OK - Kidnapped by DHS

The following was sent to us via the "Tell Us Your Story" form and posted with the users permission.

By Jeff Wendel:
The Oklahoma Department of Human Services has taken my 2 step-children from my wife and I because of a 1999 Conviction of a sex offense with a minor child. I believe this is a civil liberties issue. They are telling my wife that she is depriving the children of safety because of my past. They have removed them from the home and placed them into emergency custody. There are no charges against me nor allegations of abuse. They are filing for the two children to be placed in care of Child Protective Services and wanting my wife to either divorce me or be without her children.

The OKLAHOMA LAW STATES:

10. Effective November 1, 2012, it shall be unlawful for any person who is required to register pursuant to the Sex Offenders Registration Act for any offense in which a minor child was the victim to reside with a minor child or establish any other living accommodation where a minor child resides. Provided, however, the person may reside with a minor child if the person is the parent, stepparent or grandparent of the minor child and the minor child was not the victim of the offense for which the person is required to register.

OK - Probation questions

The following was sent to us via the "Tell Us Your Story" form and posted with the users permission.

By Michelle:
I have recently learned that I have fallen love with a sex offender. We live in Oklahoma. He never served time he was given 10 yrs suspended sentence and is currently on probation. He has 2 1/2 yrs left before he has completed his probation. I am looking for some one to help me understand what happens when his probation is up. Will some of his restrictions be lifted? What is still expected of him? I've tried looking for site to help me understand what I may be facing in the future but am not having any luck. I do have a child under the age of 18. Do we have any kind of a chance for a future together? Can anyone help me or give me some website that I can visit? Thank you for your time.

OK - Sex registry law needs overhaul

David Slane

Original Article

06/04/2014

By David Slane (Law Firm)

In 2007, the Oklahoma State Legislature approved a new law that required all sex offenders be classified under a three-tier system that placed offenders in a specific category depending on the nature of the sex crime.

However, the Oklahoma Department of Corrections (DOC) went a step further and made the new registration law retroactive to 1998. However, in June 2013, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled the retroactive application of the rule was unconstitutional.

The court’s landmark ruling allowed more than 2,000 sex offenders to remove their names from the statewide registry because their registration requirements had either expired or would be prolonged by the 2007 law.

The law has left everyone scratching their heads about what’s next. The current registration system makes no sense and leaves plenty of room for debate about fairness and public safety.

It makes sense for the state Legislature to return to the drawing board and start over on this law.

Some people are on the registry because they urinated in a public street, and they’re not sex offenders. State officials need to stop wasting time and precious resources on those registrants. For the record, indecent exposure convictions and other low-level offenses require 15 years of registration.

Instead, devote the majority of resources to the high-risk offenders who need the most intensive supervision and strictest registration requirements the state can offer. The high-risk offenders should be required to check in daily, which would give the public a higher level of security.

Level 2 offenders, those who pose a moderate danger to the community, must register for 25 years. Meanwhile, Level 3 offenders, those who pose a serious danger to the community and are likely to engage in criminal sexual conduct, must register for their lifetime.

Part of the problem is that DOC officials, when implementing the system, tossed most of Oklahoma’s sex offenders into the Level 3 category. They didn’t want to take the heat to make an honest assessment of each case.

Changing the system will take a groundswell of public support. Still, reform of any kind might cause consternation for most state lawmakers who have never seen a sex offender law they didn’t like. It’s popular to be tough on crime, which includes drunks who urinate next to their car.

It’s time for Oklahoma legislators to stop thinking about re-election and polls and study what works and doesn’t work with the sex offender registration system.

One solution is to remove the registration assessment out of the hands of DOC only and rework the procedure to include trial judges, district attorneys and defense attorneys. That would provide a higher level of fairness while ensuring public safety. A broken system gives parents and the community a false sense of security while really protecting no one.

When most people think of a sex offender, they think of a baby raper or serial rapist. But the truth is most sex offenders are convicted of nothing even similar. We need to stop painting every sex offender with the same broad brush and look at individuals for what they did and act accordingly.

While high-risk sex offenders need to be closely supervised, it’s critical for others who have completed their sentence to be given a second chance at life.

OK - Thousands come off sex offender list months after new law

Original Article

05/13/2014

By La'Tasha Givens

A new law took thousands off the sex offender registry.

Exposing yourself near a playground, urinating in public or peeping in a bathroom stall are just some of the actions that have landed thousands of people on the sex offender registry.

Now many of those names are disappearing from the list.

“If you were to slap a woman on the behind, that would be sexual battery and you would have to register for 15 years and that has nothing to do with children on the playground,” said attorney David Slane. “People who urinated in public or fall under what we call the Romeo and Juliet situation, where the young man may have been just a little bit older than the girl or vice versa. They’re the ones typically being removed.”

Slane said he’s taken on over 400 sex offender cases, more than anyone else in the state.

In many situations the offenders were on the list way past their punishment because the laws kept changing.

“They’ve had a number of changes or revisions of sex offender registration act over the last ten or 15 years and the court said those later laws could not apply retroactively,” said Jerry Massey spokesperson for the Department of Corrections (DOC).

Out of the 2,400 now off the list, Slane said most are level one or level two offenders which does not include those who committed violent and heinous sex crimes.

He also said under the new law a judge is able to decide a punishment on a case by case basis and not paint all offenders with a wide brush.

Slane said, “The more serious cases are the one we should spend our resources on, not someone who urinated in public.”

DOC officials say they still have another 2,700 cases to review to see if there are more offenders who are eligible to come off the list based on the new law.

OK - Muskogee police officer (Mark Vernon Ridley) arrested on assault, kidnapping complaints

Mark Vernon Ridley

Original Article

01/30/2014

By DYLAN GOFORTH

MUSKOGEE - A Muskogee police Officer was arrested on accusations of assaulting, kidnapping and sexually assaulting a woman at his home in Oktaha.

Mark Vernon Ridley was arrested late Wednesday, Muskogee County Chief Deputy Brandon Caster said.

Ridley, 39, was a 17-year veteran of the Muskogee Police Department, and had recently moved to Patrol Division after spending time in investigations, Cpl. Mike Mahan said.

Ridley is jailed on complaints of assault with a deadly weapon, possession of a firearm during commission of a felony, kidnapping and sexual assault, Caster said.

Ridley had been placed on administrative leave in December, Mahan said, after allegedly assaulting the same woman then. A protective order was placed against him Dec. 18, then dismissed Jan. 14, according to court records. Another protective order was filed against Ridley on Wednesday, records show.

Authorities have not said whether that filing prompted the alleged assaults.

Mahan said Ridley remains on administrative leave.

The protective order filed against Ridley in December alleged that he sexually assaulted the same woman. Mahan said MPD requested the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation handle that case, and they submitted their findings to the Muskogee County District Attorney’s Office, who in turn called in a special prosecutor from Delaware County, to ensure an impartial investigation.

Caster said Wednesday’s incident allegedly began near Muskogee, and ended in Oktaha.

OK - Did a murderer and a sex offender just save Oklahoma $20 million?

Joseph Harp Correctional Center

Original Article

10/29/2013

By REID WILSON

Bobby Cleveland, an Oklahoma state representative, had some questions about the amount of money being spent at Joseph Harp Correctional Center. As chairman of the state House’s Public Safety Committee, state prisons fall under his jurisdiction. But on a tour of the prison facility, he and two fellow representatives found something they didn’t expect: a software program written by two inmates that could save the prison, and maybe the state, a lot of money.

The program tracks inmates as they proceed through food lines, to make sure they don’t go through the lines twice, Cleveland said in an interview. It can help the prison track how popular a particular meal is, so purchasers know how much food to buy in the future. And it can track tools an inmate checks out to perform their jobs.

“It’s a pretty neat program. It’s all done by the direction of the supervisor, one of these guys who’s kind of, what do you call it, thinking outside the box,” Cleveland said.

Cleveland said the program, if implemented statewide, could save Oklahoma up to $20 million a year.

It can also track incoming shipments of food and supplies — and catch discrepancies, like the one that raised red flags with Cleveland and his colleagues, state Reps. Scott Martin (R) and Jason Murphey (R). The software showed that Sysco, which supplies food to the state prison system, was charging the state different prices for the same food item sent to two different facilities, according to the Daily Oklahoman, which first reported the program Monday.

The program came to lawmakers’ attention when Cleveland took a tour of the facility without the prison warden around. He brought his colleagues to a subsequent visit to hear about the program.

“It does kind of expose the waste at all the other facilities. It was just one of those genuine, lightning-strikes things,” Murphey said.

“When you deal with the way state government spends money, billions of dollars go through” the system, Murphey said. “You’re always dependent upon those at the ground level to report what’s going on. Here in this facility, you had those employees at the ground level taking their jobs very seriously.”

The supervisor, William Weldon, worked with two technologically-savvy inmates to develop the program. Prisoners each have a bar code they can scan, which then shows prison officials who has eaten a meal, or checked out a spatula before a shift in the kitchen, or borrowed a pair of gloves to scrub dishes after a meal. Jerry Massie, a spokesman for the Oklahoma Department of Corrections, said prison officials at Joseph Harp have used the software for about two years.

The software could even help save the state from lawsuits. Cleveland said several prisoners have sued over being denied special meals, whether for medical or religious reasons. When an inmate’s bar code is scanned, prison officials would be alerted that they should receive a diabetic meal, or a Halal or Kosher meal.

Massie said it was premature to think the program can make the leap from one prison to the rest of the state penitentiary system. But, he added, the program is working for Joseph Harp.

One caution flag, Murphey said, is that any software created by inmates to track something as valuable as food would need constant monitoring.

“If they build on what they’ve done here, they actually have to script it out. If you have inmates writing code, there has to be a continual auditing process,” he said. “Food in prison is a commodity. It’s currency.”

The Department of Corrections wouldn’t identify the inmates who created the program, beyond saying that one of them is a sex offender and one is serving a sentence for murder. They may not be the most savory characters, but the program appears to be working.

“They built a system that could save the state millions of dollars,” Cleveland said. “I want to get the state using this thing.”

OK - Local man's case illustrates complexity of sex offender registry after Supreme Court ruling

Original Article

10/30/2013

By Malinda Rust

While officials with the Oklahoma Department of Corrections review whether over 7,000 criminals will remain on the state's sex offender registry following a July Supreme Court decision, one Comanche County man is protesting a conviction he received locally for violating the Oklahoma Sex Offender Act.

_____, 49, received a letter Oct. 7 stating he had been removed from the sex offender registry in Oklahoma after the DOC reviewed his case and determined he had been kept on the list longer than statute allows a process started after the June 25 decision in Starkey v. Oklahoma Department of Corrections. By Friday, _____ had filed three motions requesting a court-appointed attorney, free copies of court records, and permission to withdraw his guilty plea out-of-time.

Law enforcement officers and legal professionals have been anticipating the effects of the ruling in Starkey's appeal. Starkey moved to Oklahoma after pleading no contest to one count of sexual assault of a 15-year-old in Texas.

The sentence required him to register for 10 years following his release from prison, but in the years following his conviction, the laws related to sex offender registration changed several times. Starkey argued he was illegally kept on the sex offender registry for longer than 10 years like _____ when DOC applied new statutes to his case retroactively rather than subjecting him to the laws in effect at the time of conviction.

The court sided with Starkey and ruled that Starkey's registration period should have ended in 2008. Now, the DOC web site states that officials are reviewing each of the over 7,000 sex offenders in Oklahoma to remove those no longer subject to the Oklahoma SORA.

Oklahoma Department of Corrections Public Information Officer Jerry Massie said that as of Friday, a little over 1,300 registrants had been reviewed resulting in 679 offenders being removed.

"It's a slow process, and there's over 7,000 to perform," Massie said. "We have to look at each case and determine what laws were in effect at the time the offender was sentenced, when certain revisions to the law happened and how they might be impacted by the Starkey case."

Massie said one of the areas of most concern is how the review might play into cases in which a registrant has been charged or convicted for failure to properly register when he or she was not required to, like _____.

"I was illegally charged with a felony for not complying with Oklahoma Sex Offender Registration Act where none applied pursuant to new Oklahoma Supreme Court decision of Starkey v. Oklahoma Department of Corrections," he wrote. "Detective Nancy Lombardo of Comanche County acting with and for the Oklahoma Department of Corrections retroactively applied the 2007 amended scheme of OSORA to Mr. _____."

OK - Oklahoma Sex Offender Law Successful Challenge Sets Stage for Other Jurisdictions

Original Article

10/24/2013

By Adam R. Banner

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the face of findings pointing to a civil intent, the court noted the considerable evidence of a punitive effect. In applying the "intents-effects" test , derived from Kennedy and applied in Smith, the court found five of the seven factors favored a punitive effect. This ultimately overrode any regulatory intent and made the retroactive application of the amendments inconsistent with the state's ex post facto clause. The court came to this conclusion in the face of the US Supreme Court's Smith decision by expressing Oklahoma's ability to apply the "intent-effects" test differently than a federal court applying the same test under the federal Constitution, so long as Oklahoma's interpretation is at least as protective as the federal interpretation.

Furthermore, Starkey addressed another question regarding the application of the OSORA: what is the correct date at which time the OSORA becomes applicable to an out-of-state offender who moves to Oklahoma? Starkey himself was originally convicted of a sex crime in Texas and subsequently moved to Oklahoma. Starkey holds that OSORA requirements are determined by the date an individual voluntarily comes to Oklahoma with the intent to "be in the state" after his or her conviction in another jurisdiction.

The court did not find that the OSORA is unconstitutional on its face. Regardless, other issues regarding out-of-state offenders who move to Oklahoma were not covered by the Starkey decision. Two other cases decided mere months after Starkey addressed other constitutional issues in relation to OSORA and its application to out-of-state offenders.

In Hendricks v. Jones, the plaintiff challenged the constitutionality and application of OSORA in regards to offenses that occurred before the act's effective date (November 1, 1989) and its subsequent amendments. The Hendricks court found that a 2005 amendment to OSORA, which required registration if the individual was currently serving a sentence or any form of probation or parole for an offense which occurred in Oklahoma, applies to persons so described regardless of whether their offense occurred before or after November 1, 1989.

Hendricks, however, was convicted of a sex offense in California in 1982. He challenged the OSORA's different registration starting dates for individuals with offenses which occurred in Oklahoma opposed to those subject to OSORA due to an offense which occurred outside of Oklahoma. Under the 2005 amendment to OSORA, out-of-state offenders were subjected to the Oklahoma sex offender registry if they resided, worked, or attended school in Oklahoma and were convicted or received a suspended sentence in any court or any jurisdiction at any time. However, individuals subjected to the registry because of an offense which occurred in Oklahoma were only required to register if their offense occurred after November 1, 1989, or if they were serving a sentence or any form of probation or parole for a registerable offense on November 1, 2005.

Individuals subjected to the OSORA due to equivalent offenses, who received the same exact sentence beginning at the exact same time, where effectively given different protection from the law based on the location of their offense. The Oklahoma Supreme Court held there was no rational basis for treating individuals differently simply based on the location of their offense. The court looked to case law from the Third Circuit and the New Mexico Court of Appeals which also held that differing treatment for resident and non-resident sex offenders was not rationally related to furthering the interest in protecting citizens from sex offenders.

Of course, that holding only applies to Hendricks, and any other similarly situated sex offender, if Hendricks was not still serving a sentence or any form of probation or parole on November 1, 2005, for his 1982 crime. In that case, Hendricks would still be required to register just as any individual in Oklahoma who fit that description would, and no equal protection issue would exist.

Consequently, even though Hendricks was convicted prior to the November 1, 1989, start date, he could still be required to register in Oklahoma if he moved to the state after November 1, 2005, under certain circumstances. But what about individuals who received sentences or probation for offenses prior to the effective November 1, 1989 date, who moved to Oklahoma before the November 1, 2005, amendment requiring registration for those serving a sentence or any probation or parole for a sex offense?

That question was answered in Bolin v. Jones. Bolin was convicted of a sex offense in Missouri on June 1, 1987, and received a sentence of five years incarceration. He moved to Oklahoma in June of 2004. At that time, the OSORA only required registration for individuals who, after November 1, 1989, received a suspended sentence or any probationary term for an offense which would require registration in Oklahoma and who resided, worked, or attended school in Oklahoma. Bolin was not informed of his requirement to register in Oklahoma until January 4, 2010, some five and one-half years after he moved to Oklahoma.

In addressing Bolin's argument against registration, the Oklahoma Supreme Court reconciled multiple subsections of OSORA dealing with the registration requirements of individuals convicted of sex offenses outside of Oklahoma. The court, in reading the applicable statutes together, held that an individual convicted, etc., of an applicable offense on or after November 1, 1989, only has to register in Oklahoma if he or she is residing, working, or attending school in Oklahoma on or after November 1, 1989.

Moreover, the court analyzed the applicability of two amendments passed after Bolin moved to Oklahoma in 2004. On November 1, 2005, an amendment was passed to require registration for individuals who had been convicted or received a suspended sentence at any time in any jurisdiction outside of Oklahoma, which would require registration, who subsequently moved to Oklahoma after November 1, 1989. A similar amendment was made on July 1, 2006, which also changed the registration requirements for out of state offenders to focus on the date of entry into Oklahoma as opposed to the date of the conviction, etc.

Instead of addressing the application of these amendments and their probable unconstitutional result, the court once again relied on the reasoning of the Starkey decision: the provisions of the OSORA, when taken as a whole, are punitive and cannot be applied retroactively. Since the amendments were not applicable to Bolin, the Court did not need to address their constitutional implications. Regardless, the Bolin decision can be read in conjunction with the Hendricks decision to infer that application of those amendments to out-of-state offenders would be a violation of the equal protection clause as well.

Although the Oklahoma Supreme Court was careful not to tread on any issues related to the federal SORNA, these recent Oklahoma decisions will hopefully have far-reaching implications for many other states as well. The Oklahoma Supreme Court had no qualms about referencing other jurisdictions' decisions when it ultimately declared Oklahoma's sex offender laws as being applied unconstitutionally. It is fair to infer that other states will likely (and should) look to the recent Oklahoma decisions when analyzing challenges brought against their respective sex offender registration schemes as well.

If enough jurisdictions realize that the state registries (often based on federal sex offender laws) are being applied unconstitutionally, we could possibly see the US Supreme Court reexamine its position in Smith.

OK - CLEET certification continues for some sex-offending officers

Original Article

10/13/2013

By SHAUN HITTLE

In July 2010, a former Kingfisher County Sheriff's Office deputy pleaded no contest to a charge of committing lewd acts with a child when he still was an officer two years earlier.

Shawn Theo Thomsen, then 43, was given a five-year suspended sentence, court records show. Now living in Texas, he's required to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life.

Despite the crime, Thomsen is still certified as a peace officer by the Council on Law Enforcement and Education, a state agency that certifies Oklahoma law officers. State law requires that the council take away certification for an officer who pleads guilty or no contest to a felony charge, removing him or her from law enforcement.

Thomsen's case highlights how a lack of communication between prosecutors and the agency that certifies officers has allowed dozens of Oklahoma officers who pleaded guilty to, or were convicted of, a felony to keep their certifications for years — more than a decade in some cases, an Oklahoma Watch investigation found.

Using court and council records and news reports, Oklahoma Watch identified a dozen cases from 2003 to 2011 where law officers were convicted of, or pleaded guilty to, felonies but still have the council's certification as peace officers.

More recently, from 2010 to 2012, 66 officers had their certifications revoked or suspended, were given a letter of reprimand, or they surrendered their certification, according to copies of final disciplinary orders provided by the council.

In 22 cases where officers lost or gave up their certifications because of convictions, guilty pleas or other misconduct, it took longer than two years after the resolution of the case for CLEET's action to be completed, the disciplinary orders show. In 18 of those cases, it took longer than four years.

Under state law, district attorneys who handle felony cases involving officers are supposed to notify CLEET, which opens an investigation. That doesn't happen all the time, said Steve Emmons, the council's director.

"There isn't a good communication system in the state," Emmons said.

If the council isn't aware of such cases, it's difficult and time-consuming for his agency to track them down, he said.

Failure to notify

Oklahoma law states that CLEET "shall revoke the certification of any person upon determining that such person has been convicted of a felony or a crime involving moral turpitude or a domestic violence offense."

The law also states that a plea of guilty or no contest for a felony offense, including a plea with a deferred sentence, subjects an officer to disciplinary action.

Oklahoma Watch provided Emmons with a list of a dozen cases in which officers were convicted of felonies from 2009 to 2011 but still have certifications. Emmons said his agency was unaware of at least several of them.

"We will take action against these," Emmons said.

Emmons, who has been CLEET director since 2011, attributed cases such as Thomsen's to a communication lapse between agencies.

The council has no way of knowing about the convictions or guilty pleas if district attorneys' offices don't let the agency know, he said. Council staff members do look for news reports on officers' misconduct, Emmons said.

Michael Fields, the district attorney who oversaw the Thomsen case, said his agency failed to notify the council of the conviction. "It was an oversight," said Fields, adding that his office would forward the conviction information to CLEET.

After being contacted by Oklahoma Watch, Trent Baggett, assistant executive coordinator for the District Attorneys Council, said the agency will contact district attorneys in the state and remind them about their obligation to notify CLEET.

"It's not necessarily something we train on each year," Baggett said. If notification "is not taking place, it should."

Time lapse

In other cases where officers were convicted of, or pleaded guilty to, a felony, it took the council years to revoke an officer's certification.

For instance, former Dewar police officer Haskell Wadsworth, 69, was convicted in May 2000 of rape and molestation in Okmulgee County, served 10 years in prison and was released, court records show. It wasn't until a year later, in 2012, that the council revoked his certification.

Citing the state's Open Records Act, the council would not disclose specifics about how an officer's conviction or guilty plea came to its attention. It also would not provide the date or year of certification for any officer or release its list of all certified law enforcement officers in Oklahoma.

It's unclear if any delay in removing a certification has allowed an officer with a felony conviction or guilty plea to get a new job as a peace officer. Law enforcement agencies run background checks on applicants, and those checks would likely turn up a felony conviction or guilty plea unless the case was expunged.

Emmons said that since 2011, the council has begun looking into older cases of police misconduct, trying to identify some that had been overlooked.

"That doesn't mean the problems are fixed," he said.

The time lapses raise the question of how many more cases of officers with felony convictions have gone unreported to the council.

Emmons said the agency will take a look at cases identified by Oklahoma Watch, but it would be difficult to identify all cases without additional funding and resources.

"We may still not know about" other cases, Emmons said.

OK - Romeo and Juliet Sex Offender Program

David Slain Web Site

OK - Sex Offender Law Debate

Original Article

See the video at the link above.

09/28/2012

OKLAHOMA CITY - The High Noon Club debates a state law prohibiting sex offenders from living together.

Senate Bill 852 forced many sex offenders living at the compound known as Hand Up Ministries out of their homes.

In the past, CEO David Nichols says two or three offenders would share a trailer on the property, but the language in the bill now prohibits sex offenders from living in a single housing unit together.

Rep. Paul Wesselhoft worries state lawmakers may have passed SB 852 without hearing enough information about what it would mean for public safety.

Nichols says since the bill passed, sex offenders have left the compound to live in tents in the woods around Oklahoma City. Nichols says the bill which was meant to improve accountability of sex offenders has failed.

Coming up on the Primetime News at Nine, why Oklahoma City Councilman Ed Shadid says the police department pushed for the bill.

OK - Oklahoma, ahead of the times in re-integrating sex offenders into society

Original Article

09/24/2012

By Ben Allen

Sex offender, the mere mention of the word can turn even the most pleasant conversation into one filled with anger. Questions like ‘How could they?’ and ‘Why would they?’ inevitably come up. And those who commit the crimes often face years in prison. But if and when they get out, what greets them on the outside?

Before we get there, we should start here.

Sex offender: it includes everything from felony rape to inappropriate touching. But all the crimes get grouped together. If you’re a registered child sex offender, a 2008 law barred you from living within 2,000 feet of a school, park, or day care…

“Any metro area of Oklahoma, they’re not going to be allowed to live in. So you have to think rural when you begin to reintegrate them, almost from the beginning. When I say rural, I’m saying at a minimum the outskirts of a metro town or city.”

Floyd Long is transition coordinator for the state’s Department of Corrections. He works to get the worst of the worst integrated into society, so they can contribute whatever is possible. He tries to find them housing, a job, and transportation, with the help of family.

“The ability to buy a car, your metro transportation, your bus systems do not go out to the metro areas. So it becomes a big challenge when it comes to transportation.”

“Thus it becomes a challenge to get employment because they can’t get to their job. So it kinda snowballs, there’s a snowball effect that begins to occur.”

---

Inside the Crossings Community Center, just north of Lake Hefner, non-profit leaders, DOC staff, religious leaders, and interested volunteers, all came together a couple weeks ago to get a sense of the problem.

“If anything it’s going to get worse…”

This is one of the few conferences in the country devoted to the topic. Steve Gordon heads the Oklahoma Partnership for Successful Reentry and organized the gathering of about 50. That’s fifty people trying to help hundreds of sex offenders due out this year…

“We want to get that dialogue started. Dialogue with each other, dialogue with the powers that be, dialogue with the community and the two biggest challenges, nothing personal against you, but the media and public opinion.”

But yet here in Oklahoma, a state often cited in national media as backwards and behind the times, a discussion about what can be done. Why?

“We have a very strong faith community in Oklahoma and a lot of the churches have been stepping up. And then if they really are sensitive to the needs, the hardest reentry of anybody is the sex offender.”

“Nobody wants to help them, they’ve typically burned their bridges. And so it takes someone with a great heart of mercy even to want to look at them. They’re the lepers of society.”

Video Link

I’m out on a walk with John at Hand Up Ministries in southwest Oklahoma City.

A registered sex offender from California, he now works full time for the ministry. John got out of jail in 1994 and has been in Oklahoma for years. An enthusiastic, eternally optimistic guy, he seems to take the best possible view of the situation he put himself in. But he’s fighting his registration requirements because of the stigma..

“I believe if a person lives like me, I’ve been out for twenty years, why shouldn’t I be able to?”

John points to studies that show the recidivism rate at somewhere between 5 and 15 percent for sex offenders, far below the average for most other crimes.

Everyone I talked to described a snowball effect. They have trouble finding a place to live, then they don’t have access to transportation, and so they can’t even try to interview for a job, where there’s a whole another set of barriers. Wayne Bowers works with CURE-SORT, devoted to sex offender reentry.

“I think all of a sudden, there’s beginning to be more and more people who are speaking out. When I moved here, I was worried. I thought ‘Am I really getting into something?’. But I’m encouraged to see there is a lot of place for growth here.”

But how does this affect you and me? Lately, the default position has been to wall sex offenders off. Well, Steve Gordon says some are starting to realize why that often doesn’t work…

“It’s making the public less safe because right now in Oklahoma County, we have 120 homeless sex offenders because there’s no place for them to go. That’s not good. Everybody I talk to, no matter what their background or what their profession, they say that’s a bad thing.”

But in the back of Steve Gordon’s mind, there’s the question of the standards these programs are held to.

“We can have the best reentry policies, the best reentry concepts and systems, they will not work. All we need is one angry citizen going up onto the steps of Legislature pitching a fit and it will undue years of good work we’ve been trying to do.”

That’s all it came down to in the day-long conference. The best programs could struggle to compete with one of the most powerful motivators: fear. A solution to that is far more difficult.

Listen:

Sex offender tier system possible

View the article here

04/23/2007

Right now sex offenders have to live 2000 feet away from a park, daycare, or playground. But some say the law leaves sex offenders with hardly anywhere to live legally.
- It does, draw 2000 foot circles around all these areas in your area and you will see this is a fact.

The proposed bill would classify sex offenders in three levels.

Level one offenders would pose a low danger to the community and most likely not commit another crime.

Level two offenders are those that pose a moderate risk to others.

Level three would be someone posing a serious danger to the community and would continue engaging in criminal sexual conduct.

Some parents say anything that would help law enforcement focus on the most dangerous sex offenders is a good idea.

When Merisa Muniz's kids hit the playground she's watching.
- This is what any responsible parent should do!

“I do try to keep a really good eye on my children.”

But Merisa knows she can't always be there. So she lets her kids know that not everyone is there to treat them right.

“Me and my daughter did talk about this. We had one on our block that we thought was a sex offender and we didn't know how severe it was.”
- This is what a real parent should do. Warn your kids, not just about sex offenders but that the whole world is a dangerous place and they need to be on the watch for all things. Do not TRUST anyone unless you've known them for years, and even then I'd still be weary.

But Marisa also says that she feels not all sex offenders should be considered equal.
- Amen! They are NOT all equal. That is like saying all Christians are the same or all white people are the same. They are not!

“To me it all depends on what the sex offender has done.”
- So true. When will the idiots we have in office see this? This is a lady with brains, which the politicians only see greed, money, corruption, etc.

A state representative says changing the way sex offenders are classified would make the system fairer. It would also free up more resources to concentrate on the most dangerous offenders.
- And would save a lot of money, man hours, and free up time. And anything to save us tax payers money is good, IMO. Buffer zones, GPS, registries, etc do nothing to protect anyone, they are a false sense of security. If a violent person wants to commit another crime, THEY WILL! This is like asking criminals to obey the laws, doesn't make much sense.

Merisa says she believes, “there needs more focus on the ones that are really out there making crime after crime after crime for the same thing that needs to be put away.”

And if a "level three" offender ever moved into a neighborhood like where Eric and his kids live, the Department of Corrections would let everyone living within one mile know that person was their new neighbor.

Eric says, “a lot of families are very concerned about their kids they want to make sure that their kids live in a nice, healthy safe environment.”
- Doesn't everyone? Who wants to live in fear daily? Nobody. But these laws do not protect anyone, it only banishes sex offenders and is punishment regardless of the idiot politicians saying it's punitive not punishment, that is BS!

If the bill is passed it would take effect November 1st.

And if you would like to look at the bill more closely, a copy of the bill is available online.