In bizarre case, 4th Circuit panel finds forced erections unconstitutional

12-11-17 Virigna:

A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday in favor of a Virginia man who, as a teen, was once ordered by a lower court to be photographed while masturbating in the presence of armed police officers.

That warrant was ostensibly part of an ongoing sexting investigation into the then-teen, Trey Sims, who had exchanged explicit messages with his then-15-year-old girlfriend. Her mother reported the incident to the Manassas City Police Department in January 2014.

Eventually, the detective assigned to the case, David Abbott, obtained a signed warrant to take photographs of Sims’ naked body—including “the suspect’s erect penis”—so that he could compare them to Sims’ explicit messages.

When this bizarre effort was unsuccessfully attempted, Abbott then obtained a second warrant authorizing police to escort Sims to a hospital for an “erection-inducing injection.” This injection ultimately never took place after massive public outcry. ..Continued..

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

ACTION ALERT: Virginia Registrants ONLY

3-8-17 Virginia Registrants:

Apparently Verizon is migrating e-mails to AOL. So if you are a Virginia RSO this pertains to you. Everyone else have a good day.

Jump over to "It's Time to Reduce, Reconstruct, Reclassify, Rethink and Reform the Virginia Sex Offender Registry" and see what you MUST do to stay out of jail

eAdvocate

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

The National Center for Missing & Exploited Children Announces Former U.S. Marshals' Director John F. Clark as New President and CEO

12-7-15 Washington DC, Virginia:

ALEXANDRIA, Va., Dec. 7, 2015 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- John F. Clark, former director of the United States Marshals Service and longtime child advocate, has been appointed the new president and CEO of the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children.

After an extensive nationwide search, NCMEC's Board of Directors unanimously chose Clark to lead the nonprofit organization, which was designated by Congress in 1984 to work in partnership with the U.S. Department of Justice on issues related to missing and exploited children. He's taking the helm of the Alexandria-based organization today.

"We're delighted that John Clark has agreed to take over as our leader," said Patty Wetterling, chair of NCMEC's board. "John has been a loyal supporter of NCMEC for many years and carries our mission in his heart."

Clark, whose career with the USMS spanned 28 years, was appointed in 2006 as its ninth director by then-President George W. Bush and confirmed by the Senate. In 2011, Clark joined Lockheed Martin Corp. as its director of security, where he managed a $24 million budget and led a workforce of 250 professionals for the nation's largest defense contractor.

As director of the U.S. Marshals Service, Clark oversaw the daily operation of 94 district offices, 218 sub-offices, three foreign field offices and seven regional fugitive task force offices. He managed a $2.5 billion budget and led a diversified workforce of 5,500 employees.

Clark implemented and administered Title I of the Adam Walsh Child Safety and Protection Act, which directed the USMS to locate and apprehend fugitive sex offenders. He also oversaw the implementation and operation of the National Sex Offender Targeting Center. He forged strong relationships with law enforcement leaders at the federal, state and local levels and served on many boards, including NCMEC's. ..Continued.. by Press Release

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Supreme Court Upholds Virginia FOIA's Exclusion of Non-Virginians

Interesting Older Post -- Virginia:

Supreme Court Upholds Virginia FOIA's Exclusion of Non-Virginians

On April 29, 2014, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the provision of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) providing that "all public records shall be open to inspection and copying by any citizens of the Commonwealth,” Va. Code Ann. §2.2-3704(A)—but not granting that right to non-Virginians—did not violate the United States Constitution.

Mark J. McBurney and Roger W. Hurlbert are citizens of Rhode Island and California, respectively. Each filed a request for information to Virginia agencies under the state’s FOIA. The agencies denied the requests because the men were not citizens of Virginia and therefore the FOIA did not apply to them. Both men filed civil rights actions in federal court, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983, alleging that the exclusion of non-citizens from Virginia’s FOIA violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV of the U.S. Constitution. Hurlbert alleged it also violated the dormant Commerce Clause.

The district court granted Virginia's motion for summary judgment and the Fourth Circuit affirmed. The men then filed petitions for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court granted certiorari and filed an opinion affirming the judgment below. In doing so, it noted that Virginia had already provided the bulk of the requested information under Virginia's Government Data Collection and Dissemination Practices Act, Va. Code Ann. §2.2-3800.

The unanimous Supreme Court held that the Privileges and Immunities Clause protected only fundamental privileges and immunities and the right of access to government information was not a fundamental privilege or immunity of citizenship. It also held that the FOIA provision was not intended to regulate or prevent interstate commerce and did not prevent interstate ownership of property. Thus, it did not violate either constitutional clause. Therefore, the Supreme Court upheld the FOIA provision and implicitly upheld similar statutes in five other states.

Open government advocates called the decision "a stunning blow," raising questions about whether the justices held obsolete views about information access technologies and concepts.

"It surprised me that no one understood...information as a vital national resource," said Richard Varn, executive director of The Coalition for Sensible Public Records Access, noting that the court was operating under an "antiquated notion that information citizenship could be local." See: McBurney v. Young, 133 S. Ct. 1709 (U.S. 2013). ..Source.. by Matt Clarke PLN

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

ACLU of Virginia denounces governor’s signing of new sex offender registry bills

3-27-2015 Virginia:

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Virginia today condemned Governor McAuliffe’s action on two bills that will create a new sex offender registry, SB 1074 and HB 1353.

“We are disappointed in the Governor’s decision to sign these bills,” said ACLU of Virginia Executive Director Claire Guthrie Gastañaga. “Not only does it create an added punishment beyond any penalty handed down as a part of a criminal conviction, it also fails to provide any rational connection to public safety.”

The new law will require the Virginia State Police to create a supplemental sex offender registry that includes all persons convicted between July 1980 and July 1994 for a crime that would mandate sex offender registration if it occurred in 2015. The supplemental registry will contain a name, year of birth, date of the conviction, jurisdiction in which the conviction occurred, the person’s age on the date of conviction, the offense of which he was convicted, and the Code of Virginia section of the conviction.

“Many people on the list may have lived decades without reoffending only now to be stigmatized retroactively. Others listed on the new registry may be in prison, may have long since moved out of the jurisdiction or may have died,” added Gastañaga. “Moreover, the new registry does not require inclusion of address or photo to minimize the chance of misidentification, a failure that could result in the labeling of innocent Virginians as sex offenders.”

The ACLU has long opposed the creation of sex offender registries as ineffective, counter-productive, and a waste of resources better spent on counseling and treatment. It has also maintained, however, that if a sex offender registry must exist, at a minimum, it must have a clear connection to public safety. Virginia’s new law fails to provide that clear connection.

“The reality is that these public registries don’t make us or our kids safer and do nothing to reduce the risk that a sex offender will reoffend,” Gastañaga also added. “The proposed new registry is particularly egregious in its lack of safeguards to ensure that the public is given the most accurate information regarding potential sex offenders, thus failing to provide a true safety net” concluded Gastañaga. ..Source.. by Chris Graham

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Man labeled "violent sex offender" challenges registry system

2-9-2015 Virginia:

A man registered as a violent sex offender in Virginia hopes his case will shed light on the difference between the legal definition of "violent" and the public's perception of the word.

C.J. Ritchie knows what his future holds."(I'm) a violent sex offender," he said. "I'm only 23-years-old and as the law stands that term will be with me for the rest of my life."

It's a reality Ritchie is still wrapping his head around. His every movement is tracked by the Virginia State Police with an ankle monitor and a GPS device he keeps on his hip.

Here's is what led Ritchie to this point:

After only a few months as a Spanish teacher at Page County High School near Harrisonburg, Ritchie was arrested for taking indecent liberties with a child in November 2013. The child was a 16-year-old student at the school.

Read the definition of the code under which Ritchie was charged.

"I have no memory of any of this," Ritchie said. "But the point is that it exists." Ritchie said he was taking medication at the time for mental health issues, which he believes impacted his judgement and memory. His defense attorney found a medical expert who agreed, however a judge ruled the expert could not testify.

Ritchie eventually agreed to sign an Alford plea, meaning he maintains his innocence but admits there's enough evidence to convict him. "I did commit this offense," he said. "I might not remember it, but the point is I signed the Alford plea to avoid 10 years of incarceration and now I've got to deal with the sex offender registry and the terms of my probation."

Only "violent sex-offenders" are required to register in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

What's different about Ritchie is how he's dealing with it.

He says he's reading more, mostly law books, so he can get a better understanding of the Virginia Sex Offender Registry. He says it's helped him develop C.J.'s Law, which would create a three-tier system to rank the danger of an offender on the registry.

"Let's bring some positive change to a registry that is necessary and serves a purpose," he said.

It's a change Virginia State Police Sergeant M.C. Davis says he wouldn't mind seeing. He's in charge of the Sex Offenders Investigative Unit in Southwest Virginia.

"Any system has room for improvement and could always benefit with some critical thinking," Davis said.

In Virginia, sex offenders are either labeled as a violent or non-violent. That's where Davis sees a disconnect between the public and the actual crime committed.

"There was no violence involved, it could have been a consensual encounter," he said. "But now he's categorized as a violent offender because it's a categorization, not a definition of the acts."

Ritchie's case is similar to Davis' hypothetical situation. Even though no violence occurred, he's labeled as a violent sex offender under the law. It's a branding that will stay with him for life.

But Ritchie's case may be falling on deaf ears in Richmond. While he's hoping to see changes to Virginia's registry that could change how sex offenders live their lives, the General Assembly is considering a bill on the other end of the spectrum.

HB 1366 was introduced by Delegate Jeff Campbell (R-Marion), who also represents Wytheville and Carroll County.

As it stands now, a registered sex offender must get permission from a school's superintendent and a circuit court judge to go on school property.

Campbell wants to take it a step further, requiring sex offenders to take out a newspaper ad publicizing a personal public hearing before being allowed on school property.

"All we're trying to do is provide greater transparency in the process so that the community can have the opportunity to have notice of something that might significantly affect their children's lives," Campbell said.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia (ACLU) calls it a violation of civil rights.

"It's absolutely outrageous," said Claire Gastañaga with the ACLU. "It's an invitation to a public stoning."

Campbell argues it's about safety.

The bill unanimously passed the House of Delegates in early February. Ritchie knows his will be an uphill battle; to make changes to the sex offender registry, especially coming from a sex offender. But it's a cause he's fighting for to help himself and other offenders.

"Do I think I'll get off the registry? My assumption now is no," Ritchie said. "I'm moving forwards as if I'll be on it forever." ..Source.. by Aaron Martin

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

ACTION ALERT: POLL on question: Should sex offenders be allowed to visit their own child at school?

I see no logical reason to stop sex offender parents access to their OWN children while other parents can access their OWN children! And other parents should NOT have any say in stopping sex offender parents from seeing their OWN children.. Please answer the POLL...(POLL is now over)

2-3-2015 Virginia:

RICHMOND, Va. — Virginia lawmakers will consider a measure Tuesday that will affect parents and their children. House Bill 1366 would change state guidelines pertaining to sex offenders on school property. The measure is aimed at limiting school access for parents who are sex offenders and want to visit their child’s school.

Under current state law, registered sex offenders are allowed on school campuses if their children goes to the school and their visit is cleared with the school superintendent. However, a bill introduced by Delegate Jeff Campbell (R-Marion) would change that.

Under Campbell’s bill, other parents with children at the school would be allowed to weigh in on whether or not registered sex offenders [Parents} would have access to their children while on school grounds. Campbell’s bill would require all sex offenders to have a hearing before being granted access to schools.

Under the proposed bill, registered sex offenders would have to use their own money to place an ad in the local newspaper publicizing a hearing date. Once the ad runs for two weeks, anyone could attend the hearing and testify against the registered sex offender. A judge would hear the arguments and rule on whether the parent would have access to the school.

The House Courts of Justice committee passed the bill with an unanimous vote. The full House of Delegates is expected to vote on the bill Tuesday. This is a developing story. ..POLL is HERE.. by Jasmine Norwood

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Campus rape culture has no easy remedy

11-28-2014 Virginia:

f you're the parent of a college student (or preparing to be), you need to read Rolling Stone's jarring account of a fraternity house gang rape at the University of Virginia.

So does your student — daughter or son.

The story in December's issue (available online here: chicagotribune.com/rollingstone) describes the alleged assault of a freshman identified as "Jackie," the distressingly cavalier reactions of some fellow students and the university's disturbingly languid response.

Attending her first-ever frat party, "Jackie" says she was led upstairs at the Phi Kappa Psi house and violently assaulted by seven men over three hours. The Rolling Stone piece details her struggle to hold her alleged attackers accountable and chronicles what it calls a "cycle of sexual violence and institutional indifference" that spans at least three decades at UVA.

But UVA isn't exactly an outlier. Across the country, universities face growing pressure to change the way they respond to sexual assault claims. The U.S. Department of Education is investigating 86 schools to determine whether their handling of such cases complies with Title IX, a federal law that prohibits gender discrimination.

One survey found that 1 in 5 college women had experienced "attempted or completed" sexual assaults. Alcohol, drugs, hormones, inexperience and peer pressure can facilitate unwanted and even violent contact.

The scourge of sexual assaults has forced college administrators to redouble their efforts to police campus sexual activity, a difficult and thankless task.

An increasingly popular tactic is a policy known as "affirmative consent," or "yes means yes." As enacted into law for schools in California, adopted by the State University of New York system and embraced by most Ivy League institutions, it requires clearly expressed consent at each stage of an encounter.

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel has endorsed the basic concept for Chicago colleges in a proposed "Sexual Assault Victim's Bill of Rights."

"Yes means yes" is supposed to enhance the safety of women by eliminating the possibility of misunderstandings that lead to criminal transgressions. From kissing to petting to intercourse, the person initiating each step would be obligated to ask and get permission before proceeding. It's not enough that she (or he) doesn't say, "No," or "Stop." The consent also "must be ongoing throughout a sexual activity."

Yeah, we know. Two 20-year-olds who regularly sleep together are not likely to go through a multistage verbal consent process every night. Most students may be tempted to go on doing consensual sex the same way they did before. In that case, the policy may be largely symbolic.

"Yes means yes" may serve the purpose of impressing on men the importance of making sure they are not coercing a woman into something she doesn't want. It may reduce the instances in which an overly enthusiastic young male misreads the signals he gets from ..Continued.. by Chicago Tribune

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Reports of Forcible Sex Offenses on Campus Double Across US, Decrease on Delmarva

See Also: The Latest Campus Assault Survey Shows How Meaningless They All Are

11-8-2014 Maryland, Virginia:

SALISBURY, Md.- Every year under what is known as the "Clery Act,” (Law) colleges and universities in the United States must report all on-campus crimes. That includes sexual assaults. At the Universities of Maryland and Virginia, new data shows reports of "forcible sex offenses" more than doubled last year.

In 2013, the University of Maryland saw 19 reports, which was up from 9 the year before. At the University of Virginia, reports increased from 11 in 2012 to 27 last year.

"It's just disturbing," said sophomore Kevin Drury. "I think it's a little scary," junior Jaclyn Disharoon said.

But what do those numbers really mean? Michele Hughes with the Life Crisis Center in Salisbury offers some insight.

"Probably it means that there are more reports,” she noted. “That women are reporting unwanted sexual contact, because of the publicity that we've received. It could also mean that college security folks and police forces are doing a better job of reporting."

The Clery Act defines forcible sex offenses as “any sexual act directed against another person forcibly and/or against that person's will; or not forcibly or against the person's will where the victim is incapable of giving consent.”

The upward trend in reporting was not followed at the University of Maryland Eastern Shore, which reported one forcible sex offense in 2013, compared with two in 2012.

"One incident is one too many on our campus, or anywhere, for that matter," remarked UMES police Chief Ernest Leatherbury. "We encourage our students to come forward if they have been a victim of sexual assault."

At Salisbury University, there were three reports of forcible sex offenses in 2013, down from six the previous year.

"Our primary goal is to educate and prevent sexual misconduct before it happens," said SU's Vice President of Student Affairs, Dr. Dane Foust. "This past year, for example, campus offices hosted more than 30 educational programs focused on sexual assault and relationship violence prevention and resources."

While the lower numbers at UMES and SU might seem like good news, Hughes says it's not necessarily cause for celebration.

"The research says that most sexual assaults go unreported,” explained Hughes. “And that's in the general population, and there certainly are huge numbers of sexual assaults that go unreported on college campuses."

The numbers remained unchanged at the University of Delaware, with three incidents reported in both 2012 and 2013.

Delaware State University had three reports of forcible sex offenses in 2012, which increased to six reports in 2013. ..Source.. by Corrina Pysa

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Virginia judge rules police can order a suspect unlock their phone via fingerprint (but not passcode)

UPDATE 11-1: Reboot Your iPhone Before Being Detained by Police to Disable Touch ID

10-31-2014 Virginia:

On Thurdsday, a Virginia Circuit Court judge made a fairly groundbreaking and eye opening ruling involving the police asking someone to unlock their secured smartphone. According to the judge, demanding a suspect to provide the passcode to unlock their phone would be unconstitutional, while a suspect providing their fingerprint to unlock their phone would be fair game.

For those living under a rock, iPhone users since the iPhone 5s have been able to secure their smartphones using a fingerprint, a feature Apple calls TouchID. This was seen as a more convenient, but still plenty secure method of locking a smartphone to keep one’s data secure. If you’re a suspect detained police in Virginia, that’s not the case.

This relates back to the case of a man who allegedly strangled his girlfriend and police believe, may have recorded the act with this smartphone. Because his phone was locked with a passcode (and not a fingerprint), the defendant’s attorney argued that it was protected by the Fifth Amendment given that it would require a suspect to divulge knowledge. This is not in the same category as a person’s identity, which includes DNA, handwriting, or — you guessed it — fingerprints, all of which are within the bounds of the law.

While it would be easy to scoff at iPhone (or even Samsung) users who use fingerprint locking on their devices, keep in mind that Apple has a safeguard for anyone who hasn’t unlocked their phone in 48 hours which requires a secondary passcode be entered in the event that TouchID is enabled. That still gives police plenty of time after a suspect has been apprehended to require a fingerprint for unlocking.

How do you guys feel about the judge’s ruling? If you have a Samsung device, will any of you start using passcodes over the fingerprint scanner to secure your phone? Keep in mind, the NSA is watching this post. We kid…. (we think). ..Source.. by Chris Chavez

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Jean Auldridge, longtime director of C.U.R.E.-Virginia, dies at 83

10-20-2014 Virginia:

For 25 years, Jean Auldridge gave encouragement and hope to some of Virginia’s most forgotten citizens: prison inmates and their families.

From 1989 until recently, she served first as director and later as president of Citizens United for Rehabilitation of Errants-Virginia, better known as C.U.R.E., a nonprofit advocacy group with branches around the state.

In failing health for five years, she died Oct. 10 at her Northern Virginia home in Vienna at age 83.

Mrs. Auldridge learned about C.U.R.E. while working as an executive secretary on Capitol Hill to Sen. Robert T. Stafford, R-Vt., and met Charles and Pauline Sullivan, who came to see him.

The Sullivans had been jailed in Texas while protesting U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. “They saw the horrible conditions (that prisoners lived in) and founded C.U.R.E.,” said Mrs. Auldridge’s daughter, Judith Anne Fender of Falls Church.

An initial member of the state chapter, Mrs. Auldridge applied 35 years of savvy in dealing with legislators and lobbyists to educate and influence Virginia legislators for what one friend called “fair and common-sense prison reform.”

She dealt with issues including restrictions on family visits to prisoners, shipping inmates out of state, closings of prisons to direct media access, use of unnecessary force and abuse, geriatric parole, imprisonment past recommended sentences, access to health care, privacy of prison mail, telephone rates and restoration of voting rights.

Not the type to lead protests, Mrs. Auldridge arranged for legislators to speak at C.U.R.E. meetings “where people came in mad and would be saying not-so-nice things to them,” Fender said.

“She felt the only way change could be made was by having dialogue. She was good at bringing people together.”

She fielded calls from prisoners and their families as well as letters, which she always answered with her own handwritten letters.

Mrs. Auldridge also comforted people overwhelmed by the incarceration of their loved ones.

“I remember that she invited over a woman whose son had just been sent to prison,” Fender recalled.

“The woman was beside herself with hurt and upset. Through many conversations, my mother showed her that she and her husband could live again. There was something to live for.”

Mrs. Auldridge “had a heart of gold, but she wasn’t naive,” Fender said. “Not everyone could be rehabilitated.”

A believer in rehabilitation and preparing often poorly educated prisoners for their release from prison, “she worked a bit with re-entry issues,” Fender said.

“She thought that only through close contact with family and friends could inmates become successful in society and that it was better if we didn’t treat them like second-class citizens.”

She not only talked the talk, but also welcomed a released inmate into her home. The man, who lived with her family about three years, delivered the eulogy at the funeral of her husband, David Auldridge, who died in 2008. She also found living situations for at least three other released inmates.

Born Mary Jean Williams in Washington, she grew up in Vienna and graduated from Falls Church High School. She worked on Capitol Hill from 1963 until she retired in January 1989.

A family genealogist, she had been active in raising funds to restore Chapman’s Mill in Broad Run, once owned by an ancestor, and was a member at St. Mark’s Episcopal Church in Alexandria, where a funeral was held Friday. Burial was in National Memorial Park in Fairfax County.

In her final weeks, she received an outpouring of letters from those she worked so tirelessly to help.

A death row inmate, who had been four hours away from execution and whose life suddenly was spared by an effort to which Mrs. Auldridge contributed, wrote, “I feel you made so many good and caring changes in so many lives that karma will be good to you.”

Another man wrote, “Thank you from the bottom of my heart for all of your years of dedicated and selfless sacrifice and devotion to our cause. Without wonderful people like you championing our cause, we would not have a voice.”

Survivors, besides her daughter, include a son, John Robert Fender of Dillwyn; a sister, Harriet Williams of Matlacha, Fla.; a grandson and two great-grandchildren. ..Source..

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Judge erred in ordering lifetime waiver of probationer's 4th Amendment rights

9-13-2014 Virginia:

A judge went too far in requiring a sex offender to surrender his constitutional protection against unreasonable searches after leaving prison, the Virginia Supreme Court ruled Friday.

In a 6-1 decision, the justices found that the court-imposed lifetime suspension of Ronald Stuart Murry Jr.'s rights under the Fourth Amendment was unreasonable. The court ordered a new sentencing hearing for Murry, who is serving 16 years and seven months in prison after being convicted of raping a 13-year-old girl.

As a condition of probation, a Hanover County Circuit Court judge required Murry to submit to police searches without a warrant or any suspicion of wrongdoing. The judge thought the condition was necessary to protect the public because Murry had groomed his victim from the age of 5, had concealed his "classic predatory behavior" and had failed to accept responsibility for his behavior.

Murry argued on appeal that the condition was inappropriate because the convictions did not involve illegal substances or weapons. The justices agreed that the order was unreasonable.

"Although the Commonwealth has a legitimate interest in ensuring that Murry completes a meaningful period of rehabilitation and that society not be harmed by Murry's being at large as a sex offender, we conclude that those interests do not justify the total surrender of Murry's Fourth Amendment rights," Chief Justice Cynthia D. Kinser wrote in the majority opinion.

Kinser wrote that the probation condition "could sanction intimidating and harassing searches" that neither protect public safety nor advance Murry's rehabilitation.

Murry's attorney, Steven D. Benjamin, said he has no doubt the trial judge was genuinely concerned that Murry would pose a danger after his release.

"Judges impose conditions like this in order to better ensure public safety," he said. "This decision is valuable because it explains the limits on how far a judge can go."

The Virginia Attorney General's Office declined to comment on the ruling because the case is going back to the trial court for resentencing, spokesman Michael Kelly said.

Justice William Mims wrote in a concurring opinion that while the probation condition was too broad, there is nothing to prevent the trial court from refusing to suspend a portion of the sentence. The judge in Murry's case suspended 140 years of his sentence of 156 years and seven months.

Benjamin said he is not worried that the judge will alter the length of the suspension to keep Murry in prison longer.

"Virginia judges try very hard to impose appropriate sentences," he said. "There is no danger of any circuit court judge imposing a higher sentence where a condition of probation has been held to be unconstitutionally broad."

Justice Elizabeth A. McClanahan was the lone dissenter. ..Source.. by LARRY O'DELL

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Supreme Court Declines to Hear Sex Registry Case

3-24-2014 Washington DC, Virginia:

The Supreme Court has declined to take up the case of a Virginia woman who claims the state's sex offender registry law is unconstitutional.

The woman was reclassified as a violent sex offender 15 years after being convicted of unlawful sex with minor in a case that did not involve any violence. The reclassification subjects her to a ban on entering her children's schools without first seeking permission from state courts and the local school board.

The woman was identified only as Jane Doe in court records. She says the process unfairly risks revealing her children's identity and could take years to resolve.

Lower courts had rejected her case on procedural grounds, saying she failed to first exhaust state remedies. ..Source.. by ABC News

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Supreme Court May Take Up Virginia Sex Registry Case ???

3-20-2014 Washington DC, Virginia:

She was a 24-year-old swimming instructor who had a sexual affair with a male student under 16.

The woman was convicted in Virginia in 1993 of unlawful sex with a teenager and served 30 days in jail. She was listed on the state's sex offender registry, and could have tried to get her name removed at some point, but didn't.

Fifteen years later, the state passed a new law that reclassified her and thousands of others as violent sex offenders. The woman — identified in court papers only as Jane Doe — has unsuccessfully challenged the law, and now her lawsuit is on the agenda Friday when the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court meet in private to consider taking up new cases.

Her appeal comes as states around the country face growing public pressure to protect people from repeat sexual predators. Those labeled sex offenders are being subjected to a host of new limitations, including where they can live, work or travel. But the new restraints have not come without complaints, and courts in Georgia and Ohio have ruled that sex offender laws in those states went too far.

Under Virginia's 2008 law the woman, who is now married with three young children, cannot enter public or private school property or attend church services without seeking permission from the state court or the local school board. But she hasn't done that because she said it risks revealing her children's identity and could take years to resolve.

She wants the Virginia law thrown out, claiming the new restrictions interfere with her constitutional rights to raise and educate her children and violate her right to procedural due process.

A federal district court rejected her claims, and the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed last year in a 2-1 ruling that she had to first exhaust state remedies before challenging the law. The dissenting judge argued that she had already suffered an injury and should be able to challenge the law immediately.

"In her case, she never admitted to a violent crime, nobody told her she was accused of a violent crime, and 15 years later they say, 'We decided you're violent and no one can prove that we're wrong,' " her lawyer, Marvin Miller, said in an interview.

Although her name is publicly available in Virginia's sex offender registry, the district court allowed the woman to file her case under a pseudonym to protect her privacy and that of her children. Lawyers for the state consented to the arrangement, which is rare and usually reserved to protect the victims of sexual abuse cases.

Like dozens of states, Virginia has moved to bolster its sex offender registration and notification laws since Congress approved the Adam Walsh Act in 2006. The federal law, named for a Florida boy abducted and murdered in 1981, sought to get states to better coordinate and expand their sex-offender registries.

The changes in Virginia and elsewhere have seen the rolls of sex-offender registries swell to include those convicted long ago and those whose offenses were previously considered too minor to be placed on a registry. Lawmakers see the changes as a way to keep children safe from sexual predators who might strike again.

Virginia argues in court briefs that it was entitled to create the new registry to protect residents from possible repeat sex offenders. It relies on a 2003 Supreme Court case that upheld a Connecticut sex offender registry. The state says it has offered a reasonable process for anyone on the registry to seek review in state courts and the school board to gain access to school property.

"Although Doe may present a sympathetic case because she now has school-aged children of her own, the presumption against allowing access would apply equally to the most hardened offenders, including the 50-year-old man convicted of having sexual relations with a 13-year-old," attorneys for the Virginia Department of State Police argue in their brief.

The new restrictions have raised concerns that people convicted long ago and considered at low risk of re-offending will be publicly humiliated and made targets for harassment and violence. Mary Devoy, an advocate for reforming Virginia's sex offender registry laws, says the expanded listings also make it more difficult for people to determine which listed offenders are the most dangerous.

"The lawmakers feel better about being tough on crime and the public feels better because they are on the registry for life," Devoy said. "The public's attitude is no second chances, no redemption, no rehabilitation." ..Source.. by Sam Hananel

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Life forever changed by sex offender list

3-2-2014 Virginia:

At the age of 22, Edgar Coker thinks it’s normal to go straight to work and then straight home every day to spend all of his free time hidden behind closed doors.

It’s a frame of reference the former North Stafford resident forged from living nearly one-third of his life with the undeserved label of rapist and having that information available to all via Virginia’s online Sex Offender Registry.

Coker’s perspective is one Nicole Pittman has seen repeatedly in studying how children and teens are impacted by being listed on sex offender registries across the country. Pittman, a national expert on the topic, authored the 2013 Human Rights Watch report “Raised on the Registry: The irreparable harm of placing children on sex offender registries in the U.S.”

Juveniles on sex offender registries must continually re-register, are limited in where they can go and are publicly ostracized, all of which create a sense of imprisonment, Pittman said.

“It’s almost an institutionalized feeling,” she said.

Like a prison without walls.

It took a team of attorneys five years of legal battles to correct the injustice that began in June 2007 when a 14-year-old girl told her mother that Coker raped her inside their Aquia Harbour home.

After he was sentenced, the girl admitted she lied to avoid getting in trouble for having sex with her friend.

The legal team’s efforts resulted in a Feb. 10 ruling by Judge Designate Jane Marum Roush, who vacated Coker’s convictions and ordered his name removed from the state’s Sex Offender Registry.

But nothing can erase the 19 months he was confined in juvenile detention, or the nearly seven years he and his family have endured harassment and the fear of making some misstep that leads to additional charges.

And while they celebrate the legal victory, neither Pittman nor Coker’s team expect he will ever recover from being labeled a rapist.

“That damage has been done,” Pittman said. “It’s sort of a lifelong sentence that will be with him.”

A ‘HAPPY-GO-LUCKY’ CHILD

Growing up in a household with five siblings, Edgar Coker was outgoing and “a little jokester,” his mother, Cherri Dulaney, said during an interview shortly after his exoneration.

“He was just this little, happy-go-lucky child without a care in the world.”

At 15, the lanky 6-footer’s chief interest was playing basketball, something he often did with his younger brothers on the courts in their neighborhood. He even dreamed of playing internationally, an idea spurred by a youth coach’s suggestion he might have that level of skill.

The Brooke Point High School student had never been in trouble with the law before, and at 15 didn’t even know what it meant to be a rapist.

But that soon changed.

On June 7, 2007, three days after his neighbor accused him of rape, he was charged with that plus abduction and breaking and entering. He soon was locked up in the Rappahannock Juvenile Center in Stafford. ..Continued.. by PAMELA GOULD

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Virginia appeals court exonerates man wrongly convicted of sexual assault

12-20-2013 Virginia:

The Virginia Court of Appeals on Friday exonerated a man who spent four years in prison for a sexual assault he didn't commit.

A three-judge panel of the court unanimously granted Johnathan Montgomery's petition for a writ of actual innocence Friday, saying there was no evidence to support his conviction after his accuser admitted lying. Montgomery was convicted in 2009 of forcible sodomy, aggravated sexual battery and animate object sexual penetration — based solely on Elizabeth Paige Coast's testimony.

Coast eventually confessed to lying and was sentenced in August to two months in jail for perjury, paving the way for Montgomery's exoneration.

"Absent Coast's original testimony, the record contains no evidence of Montgomery's guilt," the appeals court said. "There are no witnesses who testified that the incident ever occurred. There is no physical evidence that a crime ever happened. The record is entirely devoid of any evidence that incriminates Montgomery."

Montgomery's attorney, Jon M. Talotta, said he was thrilled Montgomery was cleared.

"Securing the petition of actual innocence will allow him to celebrate the holidays with his family as a free man," Talotta said.

Coast originally claimed Montgomery molested her in Hampton in 2000 when she was 10 and he was 14. She said last year that she made up the story when she was 17 to explain her behavior after her parents caught her looking at adult material on the Internet. She said she blamed Montgomery because he had moved out of state and she didn't think anything would happen to him.

Soon after Coast admitted lying, Gov. Bob McDonnell granted Montgomery a conditional pardon, freeing him from prison but leaving intact his conviction and the requirement that he register as a sex offender. One of the conditions of the pardon was that Montgomery would seek a writ of actual innocence in the appeals court.

Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli supported the petition and argued in person on Montgomery's behalf before the appeals court last month.

"We're gratified for the court's quick decision in exonerating Johnathan, and we're glad for this early Christmas present for him," Cuccinelli said in a written statement. "I'm thankful that justice has finally been served."

At the November hearing, the appeals court expressed concern that McDonnell might have created a constitutional separation of powers problem by making a full pardon contingent on the court's approval of the innocence petition. The court ruled that while it may not properly participate in the clemency process, it could still exercise its independent authority to consider a writ of actual innocence. ..Source.. by LARRY O'DELL

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Software helps parents police children's online activity (Snoop Software)

11-17-2013 Virginia:

Haid'z Hefner said she tries to monitor her 8-year-old daughter's activities online, but keeping tabs can be difficult, especially when she works nights.

Now she's got something to help her: ComputerCOP, a free computer-monitoring software the Commonwealth's Attorney's Office is offering parents as part of its online safety education program. The office launched the initiative Friday night at New Castle Elementary School.

"This is very interesting," Hefner said, holding her daughter's hand as she picked up a copy of the software. "My husband will like it. She's growing up... and I can't be there 24 hours a day."

ComputerCOP can show parents what photos their children have downloaded, what sites they've visited and who they've been talking to. It can alert parents when certain keywords such as "drugs" or "gang" are used.

The ComputerCOP disc includes safety tips, a link to the state's sex offender registry and Internet safety pledges parents can ask their children to sign. There's also a free 30-day trial of a cellphone-monitoring program, available for $10 a month.

The hope is to arm parents with the tools to protect their kids from online predators and cyberbullies and to teach them how to behave safely and appropriately online, Chief Deputy Commonwealth's Attorney Colin Stolle said. The initiative is in response to cases in which youths have either gotten into trouble for their online activity or been victimized as a result of it, he said.

"In the Commonwealth's Attorney's Office, we see Internet charges on a regular basis," he told about 300 parents, teachers and students Friday. "As a parent, it's something that terrifies me."

This year, a 15-year-old Virginia Beach girl tried to kill herself after nude photos she had sent to an 18-year-old boy ended up on her Facebook wall. Last month, a 14-year-old York County girl reported being raped by a 20-year-old Virginia Beach man she met through a chat app called KIK, according to the York-Poquoson Sheriff's Office. He had told her he was 16, and she agreed to meet him for a walk, the office said.

Not all of the threats online come from adults. Virginia Beach police last month arrested a 17-year-old Kempsville High School student accused of texting threats to another student. She faces charges stemming from incidents involving three victims, police said.

The need for education has grown as more children and teens access the Internet via smartphones, tablets, gaming consoles and other devices, said Sgt. Stephen Anders of the Southern Virginia Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force.

"This is not a one-and-done conversation that parents and adults need to have with kids," Anders said. "It's something you've got to do on a continuous basis. You don't have the talk one time and expect them to be fully responsible and know how to keep themselves safe."

Nearly 3 out of 4 children ages 8 or younger use mobile devices, according a survey by Common Sense Media. That's up dramatically from 2011, when only about a third of children used them.

About 93 percent of teens go online, according to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. According to the center, 1 in 3 children has experienced online harassment, and more than a quarter say they've been asked for explicit photos.

The Commonwealth's Attorney's Office paid for the discs - 5,000 at a cost of about $25,000 - using money seized from drug dealers. They're handing them out at elementary and middle schools and will have them available at the law library in the basement of the courthouse.

Parents also may obtain a copy by calling 385-4401. ..Source.. by Kathy Adams

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Court Won’t Hear Virginia Appeal Over Sodomy Law

10-7-2013 Washington DC:

The U.S. Supreme Court refused Monday to hear an appeal of a lower court ruling that struck down Virginia’s anti-sodomy law.

Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli’s office appealed a March ruling by the a three-judge panel of the Richmond-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which declared Virginia’s law unconstitutional.

The appeals court’s ruling came in the case of 47-year-old William Scott MacDonald, who was convicted of criminal solicitation for allegedly demanding oral sex from a 17-year-old girl. His conviction came two years after the landmark Lawrence v. Texas decision effectively struck down anti-sodomy laws in that state and several others. The appeals court cited that 2003 ruling in its 2-1 decision.

The attorney general argued that the Texas ruling did not apply to sex acts between adults and minors. The appeals court rejected that interpretation, saying the justices implied in Lawrence that a state could criminalize sodomy between an adult and a minor but that such decisions rest with legislatures, not the judiciary. Virginia does have such a law, but it applies to minors under the age of 15.

“As we’ve said from the beginning, this case was never about sexual orientation or private acts between consenting adults,” Cuccinelli spokesman Brian Gottstein said in an email Monday. “Virginia’s law couldn’t be used against consenting adults acting in private. It only applied to offenses committed against minors, against non-consenting or incapacitated adults, or in public.”

Cuccinelli, the Republican candidate for governor, has said Virginia prosecutors have used to law to prosecute child molesters. He said nearly 90 people convicted of sex crimes involving minors may be eligible to have their names removed from Virginia’s sex offender registry because of the appeals court’s ruling.

“The Supreme Court made it perfectly clear in 2003 that laws that broadly prohibit certain kinds of sexual acts are unconstitutional,” said Rebecca Glenberg, legal director of the ACLU of Virginia, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the MacDonald case. “Clearly sexual acts with children are not constitutionally protected and should be punished, but the General Assembly should enact laws specifically targeted to that behavior and not rely on an out-of-date, overly broad, unconstitutional law to prosecute those very serious crimes.”

MacDonald’s attorney, Benjamin E. Rosenberg, did not immediately return a telephone message. ..Source.. by Larry O'Dell

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Veteran Says Help Center Employed a Sex Offender

9-30-2013 Virginia:

RICHMOND, Va. (CN) - A counseling center for veterans employed a sex offender who harassed a U.S. Army veteran with post traumatic stress disorder, she says in court.

Theresa Jones sued DLW Veterans Outreach Center and William Adkins Jr. in Richmond City Circuit Court for assault and battery, negligent hiring and infliction of emotional distress.

Jones says serving at Fort Bragg, N.C., left her with post traumatic stress disorder, leading her to seek advice and guidance from DLW.

"While she was there, defendant, Mr. Adkins, solicited Ms. Jones for sexual favors in exchange for allowing her to sleep at his personal residence," the complaint states.

"Defendant Adkins is a convicted sex offender and appears on the Virginia State Police Sex Offender website."

Jones adds: "Defendant Adkins continued his inappropriate action in the days following their first encounter by repeatedly calling the plaintiff and making lewd statements, suggestions, propositions and requests, including seeking sexual acts at the offices of DLW, all in his capacity as a member of and an administrator at DLW.

"Mr. Adkins repeatedly called Ms. Jones anxiously wanting to work on her claim, and suggesting that, after the claim was submitted, they could then have sexual relations."

Jones says Adkins inappropriately touched her on multiple occasions, leaving her "heavily burdened, fearful, and ... physically sick by the stress."

She wants $150,000 in compensatory damages and $50,000 in punitive damages.

Jones is represented by David Worrell Jr. ..Source.. by RYAN ABBOTT

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Virginia Attorney General Wants to Criminalize Oral Sex

9-7-2013 Virginia:

The Attorney General of Virginia—I am not making this up—has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to allow Virginia to criminalize oral and anal sex.

Early this year, a federal appeals court vacated the conviction—based on Virginia’s anti-sodomy law—of a 47-year-old man who solicited sex with a 17-year-old woman (who is over the age of consent in Virginia). Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli wants the Supreme Court to overturn the decision.

The ladies of The View enthusiastically ripped Cuccinelli. Whoopi Goldberg even threatened “I’m gonna make sure your behind doesn’t become governor.” (Whoopi, let me know exactly how much money you donate to his opponent.)

The issue of anti-sodomy legislation has absolutely nothing to do with protecting children. The anti-sodomy law applies to adult-adult consensual sex, gay or straight. Either a human is old enough to legally consent to sex, or s/he isn’t. And like every state, Virginia has plenty of laws punishing non-consenting sex as well as adult-child sexual exploitation.

But Cuccinelli is running for Governor (guess which party?), and he’s turning this into a “protect the children” thing. On his website he quotes a civic leader who’s so angry and frightened she overlooks the facts; I’ve helpfully added a ..continued.. by Sexual Intelligence blog

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...