"Hartford City sex offender ordinance unconstitutionally vague
"By IL StaffDecember 2, 2016
A 2008 Hartford City ordinance that restricted registered sex offenders from entering or loitering within 300 feet of broadly defined “child safety zones” is unconstitutionally vague, a federal judge has ruled.
Brian Valenti challenged a 2008 ordinance after he moved to the Blackford County community in 2014 with his wife and minor child. Valenti was required to register as a sex offender for his 1993 California conviction of a sex offense involving a child under the age of 14.
The Hartford City ordinance, which was amended in 2015, imposed a fine of up to $200 per offense for registered sex offenders who entered or loitered within 300 feet of parks, schools, public libraries, arcades, amusement centers, swimming pools, child care facilities, athletic complexes, crisis centers or shelters, skate parks or rinks, movie theaters, bowling alleys, scouting facilities or the office of protective services.
Valenti argued the local ordinance caused him to curtail activities with his child. He said he was given a citation while a passenger in his brother’s car while the car was parked at his brother’s house across the street from a school.
Judge Theresa Springmann in the District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division, granted Valenti summary judgment in part, finding the ordinance violates Indiana’s ex post facto law as applied to Valenti, and that it’s unconstitutionally vague.
The ordinance “encouraged arbitrary enforcement by failing to describe with sufficient particularity what activity violated the ordinance” and was “unconstitutionally vague on its face,” Springmann wrote in an order issued Thursday.
Though Springmann wrote that she was troubled by the amended ordinance that sought to clarify who could be subject to fines and further define prohibited loitering, she stopped short of striking the revised city code. She did forbid Hartford City, though, from ordering fines under the amended ordinance, finding its language also violates the 14th Amendment.
Springmann said a future conference will be set to consider Valenti’s damages. The case is Brian Valenti et al. v. Hartford City, Indiana, 1:15-cv-63.
Breaking: Fourth Circuit holds NC premises statute unconstitutional
By Robin . . . In a broadly worded opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has affirmed a lower court ruling previously holding most of North Carolina’s premises and proximity restrictions applied to registered sex offenders as unconstitutional.
The Court of Appeals held subsection (2) of § 14-208.18 as unconstitutionally overboard and admonished the state for failing to provide evidence to support its intent: “Without empirical data or other similar credible evidence, it is not possible to tell whether subsection (a)(2) . . . responds at all to the State’s legitimate interest in protecting minors from sexual assault.”
The Court of Appeals held subsection (3) of § 14-208.18 as unconstitutionally vague stating that “neither an ordinary citizen nor a law enforcement officer could reasonably determine what activity was criminalized” by the statutory language.
The North Carolina General Assembly enacted a new premises statute which took affect on September 1, 2016. The new statute is set to be challenged in federal court by NCRSOL, National RSOL’s affiliate in North Carolina.
"Sex offender registries discourage rehabilitation
"By Sandy Rozek 11/25/16 12:01 AM - The Washington Examiner
Ten years ago, Jeffrey Roy shared a bottle of vodka and played video games with a fourteen-year-old girl in his basement. The two engaged in sexual activity. When her father's concern for her whereabouts led him to the home, she told him and the police she had no memory of the incident.
Jeffrey was sixteen. He was sentenced to five years, most suspended, and put on probation and the sex offender registry for ten years.
The first few years of his probation, with its stringent sex offender restrictions, were difficult for Jeffrey. But he got it together and did what we hope for every teenager: He grew up.
According to all sources, he made a remarkable rehabilitation, earning him the approval of his community, peers and elders. For the past few years, Jeffrey has run with his father, Jim, in the Tarzan Brown Race sponsored by the YMCA in Mystic, Conn.
This year, when Jim went to register, Jeffrey's registration was rejected. He was flagged for being on the state's sex offender registry.
Many in the community appealed to the YMCA, citing his reputation as a young man who made a stupid mistake, paid the penalty, learned his lesson and turned his life around.
One of the other runners reviewed YMCA policy and pointed out that the language allows discretion in the matter. The CEO and executive director of the foundation, which manages 40 races a year including this one, said she had never heard of a runner being banned from a race for being a registered sex offender. Beth Schluger of the Hartford Marathon Foundation said her organization doesn't even screen runners for being on the registry.
The Ocean Community YMCA, however, citing safety as a primary concern, held firm. When the race was run Nov. 6, neither Jeffrey nor Jim, who has been a participant in nearly all of the 40 previous Tarzan Brown races, were among the runners.
Why was this decision made? Was there any actual fear that Jeffrey's presence created an element of risk or danger to anyone? The other runners? The observers? The YMCA officials?
If rehabilitation and re-entering society as a law-abiding citizen after punishment for a crime is the objective, Jeffrey could well be the poster boy. What message does his rejection send to those who commit crimes, serve their punishment and then become law-abiding citizens?
Do we let them know we appreciate they've turned their lives around? Do we show our pride in them for overcoming their earlier faults and choosing to go forward as contributing participants of community and society?
"San Antonio Four Exonerated
"IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS
According to Applicants’ expert, Dr. Alexandria Doyle, the sexual-assault allegations in this case do not pass “the smell test.” This emotional response certainly captures the sense of outrage that so many harbor about these cases. Whether it is in articles or a documentary, these cases involving “The San Antonio Four” have been well dissected in popular media.
In the summer of 1994, two young girls alleged that four young lesbian women, including the girls’ aunt, had spontaneously and violently gang-raped them on two occasions within a single week. The who-what-when-and-where changed from the outcries, to the statements made to the police, to the statements made to the examining doctor, to the testimony at two trials. But those inconsistencies were easy to set aside given the physical findings associated with child sexual abuse found by Dr. Nancy Kellogg, who asserted that the older child showed physical, objective signs of sexual abuse: In light of Dr. Kellogg’s testimony, the girls’ stories had the ring of truth.
“Dr. Kellogg has retracted her testimony about the physical indicators of past trauma. She now agrees with the defense that there are no definitive signs of sexual abuse, and she has acknowledged that her testimony at trial was wrong.”
All parties and courts, including this one, agree that all four Applicants are entitled to have their convictions and sentences vacated because of the introduction of what is now known to be scientifically invalid or inaccurate evidence.
Finally, the Applicants have presented new expert testimony that they are not sex offenders. None of the four Applicants fit the profile for sex offenders, and psychological evaluations have confirmed this.
"Sex Offender Fights Removal From Hospice
"By IZZY KAPNICK Friday, September 09, 2016 - Last Update: 11:01 AM PT
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. (CN) - A Florida city's sex-offender law faces scrutiny in litigation over whether a wheelchair-bound former doctor, convicted of patient abuse in the 1980s, should be forced out of a hospice due to its proximity to a school.
A Palm Beach County court petition filed Aug. 31 claims Jack Ehrhart, a hospice patient with end-stage Alzheimer's disease, has been threatened with arrest if he does not move out of Heartland of Boynton Beach, a nursing home near a local preschool.
The City of Boynton Beach purportedly issued a notice to Ehrhart and the hospice accusing them of violating an ordinance that prohibits sex offenders from living within 2,500 feet of a school, daycare center or playground.
To Read The Rest Of The Story Click Above.
" The challenge of elderly sex offenders Where should they live? What if their health and minds are failing?
By Nicki Gorny Posted Nov 20, 2016 at 2:01 AM
By the time deputies arrested Thomas Bernard Brown for failing to register as a sexual predator, he had built up a 10-year record of consistent registration in Marion County.
That’s 42 check-ins, as his attorneys and his friends pointed out at a sentencing hearing in June. When it came to No. 43, Brown, 72, who has since been diagnosed with early stages of dementia, says that he simply forgot.
“My only crime, your honor, is that I have become old and forgetful,” he told Circuit Judge Robert Hodges that day.
To Read The Rest Of The Story Click Above.
"Knoxville sexting case embraces 'free the nipple' message
"Grant Rodgers , firstname.lastname@example.org 6:43 p.m. CST November 11, 2016
The message of the "free the nipple" campaign is coming to the federal courthouse in Des Moines.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa announced Friday it is joining a federal lawsuit brought in September against Marion County Attorney Ed Bull for threatening to bring a sexual exploitation charge against a teenage girl who sent two suggestive photos of herself to a high school classmate. The lawsuit asked a judge to block Bull from prosecuting the teen, claiming that the photos were protected free speech under the First Amendment because they were not obscene. Neither photo contained nudity.
"Neither photo contained nudity.
An amended complaint announced by the civil liberty group embraces the ethos of the "free the nipple" movement, which argues that laws used to punish women for exposing their chests — when men can do so without consequence — are outdated, discriminatory and violate the equal protection clause enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.
“This lawsuit is the result of efforts made by my office to respond to a situation where numerous juveniles had exchanged sexually explicit photographs," Bull said in a September statement. "Rather than take every juvenile to court, I looked for a solution that would help them learn from their mistakes and hopefully prevent their behavior from being repeated, while allowing them to avoid having a criminal or juvenile conviction or even a charge on their record."
Please click on title to read full story.
"Justice denies Michigan's appeal to halt sex offender ruling
" Associated Press , WZZM 11:18 AM. EST November 15, 2016
LANSING, MICH. - A U.S. Supreme Court justice has rejected Michigan's request to halt a lower court decision that found the state unconstitutionally put additional restrictions on sex offenders long after their convictions.
Justice Elena Kagan denied Tuesday the emergency appeal for a stay.
“In August, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said changes to Michigan law in 2006 and 2011, which included retroactively restricting sex offenders' movements near schools, penalize offenders as "moral lepers.”
“In August, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said changes to Michigan law in 2006 and 2011, which included retroactively restricting sex offenders' movements near schools, penalize offenders as "moral lepers."
Schuette's office couldn't immediately be reached to comment.
Michigan has the country's fourth-largest sex offender list, with more than 42,000 registrants.
Michigan prohibits all registrants from living, working or loitering within 1,000 feet of school property.
" Life On The List
"Collateral Damage in America's War on Sex Crimes
"A Residence Ban Forced This Family into Homelessness for Almost Two Years
Legislators who advocate restrictions on where those on sex offender registries can live often admit that their real purpose is to get registrants out of town altogether. One city has come closer than any other to making permanent exile a reality: Lewisville, Texas.
Most cities and towns with residence bans prohibit registrants from being near “places where children gather”: parks, schools, and daycares. But in 2008, Lewisville passed a law that defined those places to include just about everything: parks, playgrounds, schools, swimming pools, recreational facilities, day cares, and video arcades. The town’s 1500-foot ban makes 99.75 percent of the city’s houses off limits to registrants and their families.
So imagine the dilemma facing Lewisville’s Aurelio Duarte, his wife Wynjean, and their two teen daughters. In 2006, Aurelio Duarte was convicted of online solicitation of a minor and served 3 years in prison. When he got out in June 2010, he returned to Lewisville to rejoin his family.
But the city’s residency ban meant that the family had to move when Aurelio came home. So the four of them got a one-room, 275-square-foot motel room on an interstate service road, one of the few places that wasn’t in a banned zone. (A swimming pool has since been built nearby, so it’s since become off limits.) They thought their stay would be temporary.
The Duartes wanted to stay in Lewisville–the daughters had grown up in the city’s public school system, and Wynjean worked between 60 and 70 hours a week at two jobs near the city.
So over the course of 18 months, they looked for a house to buy or an apartment to rent within the .25 percent of the city open to them. Miraculously, nine times they found houses for sale that they thought might not be in a no-go zone. But each time, when they contacted police to find out whether they had permission to make an offer, the police either turned them down or took so long to reply that the houses were sold to someone else in the meantime.
" “Grits for Breakfast”
" Welcome to Texas justice: You might beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride.
" Acting Houston chief declined to engage in Halloween sex offender hype
" Tony Blais Tuesday, November 01, 2016
Grits has complained for years about law enforcement hyping the dangers of sex-offenders on Halloween. IMO they're politicized scare tactics with little basis in reality that ignore the more significant and obvious threats facing families and kids. Indeed, readers are so used to these annual polemics that one commenter chimed in to complain I hadn't written this year's version.
Certainly a lot of sex offender hype went on in the press this year. Searching the terms "Halloween, sex offender" on Google News brought back 264,000 results. All those on the top pages were police PR pieces; none of them actually documented a child harmed or even approached by a sex offender on Halloween.
So I was pleased to see the Acting Houston Police Chief break that mold and issue a Halloween warning focused on the real dangers facing kids Halloween night. Reported the Houston Chronicle:
Acting Houston Police Chief Martha Montalvo reminded motorists to take extra precautions this year.
"Please be aware of your surroundings and slow down," she said recently.”
She also recommended that:
Parents should inspect candy before it is eaten;
Children should have a light source or reflective clothing;
Children not walk alone while trick or treating;
And that was it. Thank you, Chief Montalvo, for declining to indulge in the fear-hyping surrounding sex offenders which has become an annual media and law enforcement ritual. Well done.
" Posted by Gritsforbreakfast at 9:32 AM