Recent Sex Offender Legislation

California – Prop 83

Sex-offender tracking easier voted on than done

By Michael Rothfeld

Los Angeles Times

November 26, 2007

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Law-enforcement leaders who pushed for a ballot initiative requiring sex offenders in California to be tracked by satellite for life are now saying that the surveillance program voters endorsed is not feasible and is unlikely to be fully implemented for years, if ever.

Under the measure approved overwhelmingly a year ago, sex offenders must be strapped with global positioning system devices that can record their whereabouts even after they finish parole and leave the criminal justice system.

Despite their qualms, law-enforcement groups contend that the benefits of Proposition 83, popularly known as Jessica's Law, outweigh its problems, and they insist that many of the flaws can be fixed. But in interviews and testimony to a state board, they have cited complications with almost every aspect of the provision requiring lifetime monitoring.

The difficulties include the impracticality of tracking sex offenders who no longer must report to parole or probation officers, the lack of any penalty for those who refuse to cooperate with monitoring and the question of whether such widespread tracking is effective in protecting the public.

The biggest issue, however, is that the law does not specify which agency or government should monitor felony sex offenders -- and shoulder hundreds of millions of dollars a year in related costs.

Only a small percentage of the 65,000 sex offenders thought to be living in communities throughout California are now subject to the new law, but the numbers are expected to grow by the thousands every year as new offenders emerge from prison.

As a result, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and state law-enforcement leaders, who were allied in backing the measure, are engaged in a standoff over who should bear its financial burden.

"I don't know of any agency that has the resources to track and monitor ... in real time," said Vacaville Police Chief Richard Word, president of the California Police Chiefs Association. "You'll need an air-traffic controller to track these folks."

Word and other law-enforcement leaders said GPS probably would not be used for full-time electronic surveillance of sex offenders as the law suggests. They said GPS was more effective for acting on tips about potential crimes or investigating incidents that already have occurred than for blanket monitoring that reveals a location as a blip on a map but not what the subject is doing there.

The state's new Sex Offender Management Board, which began meeting during the summer, is taking testimony from local officials and others for a report due in January on how the law works in practice and what changes might need to be made.

"We've heard significant concerns with how monitoring would be implemented and how it would be paid for," said Suzanne Brown-McBride, the board's chairwoman.

Criticizing the law is sensitive, because 70 percent of voters endorsed Proposition 83, an indication of strong public sentiment in favor of harsh treatment for sex offenders. Schwarzenegger, former state Attorney General Bill Lockyer and law-enforcement groups throughout the state supported the measure, and public officials have been reluctant to acknowledge its blemishes.

Tom Tobin, a psychologist who works with sex offenders and sits on the state board, compared the law's defects to the emperor with no clothes: Everyone is afraid to state the obvious.

"We are in the jungle -- totally uncharted territory, legally and every other way," Tobin said at last week's board meeting.

Although they have yet to publish their findings, some members of the state board already appear disenchanted with the law.

Janet Gaard, an assistant state attorney general, told colleagues that Proposition 83 appeared to be "a flawed law" and that its former supporters could correct the public's misunderstanding if they mounted a new campaign.

"We have the ability to persuade the public and say, 'Maybe we made a mistake,' " Gaard said.

The state corrections department is the only California agency enforcing the GPS requirement, with an intensive and expensive caseload of 20 sex offenders for each parole agent.

Corrections officials have not been able to get their program fully up and running yet. They estimate that of the roughly 3,000 offenders who are supposed to be monitored, 2,000 are wearing the devices. State officials say 500 to 700 more sex offenders leave prison each month and become subject to the law.

Corrections analysts estimate that it costs the state as much as $33 a day in equipment and labor to monitor a sex offender by GPS, and it would take nearly $90 million a year just to track the 9,000 now on parole if all were subject to Proposition 83.

Schwarzenegger's corrections secretary, James Tilton, said in October that the state would not conduct GPS monitoring on sex offenders once they were discharged from parole because his department lacked jurisdiction at that point.

Nick Warner, a lobbyist and spokesman for the California State Sheriffs' Association, said the state's refusal to monitor sex offenders after parole "passes the buck to local law enforcement, who are not equipped to handle them." He said the state was "setting up communities to fail" and predicted that the matter would end up in court.

Schwarzenegger, who faces a $10 billion state budget gap next year, said through spokesman Bill Maile that he would wait for the sex-offender board to address the question of who should fund lifetime GPS tracking before taking a position on the issue.

Maile said the governor would coordinate with local officials to make "whatever fixes are necessary to carry out the will of the voters."

State Sen. George Runner, a Republican and one of the law's authors, has said he intended for the state to pay the tab. Runner, a frequent critic of government spending, tucked a clause into the end of an unrelated initiative he proposed this month that would require the state to reimburse local governments for all GPS monitoring, including for sex offenders. That measure is not in circulation yet.

Apart from the funding question is the issue of how to track sex offenders for life.

At the sex-offender board's meeting last week, Chief Carey Sullivan of the Woodland Police Department testified that local police and sheriffs were not trained to monitor criminals in the manner of parole agents or probation officers.

Sullivan pointed out that there were no sanctions in the law if offenders cut the units from their ankles or refused to keep them charged after they left parole.

If a sex offender travels from one city to another, or outside the state -- as they are free to do once dismissed from parole -- it would be "tremendously difficult" for local authorities to continue to track them where they have no jurisdiction, he said.

Overall, Sullivan said, GPS is "just one tool in a very large tool bag" and does not enable police to exert complete control over sex offenders.

"I think that is an extremely misleading perception that people have," he said. "We would have been far better off with lifetime parole or probation than ... with lifetime GPS."

*************

Viability of sex-offender law in doubt

The lifetime GPS monitoring ordered by Prop. 83 may be too costly and complex to ever fully implement.

By Michael Rothfeld

Los Angeles Times

November 27, 2007

SACRAMENTO -- — Law enforcement leaders who pushed for a ballot initiative requiring sex offenders in California to be tracked by satellite for life are now saying that the sweeping surveillance program voters endorsed is not feasible and is unlikely to be fully implemented for years, if ever.

Under the measure, approved overwhelmingly a year ago, sex offenders must be strapped with global positioning system devices that can record their whereabouts even after they finish parole and leave the criminal justice system.

Despite their qualms, law enforcement groups contend that the benefits of Proposition 83, popularly known as Jessica's Law, outweigh its problems, and they insist that many of the flaws can be fixed. But in interviews and testimony to a state board, they have cited complications with almost every aspect of the provision requiring lifetime monitoring.

The difficulties include the impracticality of tracking sex offenders who no longer must report to parole or probation officers, the lack of any penalty for those who refuse to cooperate with monitoring and the question of whether such widespread tracking is effective in protecting the public.

The biggest issue, however, is that the law does not specify which agency or government should monitor felony sex offenders -- and shoulder hundreds of millions of dollars a year in related costs.

Only a small percentage of the 65,000 sex offenders thought to be living in communities throughout the state are subject to the law, but the numbers are expected to grow by thousands every year as more offenders are released from prison.

As a result, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and state law enforcement leaders, who were allied in backing the measure, are engaged in a standoff over who should bear its financial burden.

"I don't know of any agency that has the resources to track and monitor . . . in real time," said Vacaville Police Chief Richard Word, president of the California Police Chiefs Assn. "You'll need an air traffic controller to track these folks."

Word and other law enforcement leaders said the global positioning system satellite technology probably would never be used for full-time electronic surveillance of sex offenders as the law suggests. They said GPS is more effective for acting on tips about potential crimes or investigating incidents that have already occurred than for blanket monitoring that reveals a location as a blip on a map but not what the subject is doing there.

The state's new Sex Offender Management Board, which began meeting during the summer, is taking testimony from local officials and others for a report due in January on how the law works in practice and what changes might need to be made.

"We've heard significant concerns with how monitoring would be implemented and how it would be paid for," Suzanne Brown-McBride, the board's chairwoman, said in an interview.

Sensitive issue

Criticizing the law is a sensitive matter because 70% of voters endorsed Proposition 83, an indication of strong public sentiment in favor of harsh treatment for sex offenders.

Schwarzenegger, former state Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer and law enforcement groups throughout the state supported the measure, and public officials have been reluctant to acknowledge its faults.

Tom Tobin, a psychologist who works with sex offenders and sits on the state board, said the law's defects are like the fabled emperor's new clothes: Everyone is afraid to state the obvious.

"We are in the jungle -- totally uncharted territory, legally and every other way," Tobin said at a recent board meeting.

Though they have not yet published their findings, some members of the state board already appear disenchanted with the law.

Janet Gaard, an assistant state attorney general, told colleagues that Proposition 83 appeared to be "a flawed law," and that its former supporters could still correct the public's misunderstanding of it if they were to mount a new campaign.

"We have the ability to persuade the public and say, 'Maybe we made a mistake,' " Gaard said.

The state corrections department is the only California agency enforcing the GPS requirement, with an intensive and expensive caseload of 20 sex offenders for each parole agent.

Even so, corrections officials have not been able to get their program fully up and running yet. They say that of the roughly 3,000 offenders who are supposed to be monitored, about 2,000 are wearing the devices, and the number of eligible is rising quickly: State officials say 500 to 700 more sex offenders leave prison each month and become subject to the law.

Corrections analysts estimate that it costs the state up to $33 a day in equipment and labor to monitor a sex offender by GPS, and it would take nearly $90 million a year just to track the 9,000 now on parole if all were subject to Proposition 83.

Once offenders are discharged from parole, the state will no longer monitor them electronically, Corrections Secretary James Tilton said last month, because his department lacks jurisdiction at that point. The agency also is overextended, with an overcrowded prison system under review by the federal courts.

Nick Warner, a lobbyist and spokesman for the California State Sheriffs' Assn., said the state's refusal to monitor sex offenders after parole "passes the buck to local law enforcement, who are not equipped to handle them." He said the state was "setting up communities to fail" and predicted that the matter would end up in court.

Schwarzenegger, who faces a $10-billion state budget gap next year, said through spokesman Bill Maile that he would wait for the sex offender board to address the question of who should fund lifetime GPS tracking before taking a position on the issue.

Maile said the governor would coordinate with local officials to make "whatever fixes are necessary to carry out the will of the voters."

State Sen. George Runner (R-Lancaster), one of the law's authors, has said he intended for the state to pay the tab. Runner, a frequent critic of government spending, tucked a clause into the end of an unrelated initiative he proposed this month that would require the state to reimburse local governments for all GPS monitoring, including for sex offenders. That measure is not in circulation yet.

Apart from the funding question is the issue of how to track sex offenders for life.

Not equipped for the job

At the sex offender board's recent meeting, Chief Carey Sullivan of the Woodland Police Department testified that local police and sheriff's deputies are not trained to monitor criminals the way parole agents or probation officers do.

Sullivan, speaking on behalf of state police chiefs, said the problem with enforcing lifetime GPS tracking is that the law provides no sanctions if offenders cut the units from their ankles or refuse to keep them charged after leaving parole.

If a sex offender travels from one city to another, or outside the state -- as they are free to do once dismissed from parole -- it would be "tremendously difficult" for local authorities to continue to track them where they have no jurisdiction, he said.

Overall, Sullivan said, GPS is "just one tool in a very large tool bag" and does not enable police to exert complete control over sex offenders.

"I think that is an extremely misleading perception that people have," he said. "We would have been far better off with lifetime parole or probation than . . . with lifetime GPS."

In an informal survey by the Chief Probation Officers of California presented by Jerry Powers, head of probation in Stanislaus County and a member of the sex offender board, only five of 37 agencies that responded reported using GPS at all, and in very low numbers. Orange County reported that it had only 15 devices, and Stanislaus reported 10.

Powers said some would like to use GPS for other offenders, such as gang members.

Powers told his colleagues that it would be "ludicrous" to think that local agencies would voluntarily monitor all sex offenders by satellite.

"It would bankrupt any of our systems very quickly," he said.

***********

Some sex offenders go untracked

A measure approved by voters last year fails to clarify how to pay for satellite monitoring and which offenders require supervision.

By Michael Rothfeld
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

October 19, 2007

SACRAMENTO -- Hundreds of California sex offenders who are supposed to be monitored for life under an initiative approved by voters last year are now unsupervised because the law does not detail who is responsible for tracking them or how to pay for enforcement.

The ambiguity in the measure, Proposition 83, commonly known as Jessica's law, could affect thousands of sex offenders returning to local communities.

State corrections officials are warning local sheriffs and police that 553 convicted sex offenders who they believe fall under Proposition 83 have already been dismissed from parole and are not being monitored.

Therefore, there is no way to check whether they are complying with the law's requirement that they live more than 2,000 feet from schools and parks, and they are not being tracked by satellite for life.

An additional 98 are expected to leave parole by year's end.

California Corrections Secretary James Tilton on Thursday began notifying local law enforcement agencies that the state would no longer take responsibility for placing tracking devices on the ankles of sex offenders once they leave parole.

But few if any local agencies around the state are equipped to handle the expensive and intensive satellite monitoring the law requires. And the law is not clear on whether they should have to do so.

"They may determine that they have responsibility and step up and put GPS on them, or they may determine, 'Nope, I don't need to do anything,' " Tilton said in an interview. "All I know is I no longer have jurisdiction over this population."

Last week, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and corrections officials began returning hundreds of freed sex offenders to prison for violating the law's strict residency requirements.

The problems are surfacing in part because the initiative, approved by 70% of voters last November, does not specify many basic details of implementation, including which sex offenders require supervision, who should monitor them, how to define the restrictions on living near places where children congregate and how to pay for satellite tracking, which could ultimately cost hundreds of millions of dollars a year.

"It was a very badly written bill," said Tom Tobin, a Bay Area psychologist who treats sex offenders and is on a state board overseeing the law's implementation.

"It's too easy to make these [initiatives] up. But to make them fit the way the world actually works is much harder."

There are an estimated 80,000 sex offenders in California, but most are not covered by Proposition 83 because their crimes predated it.

Nearly a year after the law passed, even the state has not yet fully outfitted all the sex offenders under its supervision with satellite tracking, with only 2,000 wearing the devices out of more than 4,000 offenders who are required by law to have it.

State corrections officials say they will have to ultimately monitor 8,000 who are still on parole at any given time, at a cost of more than $25 million a year, not including the expense of additional parole agents.

Los Angeles County Supervisor Yvonne B. Burke said she doubted that local government would be able to afford it.

"It's going to be a tremendous burden," she said. "The sheriff has very little ability right now. He's trying to expand his electronic monitoring, but my understanding is that they just don't have the people to follow up on it."

But Sheriff Lee Baca said he thought the task was manageable.

He said the department already has a program to monitor low-level offenders with ankle bracelets and could use that to monitor sex offenders.

"There's no question that we have to do it," he said. "This is going to get expensive, which could in effect cause us to have to continue to find ways to fund this, but I have no doubt that this is what the public wants."

While officials are grappling with how to enforce Proposition 83, they said sex offenders will remain on their radar because of Megan's law, which requires offenders to register with law enforcement. Their addresses and photos are posted on the Internet.

As enforcement of the law has played out, there have been other bumps.

Critics contend that the law's requirements are so strict that offenders may not be able to find anywhere to live. Indeed, state officials have allowed those who have declared themselves homeless to avoid arrest for violating the 2,000-foot residency restriction. So far, nearly 200 have become homeless because of the law, state officials said.

In a letter Thursday to the state's Sex Offender Management Board, which is overseeing the law's implementation, Tilton said that "clarification is urgently needed" within 60 days on who should enforce the law after sex offenders are dismissed from parole.

"There are quite a few of these issues that people are trying to get to the bottom of who's responsible for what," said Suzanne Brown-McBride, chairwoman of the state sex offender board. "There's no magic answer."

As the state has begun discussions with local agencies about what do to next, some have offered different interpretations of whom the law covers.

Some district attorneys have said that only those offenders convicted after the law's passage are included; Sen. George Runner (R-Lancaster), who co-authored the initiative, said Thursday that only those who began parole after the day it was passed are covered, and not those who recently violated their parole as the Department of Correction and Rehabilitation has decided.

Although there are several ongoing court challenges to the law, those questions have not yet been settled.

Runner said he believed that none of the questions were insurmountable and that the legislation could be revised if needed.

"Oftentimes, there are ambiguities that have to be dealt with," he said. "You go ahead and see what needs to be done and you clarify, you work out, you make it happen."

***********

Sex offenders released before Prop. 83 can live near schools, parks, judge rules

A federal jurist says the ban can't be applied to those who had already served their sentences.

By Jenifer Warren
Times Staff Writer

February 10, 2007

SACRAMENTO — A federal judge Friday ruled that a voter-approved crackdown on sex offenders may not be applied retroactively, meaning thousands of offenders who have done their prison time probably will not be barred from living near California schools and parks.

U.S. District Judge Lawrence K. Karlton said there was no clear evidence that Proposition 83, dubbed Jessica's Law by promoters, was intended to govern those whose crimes occurred in the past.

"The court finds that the law does not apply to individuals who were convicted and who were paroled, given probation or released from incarceration prior to its effective date," Karlton wrote in his 11-page order.

Passed by 70% of voters, Proposition 83 gave California what experts called the toughest sex offender law in the nation. As well as lengthening prison and parole terms for repeat and violent offenders, the measure requires registered sex offenders to wear an electronic tracking device for life.

The most controversial provision bans offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a school or park. Proponents said children should not have to pass an offender's house while walking to school, while foes said the ban would not enhance safety because most sex crimes are committed against victims the perpetrator knows.

Shortly after the initiative passed, the residency rule sparked a handful of lawsuits from ex-offenders. Among other things, they argued that the restriction was unconstitutional because it slapped a new penalty on ex-convicts long after they had been punished.

Karlton's ruling is the first judicial interpretation of the measure. It brought relief to some of the 80,000 registered sex offenders living in California communities, including former child molester Jake Goldenflame.

Goldenflame lives in San Francisco, which has such high density that maps drawn by the Legislature show that Proposition 83's buffer zones around parks and schools would make the city virtually off limits.

"We have already paid the price for our crimes, and this gives us the freedom to go on with our lives without having to pay for it again," said Goldenflame, an author who also runs a website to help former sex offenders. "I am certainly buoyed by this ruling and hope other judges follow suit."

The Karlton decision comes in a lawsuit filed by three unidentified sex offenders, including one on parole and one on probation, who said they lived within 2,000 feet of schools or parks. Their crimes occurred more than 15 years ago.

They sought a preliminary injunction to block enforcement of the residency limit and to bar the state from forcing them to move. Karlton denied the motion in his Friday ruling, saying it was unnecessary because the residency ban did not apply to them.

In his decision, the judge said Proposition 83 does not make it clear that its intent was retroactive. He also said it was a "time-honored principle" that new laws apply prospectively unless otherwise specified. To conclude that it should cover offenders already out of prison, he said, would raise serious constitutional concerns, namely that the initiative was punishing people twice for the same crime.

Lawyers for state Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown argued that Jessica's Law should be interpreted like Megan's Law, which established a database listing the addresses of tens of thousands of sex offenders.

But Karlton said Megan's Law is different because it merely instructs the state to make certain information about ex-felons available and "does not appear to regulate sex offenders directly."

Still unresolved is another case, pending in federal court in San Francisco, involving an offender who has lived in the same Bay Area town for more than 15 years. His lawsuit said he had completed treatment and has led "a productive and law-abiding life" ever since. With the passage of Proposition 83, his suit said, he "has effectively been banished from his community" and from residential areas in virtually every city in California.

In that case, the attorney general contends that the law does not require the plaintiff, known as John Doe to protect his safety, to move out of his home. It would affect him, however, if he chose to relocate to another home inside the 2,000-foot buffer zone, the attorney general argued.

Karlton addressed that interpretation in his ruling Friday, saying it "borders on the frivolous." Proposition 83 makes no distinction, he noted, between offenders who now live within the 2,000-foot zone and those who may choose to move there later.

Michael Romano, an attorney in the San Francisco case, said Karlton's ruling "bodes well for us."

"This vindicates our position that the attorney general's interpretation is simply untenable," he said.

A spokesman for Brown said the attorney general's office was still reviewing the judge's order.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said he was pleased that the ruling removed a potential roadblock to enforcing the statute, which he and nearly every other elected state official supported.

"The people of California passed this important initiative to help protect themselves from sexual predators, and today's ruling allows the state to continue its implementation of Jessica's Law," he said in a statement.

Corrections officials said the ruling would not alter the residency limit on paroled sex offenders that was created by the Legislature and took effect last year. Under that law, certain high-risk child molesters may not live within half a mile of a school while on parole.

Those high-risk sex offenders also are on satellite monitoring while being supervised by parole agents.

**************

Georgia's sex offender law fails court challenge

'Severely Myopic'

Mary Vallis

National Post, With Files From News Services

 November 23, 2007

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/world/story.html?id=d8d54fa7-797e-4f44-aae7-ee39ce8c98f0

Georgia's top court has overturned a controversial state law banning registered sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of any place where children congregate, including daycares, schools, churches and bus stops.

In a unanimous decision, the Georgia Supreme Court deemed the residency restriction unconstitutional because those who complied "face the possibility of being repeatedly uprooted and forced to abandon homes in order to comply with the law's restrictions."

"It is apparent that there is no place in Georgia where a registered sex offender can live without being continually at risk of being ejected," presiding Justice Carol Hunstein wrote in the 16-page opinion.

Anthony Mann, a 44-year-old convicted child molester, sued the state Department of Corrections after his probation officer said he must move out of a house he and his wife bought in 2003 or face arrest.

"This was a severely myopic law that didn't pass the smell test," said Stephen Bailey Wallace, Mr. Mann's lawyer. "It turns people into nomads."

When the couple bought the house in Hampton, Ga., it was outside the 1,000-foot (305-metre) buffer zone, but two daycare centres were later built nearby. The state court ruled the law permitted the Manns' private property to be taken without compensation and they faced similar risks each time they found a legal home.

"While this time it was a daycare centre, next time it could be a playground, a school bus stop, a skating rink or a church," Judge Hunstein wrote.

Mr. Mann said he was relieved by the decision. If convicted under the residency law, sex offenders face up to 10 years in prison.

"You live kind of every day wondering if the sheriff 's office is going to come out and tell you that you have three days to move," said the man, who pleaded no contest in 2002 to taking indecent liberties with a child in North Carolina. "It's happened to me twice."

According to another Georgia law, its 150,000 sex offenders must have addresses -- meaning not only was it difficult to find a residence that complied with the restrictions, it was also illegal to be homeless.

Critics of the laws have argued they were so far-reaching they effectively prevent sex offenders from living legally anywhere in the state.

The Georgia ruling could have a ripple effect in states with similar laws. Kentucky implemented a similar ban last year and more than 20 states ban registered offenders on probation or parole from coming within certain distances of where children congregate. In some communities, the restrictions can mean the difference between living in an apartment or on the streets.

State Representative Jerry Keen, the Republican who sponsored the legislation, vowed to redraft the law and reintroduce it early next year.

"In the meantime, convicted felony sex offenders will be allowed to live next door to daycare centres, school bus stops or anywhere else they choose," he said.