amendments to state law ban "two or more persons required to register as sex offenders to reside together in any individual dwelling during the term of registration as a sex offender."

Hand Up consists of 118 trailers and manufactured homes on a 14.2 acre property.

Lagrow says he is a convicted sex offender who wishes to live with another unnamed sex offender in a manufactured home on the property. He says he first registered in 2004 and that the law retroactively applies to him.

"The addition of statutory prohibitions is clearly punitive and retroactively extends restrictions beyond that required of him when he was sentenced," the complaint states.

Applying the law retroactively violates the ex post facto clauses of both the federal and state constitutions, Lagrow and the group say. They note that the law has been amended in 2007, 2009, 2011 and 2012.

"Each amendment could be construed to be applied only to plaintiff Hand Up Ministries," the complaint states. "There is a criminal violation for failure to comply with this statute. Plaintiff Hand Up Ministries was in existence prior to the initial statute being passed."

In a phone interview Thursday, Citty said the statute does not prevent the ministry from counseling or housing sex offenders.

Hand Up was founded in 1996 and is a faith-based program, according to its website.

It provides housing with utilities, transportation, meals and addiction recovery and support. The
nonprofit currently has over 100 people in its programs.

The plaintiffs say the statute is unconstitutional should be enjoined. They are represented by David Slane with Slane Creecy in Oklahoma City. ..Source.. by DAVID LEE

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Oklahoma Supreme Court rules on sex offender lawsuit

Two cases Bollin v Jones and Hendricks v Jones.

9-17-2013 Oklahoma:

OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) — The Oklahoma Supreme Court says people convicted of sex crimes in other states are not required to register as sex offenders in Oklahoma if the convictions occurred before the Oklahoma Legislature passed a sex offender law and if they completed their sentence, probation or parole before Nov. 1, 2005.

The justices ruled that two men convicted of sex crimes in other states were not offered the same protection under the law as people convicted of sex crimes in Oklahoma.

Under Oklahoma's Sex Offender Registration Act, people convicted in Oklahoma prior to the Act's 1989 implementation are not required to register — but people convicted outside of Oklahoma prior to implementation are.

The justices ruled that the many amendments made to the law can't be applied retroactively. ..Source.. by seattlelpi.com

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Ramifications of Oklahoma state Supreme Court sex offender ruling is still unfurling

7-1-2013 Oklahoma:

There may be several Oklahoma inmates currently serving time for violating state sex offender registry laws who could have their convictions overturned and be entitled to release, says Tulsa attorney John Dunn.

There may be several Oklahoma inmates currently serving time for violating state sex offender registry laws who could have their convictions overturned and be entitled to release, says Tulsa attorney John Dunn. The state Supreme... ..Source: Signin Required.. by Randy Ellis

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Oklahoma Supreme Court finds state's new sex offender registration requirements punitive and thus limited by ex post facto doctrine

6-28-2013 Oklahoma:

From Sentencing Law and Policy:

As reported in this local article, headlined "Attorney says up to 3,000 registered Oklahoma sex offenders could benefit from ruling," the top court in Oklahoma handed down a major ruling this week limiting the reach of the state's sex offender registration law. Here are the basics:

[T]he court ruling said Corrections Department officials have been violating the Oklahoma Constitution by retroactively applying state sex offender laws, thereby dramatically increasing the time many convicted sex offenders must remain listed on the registry.

Rejoicing in Tuesday's ruling was convicted sex offender Brad Crawford, 58, of Oklahoma City. “It means a lot to me. It gives me freedom. It takes a monkey off my back,” said Crawford, who was convicted in 1998 in Canadian County on a charge of lewd or indecent proposals/acts to a child. “I'm tired of dealing with them and their harassment.”

Crawford lamented that being listed on the registry limits offenders from living where they want and watching their grandkids' baseball games. Registered sex offenders are not allowed to live close to schools, playgrounds or licensed child care centers....

Crawford's crime was peeking over the top of a tanning booth. He said Crawford thought he was sneaking a peek at a woman, which might have brought misdemeanor peeping Tom charges. The “woman” turned out to be a 15-year-old girl who was a day shy of her 16th birthday, so Crawford was convicted of the more severe felony charge of lewd acts with a child....

Crawford originally received a five-year suspended sentence, except for 30 days in the Canadian County jail. He also was placed on the sex offender registry for 10 years....

However, before the 10 years was over, the Oklahoma Legislature passed new laws in 2007 that created a three-tiered risk level assessment system. The law required convicted sex offenders to be placed on the sex offender registry for 15 years, 25 years, or life, depending on their assessment levels....

Jerry Massie, spokesman for the Corrections Department, said department officials are discussing the Court's ruling and expect to post something on the agency's website within the next day or two, explaining how the department will comply with the decision. Preliminary discussions have centered on department officials reviewing the registry and removing the names of sex offenders who appear to qualify under the court's ruling.

Massie said no time frame has been established for such a review, but it “might take a month or so.” At the end of the process, sex offenders who believe they were wrongfully kept on the registry could ask to have their cases reviewed, he said.

The full Oklahoma Supreme Court ruling is available at this link, and here are a few paragraphs from its closing sections:

Here we are not balancing the rights of sex offenders against the rights of their victims. We are making a determination as to whether the means chosen to protect the public have exceeded the state's valid interest in public safety and infringed on the Oklahoma constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws.

Out of the seven Mendoza-Martinez factors we have reviewed herein, five favor a punitive effect. It is not the number that is important but the weight of these factors that leads us to our conclusion. SORA's obligations have become increasingly broad and onerous. We find there is clear proof that the effect of the retroactive application of SORA's registration is punitive and outweighs its non-punitive purpose. The retroactive extension of SORA's registration is inconsistent with the ex post facto clause in the Oklahoma Constitution.

This is not to say that Oklahoma's Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) is unconstitutional on its face. A sex offender registry is a valid tool for the state to use for public safety. The State may impose registration duties and may publish registration information as part of its punishment of this category of defendants. The Oklahoma Constitution prohibits the addition of sanctions imposed on those who were already convicted before the legislation increasing sanctions and requirements of registration were enacted.

...

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Oklahoma Supreme Court ruling may result in removal of hundreds of names from sex offender registry

This decision has to be read carefully, broadly speaking the registry IS NOT punitive, the court held, the registry AS APPLIED to certain registrants IS PUNITIVE, that distinction is important. Accordingly, a cutoff date (which has to be figured out for each person [see sec. 82 of decision for method]) will determine who has to register.

6-26-2013 Oklahoma:

Names of convicted sex offenders may be removed from the state's list of registered sex offenders as the result of Tuesday's state Supreme Court ruling.

Hundreds of names of convicted sex offenders may be removed from the state's list of registered sex offenders as the result of an Oklahoma Supreme Court ruling handed down Tuesday.

In a split decision, the court ruled state corrections officials have been violating the Oklahoma Constitution by retroactively applying state sex offender registry laws, thereby dramatically increasing the time many convicted sex offenders must spend on the registry.

“It should be fairly significant,” Corrections Department spokesman Jerry Massie said of the impact of Tuesday's ruling.

There are currently 7,704 names on Oklahoma's sex offenders list, Massie said.

Massie said it was probably safe to say hundreds of convicted sex offenders would be impacted but declined to speculate on whether the numbers could reach into the thousands.

Individual case reviews likely will be necessary to determine which convicted sex offenders should be removed from the list, he said.

The Supreme Court issued its ruling after scrutinizing a 2007 state law that requires the Department of Corrections to assign a three-tiered risk level to convicted sex offenders.

The law requires convicted sex offenders to be placed on the sex offender registry for 15 years, 25 years, or life, depending on their assigned risk levels which are tied to the specific crimes they committed.

“We find it was not intended to apply retroactively, but is to be applied prospectively,” the court stated.

Justices issued the decision on a 6-2 vote, with Justices James Winchester and Steven Taylor dissenting. Chief Justice Tom Colbert partially agreed and partially disagreed with the decision.

Taylor and Winchester both said they thought it was constitutional to apply the sex offender registry laws retroactively.

“The public's right to have this information trumps the discomfort and inconvenience caused to the convicted sex offender,” Taylor wrote in his dissenting opinion.

The majority of justices, however, decided that Oklahoma's sex registry laws are punitive toward violators and should not be applied retroactively to inmates who were convicted while earlier laws were in place.

Tulsa attorney John Dunn, who represented sex offender James Starkey Sr. in his Supreme Court appeal, said the court's determination that Oklahoma's sex offender registry laws are punitive was critical to the case.

Punitive laws cannot be applied retroactively, he said.

Dunn said there are numerous aspects of Oklahoma's sex offender registry laws that make them punitive.

“Oklahoma law provides restrictions on where a sex offender may live, with whom a sex offender may live, prevents them from engaging in certain occupations or occupations in certain locations, and creates a presumption against them having guardianship or even the right to visit their own children,” Dunn argued to the court.

He also noted that sex offenders are required to get drivers' licenses every year instead of every four years, paying full price each time, and that the state requires the words “sex offender” be stamped on the licenses.

Starkey, Dunn's client, pleaded no contest in Texas in 1998 to a charge of sexual assault on a 15-year-old child. He received a deferred judgment that included community supervision for 10 years, a $4,000 fine and 60 days in a county jail.

Starkey moved to Oklahoma later that year and was initially required to register as a sex offender in this state for 10 years, in accordance with the state's law at that time.

However, after Oklahoma's law changed in 2007, corrections officials contended Starkey would have to register for life.

Tuesday's ruling means Starkey no longer will have to register, since the original 10-year registration requirement time has expired, Dunn said. ..Source.. by Randy Ellis

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Federal Ruling Could Change Restrictions for Oklahoma Sex Offenders

5-13-2013 Oklahoma:

A recent ruling in Federal Court could change the way sex offenders are punished. The May 8th ruling decided in favor of the defendant, Charles Goodwin, who was convicted back in 1994 of lewd acts in Illinois.

Goodwin challenged his probationary restrictions that barred him from internet use and won, "He was saying, I shouldn't have to do all of these things," Fox 25 Legal analyst David Slane said. "I think it's the first step in what may be a trend," added Slane.

Right now sex offenders are often given blanket restrictions and rules on where they can live, work and spend time. Slane believes this may soon change, so that the punishment will fit the crime, "If a sex offender did not do something related to the internet for example, you're probably not going to be able to restrict his access to the internet," Slane added, "The courts seem to be saying, in the future, there needs to be a connection between the two, or they are not going to be able to restrict his (or her) access." Slane said this is only applies in federal cases, but unless the Supreme court overturns it, it may soon spread to lower courts. ..Source.. by Mark Taylor
Fox 25 News

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Child porn sentencing rules subject of debate

4-22-2013 Oklahoma:

Some might say that Monte R. Betche is headed to federal prison for staring at his computer.

Others may believe that he is being rightfully punished for engaging in conduct that arguably encourages the sexual exploitation of children.

No matter how one looks at it, the 49-year-old Betche was sentenced earlier this month to more than four years in prison for knowingly possessing child pornography on his computer. His punishment could have been far worse.

Northern District of Oklahoma U.S. Chief District Judge Gregory Frizzell could have given Betche the statutory maximum of 10 years in prison under the 97-to-120 month punishment range that originally applied to the case under federal sentencing guidelines.

Instead, Frizzell opted to sentence Betche to the bottom of the 51-to-63 month range he chose to apply. During the April 12 hearing, Frizzell said, "Congress needs to address the severity of these punishments" and mentioned a recent U.S. Sentencing Commission report concerning the topic [Child Pornography].

The sprawling 331-page (not including appendices) document concludes that child pornography offenses result in substantial and indelible harm to the children who are victimized by both production and non-production offenses. However, the commission also wrote that "there is a growing belief among many interested parties that the existing sentencing scheme in non-production cases fails to distinguish adequately among offenders based on their degrees of culpability and dangerousness."

Julia O'Connell, who serves as the federal public defender for both the Tulsa-based Northern District of Oklahoma federal court as well as for the Muskogee-based Eastern District, said that those convicted in simple possession cases share a common trait.

"What they're doing is looking at things," O'Connell said.

O'Connell said that child molesters and child pornography possessors have "completely different make-ups." She said the possession defendants she has represented have all been "some degree of pitiful" with physical or personal problems that sometimes have included being sexually abused when they were children.

However, Assistant U.S. Attorney Matthew Cyran, who prosecutes most of the child pornography cases filed in Tulsa federal court, said that at least some studies have shown there is a correlation between child pornography and sex abuse crimes.

Northern District of Oklahoma U.S. Attorney Danny Williams Sr. said even those convicted of child pornography possession without any indication of molestation offenses have committed a serious crime that Congress has decided deserves to be significantly punished. ...continued... by DAVID HARPER World Staff Writer

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Sex offender registry applied illegally, state high court told

2-7-2013 Oklahoma:

Attorneys for three convicted sex offenders who are challenging Oklahoma's sex offender registry laws told the Oklahoma Supreme Court on Tuesday that the regulations are being applied retroactively, which makes them unconstitutional.

Attorneys Jim Drummond of Norman and John Dunn of Tulsa urged the state's highest court to keep the state from placing their clients' names on the registry.

An attorney for the state, Senior Assistant Attorney General Neal Leader, urged the nine-member court to uphold the rules, saying residents need to know whether convicted sex offenders are living in their neighborhoods.

"Give us as much protection as possible," Leader said. "The children and the citizens of this state deserve no less."

Drummond represents two men who say they are exempt from the state's sex offender registry rules because their crimes predate the creation of the registry in November 1989.

Joseph Hendricks was convicted of the Oklahoma equivalent of lewd or indecent acts with a child in California in 1982. He moved from California to Oklahoma in 2009.

The second man, Michael Bollin, was convicted of an unspecified sex offense in Missouri in 1987 and has lived in Oklahoma since June 2004.

Dunn's client, James Starkey, pled no contest to sexual assault on a minor child in Texas in 1998 and received a deferred sentence.

When he moved to Oklahoma later that year, the law required him to register as a sex offender for 10 years.

The law has since been changed to require longer registration.

In an unrelated case, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals ruled in 2010 that sex offender registration laws could only be applied going forward.

The court said defendants should get the benefit of laws that existed at the time of their sentencing and not face punishments that were added later.

Drummond and Dunn told the state Supreme Court that this is what is happening with the sex offender registry.

People convicted of certain sex offenses in Oklahoma before 1989 don't have to register, but those convicted in other states do if they moved to Oklahoma later.

"Is this regarded as punishment?" Dunn asked. "We believe the act is punitive in nature."

Justices peppered the attorneys with questions during their oral presentations, and several alluded to the seriousness of the issues the registry represents.

"This is an issue of statewide public concern," Vice-Chief Justice John Reif of Skiatook said. "We're struggling to find the best answer." ..Source.. by Tim Talley

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...