By Sandy . . . In the many years that we have been tracking Halloween, this one fits the pattern of the past few years.

There were the semi-frequent media and sheriff’s offices who were warning—and scaring—parents about people on sex offender registries grabbing trick-or-treaters, a danger that research indicates has never existed. But the days of Patch “red-dot” maps from coast to coast are gone. A couple of Patch editors in Illinois are hanging on with their “Halloween Safety Maps,” but the dots are blue now, and the articles mitigate some of the fearmongering with the inclusion of a few of the actual facts, such as, “Law enforcement officials and researchers caution that the registries can play only a limited role in preventing child sexual abuse and stress that most perpetrators are known to the child.”

For as many as possible, we responded to media articles and Facebook posts with this message:

Are you aware that any connection between persons on the registry and increased sexual harm to children at Halloween has been totally debunked.? It was an invented construct to begin with. Such a connection has never existed.

You are in a unique position to help make a difference. Instead of writing about something that has never—as far as we are able to determine–harmed any children, write about something that harms, even kills, children every Halloween.

Write about the need for law enforcement to double–and triple–down their foot patrols and crossing guards in high traffic and trick-or-treat areas rather than checking if registered individuals have their lights on. Write about the need for increased sobriety-check traffic stops on Halloween. Write about something that is a real problem, that could save lives, that could make a real difference.

We sent over a dozen emails to reporters and comments on Facebook pages. We received back one reply from a supervising editor wanting more information about our organization.

All of that is the good news.

The bad news is that a more sinister pattern also played out. Trick-or-treating children are several times more likely to be involved in an altercation with an automobile Halloween evening and night. When this occurs, the child seldom emerges unscathed.

In San Antonio, Texas, a truck driver jumped the curb and crashed into a parked vehicle, then striking a group of trick-or-treaters. According to the law enforcement officer on the scene, “By the grace of God, you know, this wasn’t a whole lot worse.” Most of the pedestrians jumped out of the way. A young child received minor injuries and was taken to the hospital with her mother who had more serious but non-life-threatening injuries. The driver fled the scene but was soon apprehended and determined to be intoxicated.

A juvenile was hit while trick-or-treating in Colonial Heights, Virginia. The child was crossing the street, where candy was seen scattered after he was taken to the hospital with non-life-threatening injuries. The driver stayed there.

Two young children were critically injured Halloween night while trick-or-treating in Tracey, California and remain critical Saturday morning. The driver remained at the scene.

Charlotte County, Florida, reports, “. . . a serious hit-and-run involving three people trick-or-treating on Friday night.” The injured pedestrians include a teenager and a child who were injured and taken to local hospitals. The driver fled the scene but was soon found and arrested. The area where this happened is described as a “. . . heavy trick-or-treat area.”

A trick-or-treating 13-year-old boy was struck by a car in Portland, Oregon. He sustained serious injuries, and as of the morning of November 1, his prognosis is unclear. The driver remained at the scene.

This is a mixed bag: The good news is that no children were killed outright. The bad news is that seven children were hit by automobiles while they were trick-or-treating and two or more remain in serious or critical condition.

Now the bad, bad news: Before Halloween, media and law enforcement  focus on persons required to register as the way to keep trick-or-treaters safe.

This is in spite of evidence showing zero trick-or-treating children harmed or killed by registrants. Ever. Anywhere.

Neither media nor law enforcement focus enough on a real, actual danger kids face Halloween evening and night across the nation: an increased risk of being hit by an automobile and injured or killed. Some media articles do. Fewer law enforcement offices do.

If this were an equation, in most states it would look like this:

Definite risk of children being harmed Halloween night = <10% allotment of resources; zero risk (based on past 40 years) of children being harmed Halloween night = >75% allotment of resources.

As an ironic sidenote, just as the message is everywhere that there is no connection between persons on sex offender registries and increased risk of sexual harm to children at Halloween, a legislator in Kentucky is proposing that persons on the state registry be forbidden from participating in Halloween activities. Whenever I hear nonsense like this, I remember a question I was asked a long time ago by a registrant. “Why is it that it is fine if I bob for apples with my grandchildren on October 30^th and on November 1^st,” he asked, “but if I do it on October 31^st, I am breaking the law and could go to prison?”

I could not answer his question then, and I cannot answer it now.

The post A good news, bad news Halloween first appeared on NARSOL.

By Bruce, a.k.a. Atwo Zee, Registered Traveler. . . A recent NARSOL Digest (Oct/Nov 2024) “Legal Corner” article (Page 5) discussed the case of a man who successfully had himself removed from Michigan’s registry, then moved to Alabama.  Three years later he was arrested in Alabama on a failure to register felony. Now he asks from his prison cell, how can this be? “I should not be in prison for failure to register because I have no registration obligation.”

The Digest’s answer is on point: “Unfortunately, when you left Michigan, that state no longer controls your plight …”  Since many former registrants mistakenly believe there will be no consequences from moving to a new state, this example should be an object lesson that this really can happen to you.

The problem is that state registry laws contain language saying one of two things. Either:

(A) (paraphrasing) If you are required to register in the state where you offended, then you have to register with us if you move to our state, or

(B) (paraphrasing) If you were EVER CONVICTED of a registrable offense in another state, then you have to register with us if you move to our state.

The bad news is option B is by far the larger group–38 states and all five territories.  Option A includes only 12 states.  Even here there’s no way of knowing how much mischief state and local law enforcement can do to throw roadblocks in the way of exercising your right to travel.  You should consult an attorney specializing in registry issues in your destination state.

Within the larger group of 38 states and five territories, it turns out there are subgroups.  The two largest are: (a) states which have a stated time period after which a registrant is (supposedly according to statute) AUTOMATICALLY removed, AND this includes out-of-state offenders (16-19 states depending on how you count them), and (b) states which have a stated time period after which a registrant is (supposedly according to statute) allowed to PETITION for removal, AND this includes out-of-state offenders (15-17 states).

In an ideal world, a person who has served the requisite amount of registry time in the state of conviction should be eligible to petition a court in the destination state that he/she has fulfilled the registration period and that there would be no registration obligation. The reality is that this option is not likely to be successful because courts generally do not render advisory opinions. They view such endeavors as a waste of judicial resources when there is no actual ongoing controversy to be resolved. In Option B you have the right to petition after the stated time period, but there’s usually no guarantee.  I can only imagine that few of these states would allow you to swoop in at the airport and head for the nearest courthouse to get off their registry.  Some laws state a time period for out-of-staters to establish residency before you can apply.  Again, consult an attorney specializing in registry issues in your destination state.

If you have been removed from the registry in the state where you offended, you are “free to go”–but ONLY in that state.  If you travel out of your state for business or pleasure, you still have to conduct yourself as if you were still on the registry, because unfortunately most states will view you that way.

If you have been removed from the registry in the state where you offended and you choose to move to another state, you will immediately become subject to the registry laws of your destination state, which in most cases means all your previous hard work getting yourself off your home state’s registry will be lost and you’ll be back to square one.  Your best option is to stay put, no matter how disgusted you may be with the state where you suffered on the registry for so long.

More information about state SOR laws applying to out of state former and long-term registrants can be found at my website, Atwo Zee, Registered Traveler, https://a2twozee.blogspot.com/  However, for anyone considering a permanent move to another state, any information you find online–including at my site–should only be the starting point for further research in consultation with an attorney specializing in registry issues in your destination state.

The post The perils of moving to another state – even after you’re removed from your own state’s registry first appeared on NARSOL.

By Sandy . . . Halloween 2024 is behind us. This Halloween was same-old, same-old in some respects and something of an anomaly in others.

Once again, no children were snatched by registrants—or by anyone, apparently–as they walked the streets, and none were lured into the homes of registrants with promises of candy and then harmed.

Once again, as far as we could determine, Patch abstained from its “red dot” Halloween maps except for a handful in Illinois whose editor doesn’t seem to have gotten the facts about this. Thank you, Patch.

Once again, politicians decided to get on the “sex offender Halloween” bandwagon, like this Kentucky legislator who wants to create a state law barring registrants from participating in Halloween activities that involve children and the attorney general in Illinois who announced the importance of checking the sex offender registry before trick-or-treating.

Once again, law enforcement could take a lesson from Patch as some are still tying compliance checks of registrants with Halloween safety for trick-or-treaters, as in this example from Marion County, Tennessee, where law enforcement involved “multiple agencies” in “Operation Trick or Treat” and this one from Milwaukee County, Wisconsin where one officer is quoted as doing this “because I love making our community safe.”

The next time your local law enforcement talks about how understaffed they are, you might check to see if they are like the one that sent “more than 20 deputies” out on Halloween to be sure all registrants had their lights off.

That example is from Greene County, Missouri, where, ironically, in nearby Newton County, a traffic altercation occurred that injured a trick-or-treating three-year old—thankfully, not seriously—and killed the young adult accompanying the child.

That traffic accident was an anomaly as the individual who was killed is, as far as research has determined, the only pedestrian Halloween death this year.

Another child was involved in a car-pedestrian accident in Alabama but also escaped serious injuries, and two teenage pedestrians were injured, both non-fatally, in Colorado. No other reports of Halloween evening pedestrian-automobile accidents could be found, making this year the safest for trick-or-treaters in a long time.

Another anomaly is the last-minute avalanche of sensible articles giving factual and helpful warnings.

Some, like this one in Colorado, made it clear the focus would be drivers who chose to drink and drive. Likewise, the Florida Law Enforcement Liaison Program announced, “Buzzed Driving is Drunk Driving,” for their 2024 Halloween campaign.

In the 24 – 48 hours before Halloween, media outlets from California to Texas, from Pennsylvania to North Carolina to Florida peppered the internet with pieces about Halloween safety for kids while trick-or-treating. With headers like, “Why cars might be the scariest thing this Halloween,” “Halloween’s biggest risk? Keeping kids safe from traffic,” and “What makes Halloween so scary? Being a pedestrian,” the primary focus was clear.

Whether this year really is an anomaly or whether it is the beginning of a break-through remains to be seen. For now, we can be thankful for the present victories.

The post Halloween, 2024–an anomoly or a new beginning? first appeared on NARSOL.

Distributed to Illinois media

By Sandy . . . Everyone needs a place to live, including people with past convictions. The government shouldn’t be spending taxpayer money to kick people out of their homes.

Beginning in 2020, Bob O’Dekirk, then-mayor of Joliet, Illinois,  put in motion a scheme to evict people residing lawfully in a Joliet, apartment building. He first tried to evoke an Illinois law that had been in place since 2005, a law prohibiting more than one person with a prior sexual offense conviction from registering at the same address. This failed to gain traction when a federal court declared the law unconstitutional.

He then decided to use an Illinois law that prohibits persons with past convictions for certain sexual offenses from living within 500 feet of schools, daycares and other child-centric locations.

The mayor’s plan was to create what has come to be known as a “pocket park” within 500 feet of a building owned by NewDay Apartments where several people who are required to register reside. He located an unoccupied house on a lot one block away and with the approval of the city council, on August 12, 2021, purchased it for $83,000. The City then paid an undetermined amount to have the house razed, the lot cleared, and the lot seeded or planted with grass. Now under the leadership of the new mayor of Joliet, businessman Terry D’Arcy, a new Joliet city council has approved another $100,000 in taxpayer money to establish a “park” on the vacant lot.

These efforts are being led by John Sheridan, head of a neighborhood council, and Jim Lanham, who is using this issue to further his campaign for a seat as Illinois’ 86th District state representative. According to a recent interview with Sheridan and Lanham, the sole reason for establishing this park is to get “rid of” the people who are quietly living in the NewDay building. But have they thought about where the residents will go if they are driven from their homes?

No one is safer when we render members of our community homeless. In fact, decades of social science research establish that stable housing is one of the most important factors in rehabilitation of people with past convictions.

People who have been held accountable for their crimes and served their prison time deserve the opportunity to build positive, law-abiding lives. The men residing at NewDay Apartments are doing just that. They are working to be productive, contributing members of the community. Some of them have been there for many years without any problems. NewDay provided this statement to NARSOL: “Community safety remains the #1 priority of NewDay Apartments, and that is exactly what we have provided. No current tenant at Cora St. has ever been accused of a new registerable offense, much less convicted of one.”

Former mayor O’Dekirk, Mayor D’Arcy, and Mr. Lanham have all emphasized their commitment to fiscal responsibility and fighting wasteful spending. Committing hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars to a misguided publicity stunt that will do nothing more than remove men from their current, safe living conditions and put them on the street isn’t fiscal responsibility, and it’s not good policy.

The post Why are “fiscally responsible” politicians spending taxpayer money to make people homeless? first appeared on NARSOL.

By Sandy . . . The Michigan Supreme Court, on July 29, 2024, issued an opinion that may result in close to 300 people being removed from Michigan’s sex offender registry. The case, People v. Lymon, revolved around whether individuals who had committed crimes that were non-sexual in nature could appropriately be required to register; the court held that they could not and that to do so was unconstitutional.

Unfortunately, the minority opinion, included in the decision, is garnering almost as much interest as the majority one. Emails directed to the NARSOL communications desk have been concerned with what it says and the message that it sends and perpetuates. That minority opinion is this: ” ‘The majority opinion ignores that countless Michigan families rely on the registry to ensure their safety. … Registration provides vital information for the parent who must choose a babysitter or entrust a child with a volunteer coach,’ said Zahra, who was joined by Justice David Viviano.”

August 6, 2024, NARSOL sent an email to 48 Michigan media outlets, all whose focus is Michigan news and politics. This is a copy of the email:

The post To MI media: Sex offender registry increases risk of harm to children first appeared on NARSOL.

By Sandy . . . The media has been making much recently of the inclusion of Steven van de Velde, a Dutch beach volleyball player, at this year’s summer Olympics in Paris. Van de Velde has a historic conviction for a sexual crime against an underaged girl. He served his punishment, and the stance of the Dutch Olympic Committee is that people deserve to be given the opportunity to move on; they laud his repentance at his past actions and his determination to be rehabilitated. His teammates also have spoken out in defense of him. However, virtually no others, including spectators at his events, feel the same, and he is being housed in a separate facility for his own protection from potential vigilantes.

Now a second person at the Olympics has met the fate of being ostracized due to a historic sexual offense. More than 25 years ago Australian Brett Sutton was convicted of sexual crimes against an underaged girl. He was punished. There is no evidence whatsoever that any reoffense has occurred. Sutton is the coach of Julie Derron, a Swiss athlete who won the silver medal in the triathlon. Sutton was at her event in support of her when she competed, having been given accreditation by the Chinese Olympic Committee.

He was recognized when he gave an interview after her event, and the most that officials will say is that he is “no longer here” and that the matter will be “looked into.”

In this day of 24-hour news cycles, as of this writing, it has been almost a week since this story broke, starting first with Steven van de Velde and kept alive and fueled with the Brett Sutton incident. Who knows how much longer it will stay in the headlines? Google searches produce pages of hits, virtually every story using the term “sex offender” in the header and focusing on the indignation felt at allowing such persons to participate or even just be in attendance at the Olympics.

I keep waiting for the pieces that say, no, they are not “sex offenders.” It has been years since they were. They have jumped through all the hoops; they are evaluated at being at no risk to offend. Can we at least say “has a historic sexual offense”?

I keep waiting for the pieces that ask the pertinent questions, questions such as:

Is there no place for true repentance, for remorse, for turning one’s life around, for redemption? Is there never a time, after years of living productive, crime-free lives, that they can be just people?

What kind of redemption is it that says, “Yeah, okay, you can move on—but you can’t be in this place”?

*What kind of rehabilitation is it that says, “You have to get a job, to work,” but, “Oh, no, you can’t work here; we’re close to a playground,” or, “Some of our customers are minors; this is a child-safe zone”?

That says, “You can’t be homeless, but you can’t live here or here or there—residency restrictions”?

What kind of forgiveness is it that says, “Sure, we believe in being forgiving, but you can’t come to our church; we have a youth group”?

What kind of civic  protection of citizens is it that says, “During a storm evacuation, we have shelters open,” but “You can’t come in here; this is a school”?

What kind of fostering of civic responsibility is it that says, “You can vote, but not really because your polling place is a school” and, “Run for office–you? No way!”?

What kind of fostering of family and parental responsibility is it that says, “Family connections are important for rehabilitation, but you can’t pick up your child from school or go to his basketball game or take your family for a day at the state park or even a day at the beach—beaches are designated as parks here, you know”?

And then, after years of being told “No,” what kind of support for his over-burdened family is shown with, “Sorry, he can’t be put in our nursing home; you’ll have to make other arrangements”?*

What kind of appreciation for service to his country is shown with, “Sorry, he can’t be buried in a national cemetery; you’ll have to make other arrangements”?

And finally—what kind of people have we become? What kind of nation are we?

*While these restrictions are not applicable in all states, every one is applicable in one or more states. The majority are due to the dictates of some level of government, but one or two are dictated by the private industry. All are inflicted on only persons who are or have ever been on a sex offender registry.

Denial of the right to burial in national cemeteries is applicable to a small sub-set  of registrants in all states and dictated by federal law.

The post If you’re a registered sexual offender, the answer is “No!” first appeared on NARSOL.

By Sandy . . . In this age of internet, online chat rooms, and social media, parents often feel overwhelmed, even helpless, when they hear about the potential dangers of online predators. Parents consider keeping their children safe their number one job. To accomplish that, they need facts, truth, and reality.

They do not need incorrect information. They do not need undocumented, often outlandish claims or numbers and statistics inflated, twisted, and tortured into something they are not. They do not need emotionally charged and pejorative language designed to incite disgust and fear.

Several child protection sites throw out almost astronomical numbers about online predators and often credit the FBI with the information. Noel Holmes, a journalist for the Pleasanton Express, wrote a piece about keeping children safe on the internet, and she used that information as though it were an undisputed fact. She used it with no documentation except, “According to the FBI . . .”

Exhaustive research has failed to turn up a document, a study, or an internet posting from the FBI using those figures. The FBI does have information online on the subject, information that is not inflated or written in order to fill parents with fear and hopelessness.

I wrote Noel asking for some documentation for the information so that I might read it at the source document. There has been no response from her or her publication.

Another site makes this claim: “For every predator CRC [Child Rescue Coalition] helps law enforcement apprehend, we prevent between 50 and 150 children from being sexually abused. To date, our technology has prevented the abuse of more than 690,000 children worldwide.” There is no citation showing from where these figures were derived.

However, an advertising agency, Ad Forum, in an advertisement for the Child Rescue Coalition,–which says it is a non-profit–gives a hint. They make the claim that 85% of internet predators are also hands-on child abusers. While there is a footnote number at the end of the statement, the link goes nowhere and there is no accompanying footnote information at the end of the ad. I wrote Ad Forum asking for an answer, received an immediate “We have your request” email, and have had no further response.

The number, though, the 85%, seems familiar.

Condemned by the BOP, the Butner Study originated from an unpublished paper presented by its author at a 2000 conference; though never subjected to appropriate scrutiny nor peer-reviewed, it was later published and later still harshly criticized and discredited.  In a nutshell, the findings of the study are that through the use of polygraph examinations, either 79% or 85%–both figures are cited–of between 50 to 60 men who were incarcerated at Butner BOP in North Carolina with convictions for online pornography involving children claimed they also had committed hands-on sexual abuse of children, and most of them claimed to have had between 50 and 150 victims undetected by law enforcement.

By contrast, the US Sentencing Commission, in a 2021 report, found that 4.3% of those with non-production offense convictions were arrested for a sexual offense within three years of release (p.65). That figure is not broken down by percentage between contact and non-contact offenses, but even if the full 4.3% were contact offenses, that falls far short of the high percentage claimed by the Butner Study.

The Butner Study was flawed for a multitude of reasons, but one of the more compelling is evidence—including testimony from some of the participants—that they received benefit from making such claims and were penalized if they denied having undetected, hands-on offenses.

Advertising for CRC uses those numbers. It apparently determines how many online predators it claims it has “helped law enforcement apprehend”; may take 85% of that number; multiplies it many times over, up to 50, 75, even up to 150; and arrives at over 690,000 children they have “saved” from being abused. They extrapolate from the self-admitted, coerced testimony of less than 60 men and apply that to every person ever convicted of online child pornography, over half convicted of a non-production offense.

Similar scare tactics are used by law enforcement. A recent example is the Volusa, Florida, sheriff’s department’s naming of a raid on the homes of registrants in the county: Operation Creep Sweep. These raids frequently use the word “Operation” to legitimize their invasion into the lives of registrants. “Creep” is used to heighten the disgust and fear factors and is insulting and inflammatory.

These numbers, these claims, and this type of language are all over the internet. One need only do some basic searches to find them. No wonder parents are confused, terrified, and ready to support the organization or buy the products that will “save their children.”

Why is this dangerous? It is misdirection. It is promoting a fear that paralyzes and a dependency on something other than themselves to protect their children. Just like the registry, it promotes “stranger-danger” and creates an easy solution to a very difficult and complex problem.

Just as it is dangerous to believe your children are safe from risk of harm if you check the sex offender registry frequently and know where the registrants live and ignore the far greater risk from those already known and trusted by your family, it is dangerous to believe that a piece of software or harsher laws against those already convicted of a sexual crime can replace parental involvement in one’s children’s lives.

The actual FBI advice on the subject is excellent. Open, honest, frequent dialogue between parents and children; some agreed-upon boundaries and instructions; a realization that, just as with the risk of hands-on abuse, the risk of internet enticement is at least as likely to come from someone that the young potential victims already know: These will prove more valuable to parents in protecting their children than anything a tech company can provide.

The post Untrue­­ advertising, utilizing fear tactics increases risk of sexual harm to children, teens first appeared on NARSOL.

Originally published in the CT Mirror; reprinted here in full with the author’s permission.

By James Cornelio . . . I was born in Torrington in 1955, the son, one of four, of a successful small-town automobile dealer and a stay-at-home mom. After graduating from Cornell University in 1977, I moved to Manhattan, attended Fordham Law School and, upon graduation from Fordham, practiced real estate and private banking law in Manhattan for over 20 years. Upon my release from a New York prison in 2007, I moved back to Connecticut and, as the law required, registered as a sex offender.

Understanding the power of those two words, I have tried elsewhere to explore, as best I could, why and how those words have come to forever define who I am. Here, however, I’m going to explore the effect of those words not just on me but on the legal system which, trained as I was, I had come to respect.

On April 22, 2018, I was arresed in my home because of a warrant issued at the request of the sex offender registry unit of the Connecticut State Police (SORU) for failing to file an email address with them which, as a registered offender, Connecticut law also required. Notably, it was an email address which, though I hadn’t ‘filed’ with SORU, I had used multiple times over several years in communicating with them prior to their request for a warrant. So why did they nonetheless seek my arrest?

In part, because they could.

Thankfully, they no longer can, at least not for that crime.

On Sept. 14, 2023, a Federal District Court held in Cornelio v. CT, a case I initially brought pro se, that the Connecticut law requiring that registrants file their email addresses and all other “internet identifiers” with the police or risk being charged with a class “D” felony violates the First Amendment. Consequently, the court permanently enjoined the state from enforcing the law. Less thankfully, because I had not fashioned my case as a “class action” lawsuit, the court, notwithstanding our request to do so, refused to extend that First Amendment protection to any registrant in the state other than to me.

But given that the court itself acknowledged that “the reasons that the law is invalid as to Cornelio would appear to apply with equal force to all other sex offenders,” we fully expect that a class action lawsuit, to be filed as soon as resources allow, will extend the protection provided to me by my case to all other registrants in the state.

That law, it should be said, is duplicated in states across the country. Moreover, it is but one of many other laws which, of all those who have committed a crime and served their time, apply only to those of us who have committed a sex crime. In fact, it was SORU’s earlier enforcement of one of those other laws, and my reaction to that enforcement, which, most certainly, was the reason why SORU sought my arrest for my subsequent ‘email crime.’

Briefly, in July, 2015, I was arrested because I failed to confirm my home address within the 10-day statutory time period set forth in a Connecticut law requiring registrants to provide written confirmation thereof every three months or face a felony charge. Once the state prosecutor was convinced I would not ‘cop a plea’ to any charge because of my late mail, the case was dismissed. I then, in what was surely a first for them, brought my first pro se case by suing SORU in Federal Court for violating my Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure.

In my court papers, I pointed out that SORU, in seeking my arrest, had not only ignored both their own (reasonable) protocol on late confirmation letters and the relevant law’s direction that they refer late letters to local police but, more pointedly, they had ignored that the presumptive purpose of the law was to assure a registrant hadn’t moved. I hadn’t. And they had no reason because of a late letter or otherwise to believe that I had. And if, for some reason, they were concerned that I had moved, there were far simpler and more effective, and far less punishing, ways of determining that risk to the public than by seeking my arrest.

Well, I learned that, per the statutory language adopted by Connecticut lawmakers and interpreted by the state’s highest court, it doesn’t matter whether one has moved or not. Nor does it matter whether the police have a reasonable suspicion that a registrant has moved. Nor even whether the late return of a confirmation letter was unintentional or otherwise excusable. No, under that law as interpreted by that court, a registrant can be arrested and be held strictly liable for a Class D felony simply because their mail is late. Think about it. The elements of this felony are established by two postmarks.

Suffice it to say, with reasonableness rendered irrelevant, my Fourth Amendment case was dismissed. Not long thereafter, I was arrested for my email crime.

I write this not to bemoan my fate but to shine a light on the fact that laws which were meant to protect the public have, with little significant push-back, been weaponized by lawmakers, the courts and those tasked with enforcing those laws. Beyond my personal experience are these other examples: here, strict residency requirements wreak havoc and hardship: or here, even visiting registrants must beware; or here, Halloween horrors abound; and then there’s this; and this; and this; and this; and … more.

Given all that, let me suggest that the reasoning by the Supreme Court in its 2003 decision in Smith v. Doe was, at best, naïve if not willfully blind to what cruelty it might unleash. In that seminal case, the court ruled that an Alaska law establishing a public registry and requiring convicted sex offenders, who have already served their court-imposed sentences, to thereafter routinely re-register on that public registry was merely “regulatory” and not punitive in nature. In effect, the court’s decision meant that judges and juries — that is, those familiar with the particulars of the who, what, when and where of the crime — need not even be aware of, let alone weigh in on, whether the defendant before them may become subject to those “regulatory” reporting requirements. Instead, as I personally experienced by being required to register for life, a sweeping, harshly crude, paint-by-numbers formula for determining one’s “risk” to the public is unilaterally imposed by those who write the laws — and who answer only to the voters.

Not only voters but any empathetic human being understands, and would seek to allay, the pain and abiding distress of those who have been sexually victimized and the fear of others, especially parents, about their own potential victimization or that of their children. But an uniformed belief that so-called “stranger danger” is widely prevalent and that but for public registries the recidivism of convicted sex offenders would be out-of-control have served to further inflame sexual fears already ignited by a competitive media seeking clicks and ambitious politicians seeking power, both more-than-ready to exploit those fears.

The result is a legal system which has gone well beyond the deeply unfortunate, if somewhat less punitively oppressive, Alaska law at issue in the Doe case to one which now embodies the modern equivalent of banishment for a whole class of citizens.

The post Life and occasional victory as a “sex offender” registrant first appeared on NARSOL.

By Sandy . . . Do they reoffend with another sexual crime? Yes, but rarely. Do they commit petty offenses? Yes, sometimes. Do they violate the terms of supervision or the registry? Yes, some.

Do they live normal, ordinary, law-abiding lives? Yes, the vast majority.

Do they still get in trouble and become the subjects of ridicule and condemnation for living their ordinary, law-abiding lives, and do they cause—usually inadvertently–those who would help, befriend, or love them condemnation and often worse? Yes, probably more often than we would believe.

A registrant in California was working as an umpire with a company that had a contract to supply umpires at baseball games, including Pony League games. His occupation and his working at games played by minors were completely legal. Nevertheless, the headline screamed, “Registered sex offender umpired Monterey County Pony league games, says president.” The league has “chosen to terminate its relationship” with the contractor, possibly putting the registrant’s job at jeopardy. Even if that was not the case, the contracting company lost a client because it provided employment for registrants.

In South Dakota, the headline makes the issue clear: “Teacher resigns after inviting registered sex offender to classroom as guest speaker.” Neither the teacher nor the registrant was doing anything illegal or against school or district policy. However, the teacher lost her job due to the incident. In the face of public pressure, both the teacher and the school superintendent tendered their resignations, but the school board accepted only that of the teacher. The registrant’s conviction was in 2017.

In yet another situation, this one in Rhode Island, doing something that was not illegal cost someone her job. An employee of a YMCA allowed her registrant fiancé to wait for her inside the building while she finished work. “Cranston YMCA employee fired for letting sex offender on grounds,” announced the headline. He was apparently breaking no laws in being there as he was not arrested. He wasn’t hiding or being “sneaky”; he was sitting at the entrance table right by the front door in plain view. She was promptly fired.

In a just-released report in Massachusetts, an entity no less than the state government is in trouble.  “Massachusetts placed homeless families in shelters with sex offenders, report says,” details that persons and families in need of temporary housing were placed where “sex offenders live or work.” The report goes on to say that the housing agency is “in the process of removing the identified sex offenders.” A logical translation of what that process means is that an untold number of registrants, through no fault of theirs and in the absence of any criminality, are now displaced from their homes and /or fired from their jobs.

A convoluted and multi-layered situation in Alabama presents the opinion that people with convictions for historic sexual offenses should not be allowed to serve in roles that are interwoven with the very fabric of our communities. “Case of missing child sparks concerns over sex offender fire chief in Barbour County” is the latest chapter in an older controversy, that of a registrant, with his background fully known, who was appointed chief of a small town volunteer fire department. The search for a missing child—later found unharmed—was the catalyst for the more recent upheaval. A woman who says she had been a victim of sexual abuse was incensed that the registrant fire chief was “allowed” to be part of the search party for the missing child and started an on-line campaign to have him removed from his position. An Alabama legislator authored a bill to prohibit registrants from working as first responders in the state; the bill failed to gain momentum in the session just ended. The fire chief resigned his position amidst all the controversy. His conviction was in 1998.

In Ohio, a media outlet appears to take pride in “outing” a registrant and causing the priest who was helping him to be fired. News 5, an ABC affiliate, announced, “Local Catholic pastor forced to resign following News 5 Investigation into sex offender volunteer.” The pastor may or may not have used poor judgement in allowing the registrant to fill the volunteer position that he did, but no laws appear to have been broken as no one was arrested. The diocese is indicated as knowing about the status of the registrant, which would indicate the firing is the result of public pressure.

A common element, remarkably similar from story to story, is easily discernible in every story. “There have been no reported incidents and all their children are safe”; “Student safety was not compromised”; “There’s no indication that he had any interactions with YMCA members or children”; “. . . did not interact with kids”‘ “. . . no issues from the presence of these offenders.”

People who employ, befriend, or otherwise engage those on a sex offender registry may be putting their reputations and their jobs at risk. This is at total odds with the mission statements of many states’ correctional departments that claim to support and provide opportunities for rehabilitation and second chances to those in their system.

How are these missions to be achieved if opportunities to become rehabilitated are denied? How are persons on sex offense registries to have the ability to use their rehabilitation, often even after many years, if the granting of second chances is more likely than not to be met with negativity and if every step forward is countered with two steps back?

The post How do persons on sex offender registries get in trouble? first appeared on NARSOL.

By Sandy . . . An interesting screen shot was captured online. Titled “Barefoot Lake Issues” and written by someone who signed his name as the town manager of Firestone, CO, it sounds as though it could be a coded message in a conspiracy plot. He speaks of continuing not to draw attention to “what the town is doing now” and how important it was “not to tip Mobarez off.”

He talks about an increased police presence and includes a cryptic reference to deploying “some technology . . . on the neighborhood.” He then, before signing off, says that as a husband and father, he wouldn’t want “this” in his neighborhood.

What is “this”? And who is “Mobarez?”

A quick online search answered both questions—and more.

Mobarez Solutions in Colorado is a company that offers a vital service; working with Colorado’s parole and probation departments, Mobarez provides housing for men with sexual crime convictions who are in need of sober-living residential services. This includes housing and counseling for substance dependency as well as more standard counseling.

The company has a good record. Its homes are in compliance with federal and state requirements. Probation rules for persons required to register are many and complex; one of the duties of recovery residences is to support and help clients navigate the maze and remain compliant.

In brief, Mr. Mobarez opened a home in Firestone, Colorado, in the Barefoot Lake area, to be used as a sober-living  recovery residence for men . The facility was inspected and certified for that purpose by the state, and it is listed with the Colorado Association of Recovery Residences (CARR), an organization that certifies Colorado’s recovery residences as provided for by the state’s Office of Behavioral Health. The executive director of CARR has written a letter to the town of Firestone commending Mobarez Solutions, and the letter concludes with:

CARR records indicate that Mobarez Solutions has either met or exceeded recovery residence certification requirements upon every application it has submitted to the State. Moreover, CARR has yet to receive a grievance filed against Mobarez Solutions from any resident, affiliated organization, or community in which any of their residences are located.

Locations for recovery residences must be chosen carefully. Persons on probation or parole after incarceration for any of a multitude of sexual offenses have restrictions on where they may live, with any area close to schools and other “child-use” areas being off-limit. Finding suitable locations is difficult. The home chosen in Firestone is ideal, large enough to accommodate several residents at a time as well as staff and in an area far enough away from schools and other off-limit locations.

In spite of the company’s excellent record, in spite of the need for the services provided, the town of Firestone, as verified by several sources, has taken actions to sabotage and remove the recovery residence and its residents from the area.

The immediate neighborhood has been hostile, vocal, and threatening. Reports were made that the office responsible for registering those who are required to be on Colorado’s sex offender registry refused to register the men living in the Mobarez Solutions residence, causing them to be out of compliance, which is a crime.

And the cryptic note warning of the necessity of not alerting Mobarez to what the town was doing?

That referred to an item that would, as secretly as possible, be added to the agenda for the upcoming town hall meeting April 24. The town council’s regulations require that nothing be added to a meeting agenda less than 24 hours prior to the meeting. The item that was added—added at the absolute deadline, secretly and quietly, in hopes that Mr. Mobarez would not learn of it in advance—is an ordinance making it illegal for two registrants who are not related to live in the same home. It was given the designation of “emergency” so that it would take place immediately.

It passed as quickly as all council members could say yes, and it passed to an outbreak of applause and verbal approval from many in the large group of citizens who packed the room. This was the last act of an outgoing mayor and board.

After a tribute to the outgoing board, the new board was sworn and the reason for the large group became known: public comments.

The purpose was an appeal to the new board not to undo what had just been done, and they pulled out all the stops.

Someone “explained” that the actual recidivism rate of registrants was very high; he gave a skewed and incorrect interpretation of the DOJ report and used the term “pedophile” as a synonym for “offender.” A mom spoke of her fears for her children.  One man issued veiled threats, using the phrase, “a powder keg with the fuse lit waiting to go off,” and comparing the home and the situation to Columbine, Waco, and Ferguson, saying, “Something is going to happen.” Almost in tears, another man spoke of how his daughter had her safety stolen in a matter of hours.

Mr. Mobarez was called a shyster and a convict and spoken of in extremely disparaging terms. Mobarez Solutions was constantly referred to an illegal operation, born of “a convict’s greed.”

There is no evidence to substantiate these characterizations.

The residents of Barefoot Lake in Firestone, Colorado, are missing the opportunity of a lifetime, an opportunity to practice for themselves and to teach to their children a civics and societal lesson with vital components.

Get all of the facts from reliable sources and data before forming opinions and taking action. Recognize that sometimes what benefits society is more important than individual comfort. Support opportunities for second chances for others as this helps assure they will be there when we ourselves need them.

Cliches become cliches because they have stood the test of time. The Golden Rule is still the best measure we can use in our relationships with others.

Postscript: Since publication, we have been notified that one of the residents–one of the former residents–of the home has been forced into homelessness because, before the ordinance was voted in, he was refused registration at the registration office; police remain on the street; and Mr. Mobarez has received several death threats.

The post When it comes to “sex offenders,” how far will “Not in my backyard” behavior go? first appeared on NARSOL.