VA - ACLU: New sex offender bill 'invitation to throw stones'

Original Article

01/20/2015

By Chris Thomas

RICHMOND - A house subcommittee unanimously passed a bill which would require registered sex offenders to have public hearings before gaining access to Virginia schools.

The delegate behind the bill says its a step to protect children, but civil rights organizations say the bill goes too far.

"I certainly would like to know who is being granted access to these public school systems," said Delegate Jeff Campbell (R-6th) who is introducing the bill and is the parent of school-aged children. "I understand the concern about this, but it's really not an attack on the sex offender themselves."

HB1366 would require registered sex offenders to advertise their public hearing in the newspaper for two weeks. Anyone attending the hearing could testify against the request to gain access to the school. Some civil rights groups are already coming out against the bill saying it could lead to angry mobs.

"It's essentially an invitation to throw stones," said Claire Gastañaga with the ACLU of Virginia. "Having a public hearing before you can go to visit your child's teacher? Tell me, what's that supposed to accomplish? I don't see what it accomplishes, other than inviting an angry mob into the school."

Del. Campbell disagrees with that assessment.

"It is certainly not going to prohibit the offender from being able to petition the court and gain access," he said.

AZ - Arizona’s Naked Photo Law Makes Free Speech a Felony

Original Article

09/23/2014

By Lee Rowland

Which of the following could land you a felony conviction in Arizona?

• Showing images of naked prisoners tortured at Abu Ghraib;
• Linking to the iconic Pulitzer Prize-winning photograph of “Napalm Girl,” showing an unclothed Vietnamese girl running from a napalm attack;
• Sharing a close-up photo of a woman’s breast with a breastfeeding support group;
• Waving a friend over to see a cute naked baby pic — like the one you see on this page.

Unfortunately, the answer is all of the above. That’s because Arizona recently passed a law that makes it a felony — and potentially a sex offense — to share any image of nudity or sexuality before you get consent from every person pictured.

Protecting personal privacy is, without doubt, a laudable goal. Indeed, the ACLU works tirelessly to protect your private data. But Arizona’s “nude photo law” is a seriously misguided attempt to achieve that goal. This new crime is broad and confusing. It applies to anyone who shares a nude image, not just to bad actors who intentionally invade another’s privacy. A prosecutor need not demonstrate that a person had an expectation of privacy in an image before charging you with a crime for sharing it. And the law applies equally to a private person’s hacked naked photo and a beautiful nude at a photography exhibit — because the law’s breadth encompasses truly newsworthy, artistic, and historical images.

As a result, the nude photo law creates bizarre and troubling burdens on speech fully protected by the First Amendment.

Rest of the story

CA - Do Residency Bans Drive Sex Offenders Underground?

Original Article

07/07/2014

By Steven Yoder

Early last year, Los Angeles set aside a sliver of land in its Harbor Gateway neighborhood for the city’s newest and smallest park: two jungle gyms on a fifth of an acre.

The project was more than just an effort to increase the city’s green space. City Council members made clear that one of the park’s principal reasons for existence was to force 33 people on the California sex offender registry who were living in a nearby apartment building to move out. State law bars those on its registry from living within 2,000 feet of a park or school.

“We came together, working with the police department, to problem-solve, to send a message that Harbor Gateway cannot be dumped upon with a high number of registered sex offenders,” councilman Joe Buscaino said (Video) at the park’s opening.
- Just imaging how much money would be wasted if all grandstanding politician were to put pocket parks all over the state just so they can "look tough" on ex-sex offenders?  That is all this is, grandstanding!

But the state ban itself already clusters registrants into a limited number of areas, according to a September 2011 report by the California Sex Offender Management Board, which was created by the state legislature to advise it on sex offender policies.

California hasn’t been alone in its tough approach to ensuring that formerly incarcerated sex offenders pose no danger after they are released. As part of a wave of new sex offender laws starting in the mid-1990s, about 30 states and thousands of cities and towns passed such residency restrictions—prompting in turn a pushback from civil liberties advocates, state legislators and registrants themselves who argued the restrictions were not only unduly harsh but counterproductive.

But a court decision in Colorado last year could mark a shift in momentum.

In the Colorado case, _____, a high school soccer coach convicted in 2001 for a consensual sexual relationship with a 17-year-old student, was sentenced to seven years’ probation and put on the state sex offender registry.

Eleven years later, in 2012, he and his wife bought a house in the city of Englewood. But the police department told him he couldn’t live there because of a city ordinance prohibiting sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of schools, parks and playgrounds—a law that effectively made 99 percent of its homes and rentals off limits to offenders.

Englewood police also warned offenders that even in the open one percent, if they contacted a homeowner whose property wasn’t for rent or for sale, they could be charged with trespassing.

_____ sued, and last August a federal court concluded that the city’s ban went too far.

The judge ruled that it conflicted with the state’s existing system for managing and reintegrating sex offenders and could encourage other towns and cities to do the same, effectively barring offenders from the entire state. Englewood has appealed, but two of the state’s five other cities that have residence bans have softened their restrictions since the decision.

The other three are awaiting the outcome of the appeal, according to John Krieger of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Colorado, which represented Ryals.

Read the rest of the article

AL - Law banning sex offender camp might violate Alabama's constitution

Original Article

07/03/2014

By JAY REEVES

CLANTON - A new law used to shut down a church-affiliated camp for convicted sex offenders in rural Alabama violates a state constitutional amendment designed to protect religious liberty, the American Civil Liberties Union said Thursday.

Randall Marshall, legal director of the ACLU's Alabama office, said the law that went into effect this week is in apparent conflict with the Alabama Religious Freedom Amendment, passed in 1998 to make it tougher for government to infringe on religious rights.

Pastor Ricky Martin says he built a church in rural Chilton County and allowed convicted sex offenders to move to the property because the men had nowhere else to live. He said he was trying to follow biblical instructions to help the outcast.

The camp, which began accepting former inmates in 2010, closed when the new law took effect Tuesday.

Marshall said the amendment "raises serious questions" about the law, which was passed this year and affects Chilton County only. The amendment says laws can restrict religion narrowly only if there is a "compelling governmental interest."

Martin "has sincerely held religious beliefs that he's acting upon, and now you've got government prohibiting him from doing something that he considers part of his religion," Marshall said.

The sponsor of the bill, state Rep. Kurt Wallace, said the law is meant to protect the public from people convicted of rape, child molestation and other crimes.

Most of the more than 50 men who've lived in the camp through the years are from other counties and states, officials said.

"No religion is being disenfranchised," Wallace said. "He can practice any religion he wants, but he can't recruit sex offenders to our community. That's just crazy."

Martin hasn't sued to block the law, but he said he might. Some of the half-dozen men who were living in old campers behind his Triumph Church are now homeless, he said.

"I don't know what they're doing, just walking around trying to find a place to sleep," he said.

The law, which Wallace said was drafted with Martin's refuge in mind, prohibits two convicted sex offenders from living within 300 feet of each other on the same property in Chilton County unless they are married. It includes a provision to allow a state-approved counseling center or halfway house if one opened, Wallace said.

Martin, who serves as a volunteer prison chaplain, said the camp was needed because inmates serving time for sex-related offenses have a hard time finding suitable residences after release.

Like other states, Alabama restricts the areas where sex offenders are required to live, barring anyone convicted of certain crimes to reside within 2,000 feet of a school or day care. Laws are even stricter about where offenders can work or hang out, restricting them from being within 500 feet of parks, athletic fields or businesses where kids gather.

Inmates serving time for sex crimes must tell authorities where they plan to live following their release, and prisons or county jails must continue holding anyone who can't prove they have a legal place to live.

See Also:

• New law forces Chilton. Co. sex offenders to leave pastor’s backyard

NH - House committee passes bill prohibiting restrictions on where sex offenders can live

Original Article

01/29/2014

By ANNMARIE TIMMINS

A House committee easily passed a bill, 18-1, prohibiting restrictions on where sex offenders can live yesterday, noting that judges have twice ruled residency restrictions unconstitutional. Still, lawmakers predicted a tough fight in the Senate, which has rejected similar bills before.

“There is a perception that this bill is being soft on crime,” said Rep. Steve Vaillancourt, a Manchester Republican who voted for the bill. “All of us who have heard (this debate) know the benefits of the bill. But we’re going to need to explain it.”

Rep. Al Baldasaro, a Londonderry Republican, cast the lone vote against the bill, saying he didn’t want to tell his constituents they couldn't determine where sex offenders could and could not live.

As many as 11 communities have residency restrictions for sex offenders, said Rep. Renny Cushing, a Hampton Democrat. Londonderry is not one of them, according to the town’s website. Locally, Tilton, Northfield and Boscawen have such restrictions. Both Northfield’s and Tilton’s ordinances prohibit people convicted of sex crimes against children from living within 2,500 feet of schools, child-care centers and playgrounds. Boscawen’s ordinance was not available yesterday.

Tilton adopted its ordinance in 2007 and added this explanation to it: “Acknowledging that sex offenders who prey on children are at a higher risk of re-offending, the town of Tilton has a compelling interest and responsibility to protect the health, safety and welfare of its children by restricting access to areas where there (is) a high concentration of children.”
- Once again a law passed based on lies and not the facts.  Recidivism among sex offenders is lower than any other criminal, except murderers.

However, two judges have found otherwise. In 2009, a district court judge in Dover ruled that city’s residency restriction invalid because the city had not shown a “substantial relationship” between the ordinance and the protection of children. In 2012, Merrimack County Superior Court Judge Larry Smukler came to the same conclusion when the New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union appealed Franklin’s ordinance.

Cushing, a member of the House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee, said the bill prohibiting residency restrictions is necessary because it will take costly legal fights to undo the 11 ordinances still in place across the state. “The simple thing that can be done is to pass a bill that incorporates the . . . courts’ decisions.”

Cushing also argued that restricting housing for sex offenders pushes them “underground,” in campgrounds, under bridges and to other places the police cannot monitor. He said communities are safer if the police know where sex offenders live and require yearly registration with the local police.

Baldasaro said he was concerned that if a sex offender moved into a Londonderry neighborhood, “everyone else wants to move out.” He added, “I want to support this bill, but I have to go back to neighborhoods in my district. Who is going to protect the neighbors?”
- It is not up to the government or police to "protect" anybody, it's their job to enforce laws and respect the Constitution and the rights of others, not pass unconstitutional laws to help themselves look tough!

Rep. Larry Gagne, a Manchester Republican, responded to Baldasaro.

“My first term, I was pretty much a hard-liner,” he said. “I said, ‘Put (sex offenders) in outer space. Put them all on an island.’ But I changed my mind after a (police) sergeant came in and said, ‘If they go underground, we can’t find them.’ ”

Rep. Roger Berube, a Somersworth Democrat, questioned why the state Senate has rejected several similar bills from the House in previous years. “How can they get away with that?” he asked. “It doesn't appear the Senate is actually listening to the . . . court.”
- And it appears you are not obeying your oath to defend the Constitution and the rights of others!

To that, Rep. Laura Pantelakos, chairwoman of the committee said, “Sometimes the Senate doesn't listen to anybody.”

DC - Dennis Sobin Wins In Court

Congratulations! For all the related posts about this, click the "IdiotsRegistry" label above, or see this article.

NJ - Trying to Ban Sex Offenders from Social Media Is a Waste of Time

Original Article

01/29/2014

By Jason Koebler

New Jersey has become the latest state to try to regulate how (and if) sex offenders can use social media, an increasingly tricky problem facing legislators around the country. But privacy experts say the laws are problematic, and probably unconstitutional.

The proposed bill would require all sex offenders in New Jersey to disclose the fact on all of their social media accounts.

A similar measure was introduced, but not passed, last year. The measure has been pre-filed for the 2014 legislative session. Donna Simon, an assemblywoman who sponsored the bill, said anyone caught violating the law, if passed, could face a $10,000 fine and 18 months in prison.


“Sex offenders are very sneaky and despicable,” she said. “What they will do is they will have a myriad of screen names and other identities to use for communicating to children.”
- Underage children are not suppose to be on Facebook based on their terms of service.  Why don't you teach kids in school, or better yet, the parents be parents and teach their own children about the sharing of personal information online or talking to people they do not know?  A major study was done years ago that shows most children are approached by their peers about sex, not a stranger, although that does happen.

Of course, stopping even a small number of sexual assaults is a laudable goal, but in many cases, laws that limit social media access are quickly struck down in court, making the whole exercise nothing more than a waste of time and money. A year ago, a federal appeals judge ruled that an Indiana law that banned sex offenders from using instant messaging, social networking sites, and chat programs was unconstitutional. In that decision, a federal judge wrote that the law “targets substantially more activity than the evil it seeks to redress.”

Nathan Wessler, an attorney with the ACLU, says that New Jersey’s proposed law is a similar overreach. The law would require sex offenders to disclose all of their online accounts to law enforcement, including E-mail addresses, screen names, social media accounts, message board handles, and more. Similar provisions in laws passed in Indiana, Nebraska, Georgia, Utah, California, and Louisiana have been struck down. A law banning sex offenders from social media was struck down in North Carolina last year, but a New Jersey ban on social media for sex offenders that are out on parole was upheld.

“The reporting requirement is particularly problematic, because you have a right to engage in anonymous debate online,” Wessler said. “You have the right to ask about embarrassing medical matters online to write on the Facebook page of the Mayo Clinic or post on message boards. The government is requiring people to turn over these anonymous identities so they can watch what they’re doing online even when it’s protected anonymous political speech.”

Wessler says that besides being unconstitutional, the requirement is “onerous and impractical,” because it requires disclosure of things such as randomly-generated email addresses from Craiglist and disclosure of accounts that may have long-since been forgotten about.

The New Jersey law is modeled on a law passed in 2012 in Louisiana and goes a step further, too. It “requires person who are required to register as a sex offender to provide notification of that fact on social networking sites” and also has to include “notice of the crime for which he was convicted, the jurisdiction of conviction, a description of his physical characteristics, and his residential address.” The offender must also link to their sex offender profile on a social networking site.

That’s a lot of information, and a lot of it is impossible, logistically, to follow through with, Wessler says.

“It is literally impossible to include all that information in 140 characters, so anyone on the registry who wanted to use Twitter would be automatically violating the law,” he said, forcing people to “choose between complying with this restriction or giving up the ability to engage in conversation in what has become the new town square.”

Some social media networks, such as Facebook and Match.com, already ask that sex offenders not register for their sites in their terms of service.

All of this may sound overly sympathetic towards sex offenders, but laws that do mainly superficial things such as trying to ban sex offenders from social media run the risk of diverting attention from other prevention efforts. The stereotypical image of a creepy old man preying on unknowing children is a popular—and certainly scary—one, but in reality, few sex offenders use social media to perpetrate their crimes.

“Numbers suggest that Internet-initiated sex crimes account for a salient but small proportion of all statutory rape offenses and a relatively low number of sexual offenses committed against minors overall,” according to a 2008 study published in American Psychologist (PDF).

More than 90 percent of sex offenders personally know their child victims, and in over 50 percent of cases, the perpetrator is a family member—far from a creepy stranger they met online.

“These laws end up being counterproductive,” Wessler said. “They’re not tailored at all to addressing the harm the state should be concerned about. Anytime a legislature relies on inaccurate stereotypes of the problem, they’re diverting attention away from ways to address the real problem. It can create a false sense of security and divert law enforcement resources.”

And, if the goal is to rehabilitate sex offenders who have served their time in jail, requiring them to abstain from social media can seriously hinder that. Because sex offenders often have a difficult time finding jobs, many are self-employed and start their own businesses. If they want to start a social media page for their business, they’d be required to comply with the law.

“A lot of times, they’ll try to make their own goods and sell them online or start a business that you can’t successfully do without marketing online,” Wessler said. “Complying with this is probably going to completely destroy their ability to promote that business online.”

WA - Judge rules sex offender data in Benton County not public information

Donna Zink

Original Article

01/29/2014

By Tyler Richardson

A Tri-City judge ruled Wednesday the personal information of low-level sex offenders in Benton County is not public information and shouldn't be released to a Mesa woman.

Judge Bruce Spanner's ruling comes after more than a month of deliberation about whether the data should be released to Donna Zink.

Zink has no "legitimate interest" in it, Spanner wrote in his 13-page decision. The information, if released, would cause irreparable harm to more than 400 Level 1 sex offenders.
- And the online registry for other ex-offenders also causes irreparable harm!

Spanner said the information is considered confidential under other state and federal statutes and therefore is exempt from release.

"There is no showing that the information requested is either relevant or necessary," Spanner wrote. "Our Supreme Court has determined that Level 1 sex offender registration is in most instances 'confidential' and that the public has 'no legitimate' interest therein because those offenders do not pose any threat to the community."

Zink -- the former mayor of Mesa who sued the city in 2003 for withholding other kinds of public documents -- requested in July the names, birthdates, addresses, pictures and other information of the Level 1 offenders.

She requested the same information from Franklin County, and it has been released.

Zink has been in a legal fight with several Tri-City lawyers since making her request. She has said she plans to create an online database of the offenders because she believes people should know where someone convicted of any type of sex offense is living. She has said in court that Level 1 offenders can be dangerous, citing a recent Richland case in which a low-level offender is charged with raping and killing an infant.

Registration information for Level 2 and 3 offenders is routinely posted on sheriff department websites. But Level 1 offenders are considered the least likely to reoffend, and their information is not made public unless they fail to register.

The Benton County Superior Court ruling, however, only blocks the release of the personal information of 14 sex offenders.

Richland attorney John Ziobro, who represents those offenders, was the first to have his case for a permanent injunction heard.

Spanner granted the injunction, but it can be appealed to a higher court.

"For my clients, it's great," Ziobro said. "I haven't spoken to any of them, but I am sure they are ecstatic."

Lawyers for other clients told the Herald they are optimistic Spanner's ruling will be applied to their cases.

A temporary injunction was in place to prevent the county from releasing any low-level sex offender's personal information.

Benton County prosecutors do not agree with Spanner's ruling, saying the information should be released to Zink.

"There's still a whole lot left up in the air," said Ryan Lukson.

Richland attorney Greg Dow represents 20 other Level 1 offenders and is trying to form a class-action lawsuit to provide the majority of Level 1 offenders legal representation so they also can try to prevent the release of their personal information.

Spanner previously denied Dow's request, but he's filed an appeal.

"There's a lot of cleanup work left," said Dow, who praised Spanner's decision. "We need to find out what impact the judge thinks this has on the people who are not named as plaintiffs. There's 390 guys out there wondering, 'Am I protected or not?' "

Zink, who has been representing herself, could not be reached about the decision but took to social media Wednesday to blast the ruling. She said she is frustrated the court system is protecting sex offenders.

Zink wrote that Spanner's ruling will not stop her attempts to get the information.

"After all this they would serious(ly) think I was going to roll over," Zink wrote. "Let me give you a clue, when someone works this hard they are not going to quit. At least not till the Supreme Court weighs in. That is what appeals are for."

Zink has requested offender information from the Washington State Patrol database and from Yakima County. Temporary injunctions are in place in King County and Yakima County preventing the information from being released.

The state American Civil Liberties Union has gotten involved in the case with the state patrol. ACLU spokesman Doug Honig said attorneys are reviewing Spanner's decision.

Zink also requested around 80,000 emails from Benton County. The emails contain sex offender information and other sensitive police information. Spanner ruled information in the emails not pertaining to sex offenders can be released to Zink.

Zink's county requests for sex offender information could slow down a potential appeal, Lukson said.

Zink can't appeal a decision in her case until the county is done reviewing the emails. Lukson said it could take several years to do that.

If Zink withdraws the email request, it could speed up her potential appeal, Lukson said.

Video Source

DC - W.A.R. is Going to Washington D.C.

Original Article

01/26/2014

By Kim Dubina

You read the header correctly! W.A.R. is going to Washington D.C.!

In light of the recent upcoming hearing of _____ and his Idiot registry, W.A.R. thought it imperative to present and show support. Although we do NOT agree with any form of public registries, we DO agree with Mr. _____'s right to teach his audience (the public and lawmakers) that registries are punitive and do cause harm to those who are on them. Additionally, _____ is being represented by the ACLU. W.A.R. has been told numerous times that we must connect and affiliate with the ACLU on civil rights issues....this IS our connection!

W.A.R. board member, Vicki Henri and several D.C. members will be in attendance at the Washington DC Superior Courthouse with our banners and information on Tuesday, January 28th, 2014. (The scheduled time for the actual hearing is at 2:30 pm.)

To read more about the hearing and Dennis' story here is a link to the article.

As always, W.A.R. can not make these events and be present without your monetary donations. In order to have representatives from the Admin team attend the D.C. hearing and other upcoming venues, we have to rely on your generous contributions to help pay for flight and travel expenses. Please help us help you! Every penny helps! To make a donation, please visit the W.A.R. website and click on the "donate" button.

If you have any further questions or concerns, please contact us!

As Always, Thank you in advance for your support!

Vicki and Kim

WV - Mayor defends broad Hurricane sex-offender constraints

Original Article

10/04/2013

By Lydia Nuzum

HURRICANE - A 2012 Hurricane city ordinance prohibiting registered sex offenders from being within 500 feet of designated "child safety zones" is still in place, despite questions about whether part of it would have to be repealed for violating constitutional rights.

"There were absolutely no changes made. We feel it is within our right, and the citizens are 100 percent behind it," said Hurricane Mayor Scott Edwards.

The ordinance bars those convicted of sex crimes from entering a number of places in the city, including parks, playgrounds, schools, public pools, skate parks, movie theaters and bowling alleys. Parts of it, including barring sex offenders from public libraries, might infringe on offenders' rights, according to Sarah Rogers, staff attorney for the West Virginia American Civil Liberties Union.

"They could definitely face a civil lawsuit or challenge," Rogers said.

The ordinance also bans sex offenders from entering "recreational areas," which include conservation areas, jogging trails, hiking trails, bicycle trails, recreation centers, water parks, swimming pools, soccer fields, baseball fields and football fields. It also includes "child day-care centers," which it defines as "a day-care center or home which provides regular care to any number of children."

"I think the ACLU is concerned about this ordinance because it's so unclear," Rogers said. "People and their families may be unsure of how to comply. The ordinance's definition of 'child-care facility,' for example, could be any home."

According to Rogers, the ex post facto clause (Wikipedia) of the U.S. Constitution prohibits governing bodies from enacting laws that punish people "after the fact" -- meaning beyond what their conviction and sentence has required.

"For example, someone who may have served his sentence for an act could go for many years as a productive citizen, and 30 or 40 years later, suddenly they have to abide by these restrictions," Rogers said. "Many courts have found these laws violate the Eighth Amendment prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment (Wikipedia)."

The ordinance also might infringe on Fifth Amendment rights, Rogers said. The double-jeopardy clause (Wikipedia) of the Fifth Amendment states, ". . . nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb."

According to news reports, the first person to be cited under the Hurricane ordinance was given a ticket last week for entering Hurricane City Park.

Edwards said the ordinance was designed to protect children as broadly as possible, and said he introduced the city law after hearing that sex offenders had been watching kids at local parks and pools.

"School grounds and public parks are the two big ones where kids would gather," he said. "The reason, of course, is that we had a sex offender continually hanging around Valley Park, at the Wave Pool, watching little kids with binoculars."

According to Edwards, the ordinance applies to all registered sex offenders in Hurricane, regardless of whether they have children of their own or were convicted of crimes that did not involve minors. The ordinance, however, defines a sex offender as "an individual who has been convicted of or placed on deferred adjudication for a sexual offense involving a person under eighteen (18) years of age for which the individual is required to register as a sex offender under West Virginia Code."

"It's legal in other states, as well," Edwards said. "Other states have very similar ordinances logged. I would actually hope that our Legislature would consider making this a state law."

Twenty-seven registered sex offenders live in Hurricane, and three more are employed in Hurricane but are not residents of Putnam County, according to the West Virginia State Police website. Of the 27 offenders registered in the city, all but one were charged with crimes involving a person under age 18.

Another issue that could be created by an ordinance like this is that it has the potential to create "a false sense of security," Rogers said.

"It could take sex offenders from supportive environments, where there is a likelihood they might rehabilitate, and put them in a place where they don't have any support," she said. "We understand that there are dangerous predators, and we don't want them roaming around, but we're not sure this does anything to target people who are actually dangerous."

"These crimes are generally not crimes of proximity, but crimes of relationship."

Ky. sex offenders win case

View the article here

Finally a judge who sees the BS for what it is, BS!! AMEN!!!

04/21/2007

Judge says new rules don't apply retroactively

COVINGTON - Eleven Kenton County residents have beaten charges that they violated Kentucky's new sex-offender law intended to prevent them from living within 1,000 feet of a playground, school or day care.

Kenton District Judge Martin Sheehan ruled Friday that the new restrictions do not apply to people convicted of their crimes before the amended law took effect last year.

"If what we seek is to protect children from sex offenders, how do we accomplish that aim by imposing a 1,000-foot residency restriction ...?" Sheehan wrote. "If the offender is still permitted to visit and linger in such areas for protracted periods, so long as he does not sleep there, what actual protection have we provided our children?

"In truth, residency restrictions appear to be little more than a political placebo, offering false comfort to pacify the public's fear of sex offenders."

Court observers said prosecutors would likely appeal. Kenton County Attorney Garry Edmondson did not return phone messages seeking comment.

"This is a ruling in the right direction," said Beth Wilson, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky. "We have long argued that the new law ... does nothing to enhance community safety. It effectively banishes people from their communities."

Registered sex offenders frustrated in finding an eligible place to live have found themselves fighting it in court across the state.

A Fleming County jury recently found a registered sex offender guilty but ordered no jail time or fine, said Tom Griffiths, regional manager for Kentucky Department of Public Advocacy. In another incident, a charge was dropped against a Mason County sex offender when he agreed to move.

In reference to Sheehan's ruling, defense lawyer Don Nageleisen called the order "the most courageous judicial decision in the last 10 years." He said Sheehan followed the law even if it meant making a politically unpopular ruling.

Nageleisen, who represented one of the 11 men, challenged the misdemeanor charges against his client on several constitutional grounds.

Sheehan didn't strike down the statute. He ruled that legislators passed a punitive law after the fact - a violation of the state and federal constitutions. Prosecutors had argued that the restrictions were not further punishment, but a civil plan designed to protect children.

"The public both fears and hates sexual offenders, the political pariahs of our day," Sheehan wrote. "This prevailing public animus has resulted in the enactment of increasingly harsh measures. Our courts, the public's last line of defense for civil liberties, have been quick to join the mob, twisting and controlling prevailing case law with an eye on the ultimate goal of approving harsher and harsher laws, while simultaneously glossing over significant concerns and constitutional challenges."

Pointing out that someone could be placed on a sex offender registry for just possessing child porn, Sheehan even suggested an alternative system. He cited a plan used in Nebraska that evaluates each offender's risk of re-offending before deciding where he can live.

The judge also questioned a common belief that sex offenders are likely to exploit the children of the neighbors. The 36-page order cited numerous studies or recidivism rates of inmates.

Sheehan wrote that problems in Kentucky's law were exacerbated by the lack of a legal definition of a playground. He said Kenton County's patchwork of small cities could each strategically position a few swing sets throughout their borders to ban sex offenders from residing anywhere within their cities.

"An area within which sex offender residency is permitted today could be converted to an off-limits area tomorrow simply by the opening of a playground, school or day-care facility," Sheehan wrote, adding that the law has no grandfather clause.

"In fact, the harsh reality of a lack of legal housing available to sex offenders subject to residency restrictions is already striking home in at least one jurisdiction," Sheehan wrote.

He said less than two years after Miami enacted a 2,500-foot residency restriction, sex offenders are living under expressway overpasses because there is no other legal housing available.

Welcome to the Matrix

View the article here

This is old I know, but for some reason it just popped up in Google Reader, so I'm posting it here.

07/09/2004

Inside the Government’s Secret, Corporate-Run Mega-Database

---

Madeleine Baran gives us the deepest look yet inside the massive corporate-government database called Matrix, a record surveillance system civil libertarians consider a grave threat to privacy and a public hazard.

---

In what civil liberties advocates call the most massive database surveillance program in US history, the Multistate Anti-Terrorism Information Exchange, or Matrix, continues to compile billions of records on law-abiding citizens and receive federal funding, despite public outcry and suspicion.

A Florida-based company, Seisint, Inc., created the database shortly after the terror attacks of September 11, 2001 by combining the company’s own commercial databases with law enforcement records.

Now law enforcement officials in participating states can comb the database to investigate ordinary crimes and terrorist threats. Matrix contains an unprecedented amount of information: current and past addresses and phone numbers, arrest records, real estate information, photographs of neighbors and business associates, car make, model and color, marriage and divorce records, voter registration records, hunting and fishing licenses, and more.

For example, a user could identify all brown-haired divorced male residents of Minneapolis who drive a red Toyota Camry and are registered to vote. The data can then be displayed in "social networking charts," showing connections between individuals, photo line-ups and "target maps," according to internal Seisint documents obtained by The New Standard after a Freedom of Information Act request by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). One of the documents boasts, "When enough insignificant data is gathered and analyzed…IT BECOMES SIGNIFICANT." (original emphasis)

Seisint sells database access to individual states. Sixteen states went through a pilot program, but after negative media coverage and concern from citizens, politicians, and even law enforcement officials, all but Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Connecticut and Ohio have decided to stop using Matrix.

The states that remain show no signs of bowing to public pressure. In Florida, law enforcement and government officials have become progressively more involved in the inner workings of Matrix. The supercomputers that hold the data are housed in Seisint’s Boca Raton offices, guarded by Florida state police. The Florida Department of Law Enforcement acts as "Security Agent" for the system, even outside the state.

The federal government also plays an active role. In January 2003, Florida Governor Jeb Bush met with Vice President Dick Cheney to demonstrate how the program could be used by law enforcement, and to request additional funding. The Department of Justice gave Seisint $4 million in grants in 2003. The Department of Homeland Security also provided $8 million to help run Matrix, and, last year, assumed "managerial oversight and control" of the database, according to the agreement between the DHS and Seisint.

Civil liberties advocates claim that the Matrix is amassing records on ordinary people that, in a worse case scenario, could be used to track "suspicious" individuals, and to round up those likely of committing a crime -- before any crime has occurred. Matrix officials dismiss these claims, arguing that the database is just a faster way to locate criminals and terrorists.

Bill Shrewsbury, vice president of Seisint, puts it simply. By using Matrix, he said, "You stop bad people quicker before they hurt someone else. It’s that simple. There’s no secrets here."

But the project remains under suspicion from civil liberties and privacy advocates who have expressed a number of serious concerns, including whether the database is used to conduct "data mining," a process by which data is searched to identify potential criminals or terrorists before any crime is committed. Also of concern is the company’s secrecy about precisely what kind of data Matrix includes and how vulnerable the data is to being stolen, altered or misused by hackers.

Seisint officials have repeatedly denied that the Matrix is used for data mining. Instead, they say, the Matrix is used to locate potential suspects immediately after a crime has occurred. For example, in a child kidnapping case, Matrix could quickly identify all men with sex offender status living in a certain area who drive a car of a particular make and model.

"Its not like I leave at night, and I’ve asked the system, ‘Hey, find me a terrorist,’ and I come in the next morning and it has ten potential terrorists," said Mark Zadra, Chief of investigations and Officer of Statewide Intelligence for the Florida Department of Law Enforcement.

However, according to the documents uncovered by the ACLU, Seisint has also used data for exactly that purpose. Three days after 9/11, Seisint created a "terrorism quotient" to identify potential terrorists in the general population. Matrix was still in the development stage, but company officials used "Seisint artificial intelligence," billions of public records, and public Federal Aviation Administration information -- information Matrix now contains -- to conduct the search.

A January 2003 slide presentation by Seisint lists some of the criteria for identifying potential terrorists: age and gender, "what they did with their driver’s license," either pilots or associations to pilots, proximity to "dirty addresses/phone numbers, investigational data, how they shipped, how they received, social security number anomalies, credit history, and ethnicity."

According to Seisint’s presentation, an initial search revealed 120,000 individuals with a "High Terrorist Factor" score; Seisint gave the list of names to the INS, FBI, the Secret Service, and the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. Slides from the presentation state that it led to "several arrests within one week," and "scores of other arrests." Who was arrested, and whether they were convicted of or even charged with any actual crime remains unknown.

In addition, the company claims to have identified five of the 9/11 hijackers, after the fact.

Christopher Calabrese, program counsel for the ACLU’s Technology and Liberty program, questions the usefulness of the search. "They conducted a search based on information about what already happened," he said. "If it weren’t so deadly serious, it would be silly."

He added, "Somebody speculates on a potential event, and adds another level of speculation," he said. "What types of activities would be necessary to execute this type of event? Those people are then de-facto suspects of a crime that has never happened, and that only exists in someone’s imagination."

Zadra dismissed these concerns. "We’re not profiling anybody," he said. "Law enforcement has been going through this process for decades."

Shrewsbury tried to distance the terrorist search from Matrix. "We don’t use that component at all," he said. "It’s not on Matrix at all." However, the basic information that was used to conduct the search is still available on Matrix, and there is no way for the public to know if such searches are being conducted.

The types of data included in Matrix have also worried civil liberties and privacy activists. Finding out what exactly is in the database has been almost impossible. While the company states on its website that Seisint does not own magazine subscription lists, telephone calling records, credit card transactions or credit report trade line data, the company has refused to open its operations for verification after requests by Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) and the ACLU.

Company officials insist that the data is all publicly available, and that Matrix is just compiling previously available data in a central source. "Since it’s public data, my name is in there. Your name is in there," Zadra said. "It’s just information we already have access to."

However, the company’s own documents state that, "The associative links, historical residential information, and other information, such as an individual's possible relatives and associates, are deeper and more comprehensive than other commercially available database systems presently on the market."

Calabrese of the ACLU said using the term "public records" is a misnomer. "It’s not at all clear what that means," he said, adding that Seisint seems to consider commercially available data to be "public information," though most of the public does not have access to this data.

In addition, although Matrix currently operates in only five states, it has driver’s license information from 15 states, motor vehicle registration from 12 states, Department of Corrections information from 33 states and sexual offender information from 27 states, according to Seisint documents.

In some cases, states have sold the data to Seisint. For instance, according to the ACLU, Ohio sold its driving records to Seisint for $50,073 two years ago. In other cases, Seisint has presumably purchased this information from commercial databases, where driver’s license data is readily available.

Zadra said Matrix continues to use that information in its searches, even if it is not obtained directly from a particular state government. "We’ve had a lot of states that said, ‘I won’t participate in Matrix,’" Zadra told The NewStandard. "I say, ‘You are a Matrix participant because you sell your motor vehicle and criminal information anyway.’"

The security of these billions of records has been among the most persistent concerns of privacy advocates. If a hacker gained access to the database, the information gained could be used for dozens of potential purposes, ranging from simply locating an individual to selling Matrix data to businesses for marketing purposes.

Although Seisint officials argue that its data is safe, and note that the supercomputers are housed in a secure room outfitted with motion detectors, cameras, an alarm system, and an armed guard, many privacy advocates also remain concerned that the data could still be vulnerable.

They argue that the extensive office security overlooks the main issue. The data, they say, is most vulnerable in the police stations around the state where it is used on a daily basis. In Florida, 1,000 law enforcement officials have access to the Matrix, and privacy activists are concerned that the data there could be hacked or physically stolen. Zadra dismissed these concerns, insisting that one would need a login ID and password to access the system, and that all system activity is logged.

"Step back and think about the scope of this," Calabrese said. "One thousand [access] licenses, spread out around the state, using the Matrix for God knows what."

Lee Tien, senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit privacy advocacy organization, argues that the majority of security problems come from "people on the inside, not people on the outside," and that Seisint does little to prevent this. "I think the presumption has to be that it’s not secure," he said. "Systems that have a lot of people who can have access to the data are inherently not secure, just based on the numbers."

The ACLU is attempting to pressure the five remaining states to end their contracts with Seisint; but even if this happened, the information it compiled would still exist. "Even if you knocked it out completely, it would be pretty easy to reconstruct," Calabrese said. "You can’t put the genie back in the box."

In the meantime, Zadra attempted to reassure worried citizens. "I could misuse any one of hundreds of [other] databases," he said. "Granted, [Matrix] would make it easier and faster because I could get it all out of one space." He paused, then added, "We’re using it for investigative purposes only."

Fairness 2007 Legislative Summary (04/23/2007)

View the article here

Fairness for Prisoners’ Families

2007 Georgia General Assembly

Legislative Summary - April 23, 2007

The 2007 Georgia General Assembly came to a close on Friday night. The Governor is expected to announce details this week of a Special Session to address the budget for the last two months of 2007.

Fairness for Prisoners’ Families and the Southern Center for Human Rights owe a debt of gratitude to our friends and colleagues at the Georgia Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia, Georgians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty, and the Georgia Innocence Project. To quote Mother Jones, “We do not want to find fault with each other, but to solidify our forces and say to each other: ‘We must be together; our masters are joined together and we must do the same thing.’"

Thanks to all the members of Fairness and the readers of this bulletin who took action this session. Thank you for your solidarity!

Two victories this year addressed wrongful convictions. House Resolution 352 creates the House Study Committee on Eyewitness Identification Procedures. HR 352 was introduced by Rep. Stephanie Stuckey Benfield (D-Dekalb) to allow for a process for the legislature to thoroughly explore Georgia's procedures for eyewitness identification. This comes in the wake of Willie O. "Pete" Williams' exoneration in January after more than 21 years in prison on a wrongful rape conviction has raised the issue of eyewitness error for the second year. All six of the men whose convictions have been thrown out by DNA evidence in Georgia were prosecuted based on eyewitness testimony. Additionally, House Resolution 102 gives $1.2 million compensation after being wrongfully incarcerated for 25 years to Robert Clark, exonerated by DNA evidence in 2005.

Sometimes the victories of a legislative session can be better measured by looking at the bad laws that did not pass. Below are some of these bad bills that we were able to stop this year:

HB 185 would have allowed death penalty verdicts to be handed down with only 9 of the 12 jury members in agreement. There was tremendous opposition to this legislation and compelling testimony presented in committee from attorneys (including former prosecutors) , faith-based organizations, and Georgia citizens. This bill was ultimately struck down unanimously by the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee in the last week of the session.

SB 129 would have allowed for the Georgia Department of Corrections (GDC) to charge people in prison co-payments for medication. However, we know that no one in Georgia prisons can earn money; so ultimately, SB 129 was ultimately an additional tax on the families who have a loved one in prison. Members of Fairness testified against this measure in a Senate committee and rather than passing the bill, the committee placed the bill in a subcommittee (that we’re happy to say never met) to be studied further.

HB 527 would have allowed for private probation companies to supervise people convicted on nonviolent felonies and charge them a minimum $50 monthly supervision fee. Currently, private probation companies supervise misdemeanors, charge “supervision” fees of around $30 per month that most people cannot afford, offer no actual supervision, and charge extra if the person is required to attend drug treatment or other counseling. We joined Judges, Sheriffs, and the GDC in opposition to this measure and succeeded in stopping the bill from expanding private probation.

SB 1 would have made it illegal for people on the sex offender registry to take photographs of minors. It allowed for no exceptions for parents on the registry taking pictures of their own children nor did it excuse unintentional photographing of children in public places. As this legislation made its way through the legislature, our allies succeeded in amending the language to allow for pictures to be taken if the child’s parent consents. Ultimately, the House did not take action on this bill.

Here is the list of bills that were still pending as the session came to an end along with their current status:

Corrections Bills

• HB 313: Moves the Prison Industry Enhancement (PIE) Program under the jurisdiction of the Georgia Correctional Industries Administration. Passed both Houses and now awaits Governor's signature.
• SB 34: Prohibits a person in prison for a sex offense from possessing a photograph of the victim of the offense for which he or she is serving time. Passed both Houses and now awaits Governor's signature.
  

Sex Offense Bills

• HB 314: Requires that people convicted of certain sex offenses who receive a sentence of probation to provide DNA samples. Language from SB 1 and SB 249 was removed on the Senate floor. Passed both Houses and now awaits Governor's signature.
• SB 1: Prohibits people on the sex offender registry to take pictures of children. It does allow parents to consent to someone on the registry (including themselves) taking photos of their children. It also guards against the taking of pictures of children who might accidentally wander into a scene. Did not pass in 2007 General Assembly but can still be considered in 2008 session.
• SB 54: Re-writes the incest statute to be gender neutral. Passed as included in HB 314.
• SB 249: Sheriff’s Association Legislation that clarifies and changes some registration requirements. Also includes a provision to allow for elderly and disabled people to petition the court to be exempt from residency restrictions. Did not pass in 2007 General Assembly but can still be considered in 2008 session.
  

Criminal Procedure, Sentencing, and Death Penalty Bills

• HB 185: Allows a judge to impose a death sentence on a defendant even if two jurors vote against it. Did not pass in 2007 General Assembly but can still be considered in 2008 session.
• HB 197: Abolishes Georgia’s Sentence Review Panel. Passed both Houses and now awaits Governor's signature. Now includes language from SB 97.
• HR 352: Creates the House Study Committee on Eyewitness Identification Procedures. Adopted by the House
• SB 97: Requires lawyers to state with specificity their objections to the jury charges prior to deliberations, or waive them. Passed as part of HB 197.
• SB 145: Allows for prosecutors to seek life without parole sentences for murder without having to seek the death penalty. Did not pass in 2007 General Assembly but can still be considered in 2008 session.
  

Indigent Defense

• HB 586: Limits the amount of money that the state must pay for capital defense; the county must pay the balance. Passed both Houses and now awaits Governor's signature.
• SB 139: Transfers the Georgia Public Defender Standards Council from the judicial branch to the executive branch. Passed both Houses and now awaits Governor's signature.
  

If you have any questions or concerns, please don’t hesitate to contact me.

With hope and solidarity,

Sara

Sara J. Totonchi
Public Policy Director
Southern Center for Human Rights
83 Poplar Street, N.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
404/688-1202 voice
404/688-9440 fax
stotonchi@schr.org

Judge calls new sex offender law "a political placebo"

View the article here

Finally someone with the balls to call this what it is, useless.

04/21/2007

COVINGTON - A northern Kentucky judge has ruled that Kentucky's new sex offender law should not apply to criminals convicted before the new restrictions took effect.

Eleven Kenton County residents challenged the law that prevents them from living within 1,000 feet of a playground, school or day care.

Kenton District Judge Martin Sheehan was critical of state lawmakers in a ruling on Friday that said the law does not apply to people convicted of their crimes before enforcement began last year.

"If the offender is still permitted to visit and linger in such areas for protracted periods, so long as he does not sleep there, what actual protection have we provided our children?" Sheehan wrote. "In truth, residency restrictions appear to be little more than a political placebo, offering false comfort to pacify the publics fear of sex offenders."

Attorney Don Nageleisen called the order "the most courageous judicial decision in the last 10 years." Nageleisen, who represented one of the 11 men, challenged the misdemeanor charges on constitutional grounds.
- Amen! I second that vote. He is a true judge who knows BS when he sees it!

Registered sex offenders frustrated in finding an eligible place to live are fighting the law in court.

A Fleming County jury recently found a registered sex offender guilty but ordered no jail time or fine, said Tom Griffiths, regional manager for Kentucky Department of Public Advocacy. In another incident, a charge was dropped against a Mason County sex offender when he agreed to move.

"This is a ruling in the right direction," said Beth Wilson, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky. "We have long argued that the new law ... does nothing to enhance community safety. It effectively banishes people from their communities."

Sheehan ruled that legislators passed a punitive law after the fact - a violation of the state and federal constitutions. Prosecutors had argued that the restrictions were not further punishment, but a civil plan designed to protect children.
- This is BS! This is punishment no question about it, and these idiotic politicians need to be FIRED for not upholding the constitution like they SWORE to uphold!