Saturday, February 13, 2010

EX POST FACTO CLAUSE - What part of this does politicians not understand?

Original Article | See Also

A misnomer in that actually two Constitutional clauses are involved. The U.S. Constitution's Article 1 Section 9, C.3 states: 'No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed,' and Section 10 says: 'No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law. . . .'

The 'words and the intent' of the Ex Post Facto Clause encompass '[e]very law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed.' Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. (1 Dall.) 386, 390 (1798) (opinion of Chase, J.).

An ex post facto law is a law passed after the occurrence of an event or action which retrospectively changes the legal consequences of the event or action.

"The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly." - Abraham Lincoln

FL - It seems Ormond Beach is making and passing laws based on lies!

Original Article


Sec. 23-1. Findings and intent.

(a) Repeat sexual offenders, sexual offenders who use physical violence, and sexual offenders who prey on children are sexual predators who present an extreme threat to the public safety. Sexual offenders are extremely likely to use physical violence and to repeat their offenses, and most sexual offenders commit many offenses, have many more victims than are ever reported, and are prosecuted for only a fraction of their crimes. This makes the cost of sexual offender victimization to society at large, while incalculable, clearly exorbitant.
- The above is a flat out lie! Why don't those writing these laws (based on lies) show me the actual facts to back up this fear-mongering BS? The many recidivism studies (and here) out there, disprove this load of crap.

(b) It is the intent of this chapter to serve the city's compelling interest to promote, protect and improve the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of this city by creating areas around locations where children regularly congregate in concentrated numbers wherein certain sexual offenders and sexual predators are prohibited from establishing temporary or permanent residence.
(Ord. No. 2005-36, § 2, 10-18-05)

Sec. 23-2. Definitions.
The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this chapter, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning:

Permanent residence means a place where the person abides, lodges or resides for fourteen (14) or more consecutive days.

Temporary residence means a place where the person abides, lodges or resides for a period of fourteen (14) or more days in the aggregate during any calendar year and which is not the person's permanent address, or a place where the person routinely abides, lodges or resides for a period of four (4) or more consecutive or nonconsecutive days in any month and which is not the person's permanent residence.
(Ord. No. 2005-36, § 2, 10-18-05)

Sec. 23-3. Sexual offender and sexual predator residence prohibition; penalties; exceptions.
(a) It is unlawful for any person who has been convicted of a violation of F.S. § 794.011, 800.04, 827.071 or 847.0145, regardless of whether adjudication has been withheld, in which the victim of the offense was less than sixteen (16) years of age, and for any person who has been convicted of a similar offense in another state or jurisdiction, regardless of whether adjudication has been withheld, to establish a permanent residence or temporary residence within two thousand five hundred (2,500) feet of any school, designated public school bus stop, day care center, park, beach, playground (such as minipark and recreational open space), library, church or other place where children regularly congregate.
- So that pretty much covers the whole county, right?

(b) For purposes of determining the minimum distance separation, the requirement shall be measured by following a straight line from the outer property line of the permanent residence or temporary residence to nearest outer property line of a school, designated public school bus stop, day care center, park, beach, playground (such as minipark and recreational open space), library, church, or other place where children regularly congregate.

(c) Penalties. A person who violates this section shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars ($500.00) or by imprisonment for a term not exceeding sixty (60) days or by both such fine and imprisonment; for a second or subsequent conviction of a violation of this section, such person shall be punished by a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) or imprisonment in the county jail for not more than twelve (12) months or by both such fine and imprisonment.

(d) Exceptions. A person residing within two thousand five hundred (2,500) feet of any school, designated public school bus stop, day care center, park, beach, playground (such as minipark and recreational open space), library, church, or other place where children regularly congregate does not commit a violation of this section if:
(1) The person resided at a prohibited location on the effective date of this chapter such that it is not the intent of this chapter to impair valid, existing and bona fide contract rights; provided however that the provisions of this chapter shall apply upon termination of any leasehold relationship arising from a landlord tenant relationship or the expiration of a lease. When a person who is subject to this chapter changes residences, this chapter shall fully apply to such persons.

(2) The school, designated public school bus stop, day care center, park, beach, playground (such as minipark and recreational open space), library, church, or other place where children regularly congregate within two thousand five hundred (2,500) feet of the person's permanent residence was opened after the person established the permanent residence.
(Ord. No. 2005-36, § 2, 10-18-05; Ord. No. 2006-16, § 1, 10-3-06)

Sec. 23-4. Property owners prohibited from renting real property to certain sexual offenders and sexual predators; penalties.
(a) It is unlawful to let or rent any place, structure, or part thereof, trailer, vessel or other conveyance, with the knowledge that it will be used as a permanent residence or temporary residence by any person prohibited from establishing such permanent residence or temporary residence pursuant to section 23-3 of this Code, if such place, structure, or part thereof, trailer, vessel or other conveyance, is located within two thousand five hundred (2,500) feet of any school, designated public school bus stop, day care center, park, beach, playground (such as minipark and recreational open space), library, church, or other place where children regularly congregate.

(b) A property owner's failure to comply with provisions of this section shall constitute a violation of this section and shall subject the property owner to the code enforcement provisions and procedures of the City of Ormond Beach Code of Ordinances that allow the city to seek relief as otherwise provided by law.
(Ord. No. 2005-36, § 2, 10-18-05)

"The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly." - Abraham Lincoln

Is Megan's Law Constitutional or Even Effective? (Oldie but a goodie)

Original Article


By Travis Dahle

Breaking Down Megan's Law from a Constitutional and Effectiveness Standpoint

By eliminating this law, we can also decrease the number of sex crimes committed by these individuals. It has been shown that once the notification laws are repealed, sex offenders are much less likely to commit another crime, than if they had to register with police, and their names were notified to the community (Winton, On-Line). The reason for this is simple, what can we do if we know that the person living next door to us is a sex offender? Are we going to lock our kids inside the house and never let them leave? Are we going to move? What if that new area has a registered sex offender as well, are we going to keep moving until there are no registered sex offenders around? If someone is going to commit a sex crime again, is the notification going to stop him or her? The answer to this is no. If someone is going to commit a crime, they will do it no matter what. They are already committing a crime, so what if the community has been notified. And like we have already shown, notification actually leads to an increase in recidivism rates.

So when we look at Mass Communication Law, privacy is beginning to become a bigger and bigger issue in America today. We need to protect that privacy as much as we can. We don't want to live in a society in which we have no privacy. This is the first step. We have begun to trample on the constitution, and our own rights by passing a law that doesn't make sense, and that fails to do what it was intended to do. If we take this step now, we can avoid that slippery slope that leads to a nation with no privacy.

Privacy is an interesting concept. All of us have a different idea of how much privacy we should have. However, no one can quite agree on an overall concept of what is private and what is not. Convicted criminals have a serious problem when it comes to their private lives. When applying for a job, there is always a question of whether or not they have committed a felony. Their private lives are no longer applied to our society, because they have broken the law. But how far should we go when dealing with former criminals? In the Victorian Era, those people who were found guilty of committing adultery were forced to wear a large red A across their chest, as a symbol that they have committed a horrible crime. We consider this kind of punishment to be cruel and unusual today, however in that time, it was felt by most that what they did was so horrible, that everyone should know about it. This is how many people feel about sex offenders. The people who helped push Megan's Law into effect believe that what that person did was so horrible that they should be punished, and that everyone who lives around them should know about it. Is this the same as the scarlet letter? I believe so.

When someone commits a crime, they are punished for it (hopefully). The saying of "you do the crime, you do the time" come to mind. However, for most criminals, once they have served their sentence, they are essentially free. There are exceptions of course. Some people convicted of certain crimes can't buy a gun, legally. Others have lost their right to vote in America. However, these restrictions are pretty standard for all criminals who have committed a certain level of a crime. Megan's Law goes a step further. Megan's Law singles out one single group, and adds on an additional punishment to them.

Before we get in too deep about whether or not Megan's Law is constitutional, we first need to look at the reasoning behind the establishment of such a law. Being a parent, I can understand why parents and parental groups would try to enact such a law. There are enough concerns out there for parents without having to worry about who your neighbors are. Parents want to know if the school that their kids go to is safe, that their communities are safe for them to play in, and that they can let their kids run around their yards. This is a genuine concern. Once news of something like an abduction takes place, people get worried, and want something done about it. Many people believe that Megan's Law is the answer to a lot of problems. The idea is that it will notify a parent, or a community when someone who has committed a sex crime moves into the neighborhood. This was believed to take care of the problems, and alleviate the worries of the parents and the community. But has it worked?

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has shown that notification laws are actually counter-productive. This goes against what the law originally intended. The ACLU states "Notification laws will not prevent sex offenders from committing crimes" (ACLU, On-line). They state that the publication of this information will only make ex-offenders more likely to re-offend. What is happening instead is that the sex offenders are actually being victimized. They even cite a couple of examples of this happening. In January of 1997, a California ex-offender's car was firebombed, and in New Jersey, community members beat a man that they believed was a paroled sex offender! People have even been fired at because their names were published (ACLU, On-Line). So instead of reducing crime, which was the intent of the bill, it has actually increased crime, not only the sex offenders, but also crimes against the sex offenders!

While the ACLU is obviously against this law, which may make them a biased source, others have also shown that only negative things are happening because of this law. According to Marshall Vogts (On-Line), the posting of sex offenders names can also lead to "Witch Hunts." According to the article, with the advent of the Internet, individuals' names will be available for all to see, not just those in the community where the sex offender moves. The intent of the law is to only let those people who are living close to the sex offender know about his movement into the community. However, people have started posting this information on the Internet. In some states, there is even a state supported site that has the published information of registered sex offenders. Therefore, anyone who wants this information can get access to it. This can lead to a witch-hunt of a sex offender by upset parents, younger students, etc (Vogts, On-Line). This again shows how the law has backfired against itself.
- And it gives rise to vigilante groups like Perverted-Justice and Absolute Zero United, to name a couple, you can see more online vigilantes here, and this YouTube channel.

So far, we have only looked at what the law's intent was, and what its effect has been, but what has this law have anything to do with Mass Communication Law? When looking at mass comm. law, one of the areas is that of privacy. Newspapers, television stations, and others have been sued because they breached someone's privacy. If an Internet site, or a newspaper publishes a sex offender's name, they are destroying that person's right to privacy. That is the area that we are going to look at next, the violations not only against the individual, but also of the constitution itself.

Megan's law not only tramples on individuals right to privacy, but it also tramples on the Constitution (ACLU, On-Line). The ACLU makes a very good point when we deal with this topic. When we look at privacy, all of us have some expectation of privacy. All of us feel that we shouldn't be subjected to what we believe is a violation of our privacy. Unfortunately, people convicted of sex crimes do not get to appreciate that same level of privacy. We have stripped away a right that has been upheld by the Supreme Court. What is interesting about this topic, and the reason as to why I feel so strongly about this issue is that no other criminal is subjected to such double-punishment. When talking about this subject with one of my students, they were surprised that I was against this law. They asked "Don't you want to know if a sex offender is living next to you?" Of course I said "Yes, but I would also like to know if there is a killer living next to me as well." That is my point; we don't make any other criminal go through anything remotely close to this law. If someone has been convicted of murder, and is paroled, or even let out of prison, they are not required by law to register with police, or notify a community when they move in. They have served their sentence, and should be able to move on with their lives. I would like to know if they moved in next door to me, so I could protect myself. The problem is, is that it should not happen. However, this is what we do with sex offenders. They have served their sentence, many of them have been rehabilitated (hopefully all of them), and they should be able to go on with their lives. Unfortunately, registration and notification won't let them do that either.

According to Mark Vosburgh (On-Line), notification laws also prevent sex offenders from going back into the community, and circulating with society. They are less likely to get jobs, and their home lives are ruined, or at the least, made extremely difficult. The reason is that they are stigmatized by the community for what they did. Even if it was only once, they are rehabilitated, and they are shown to never do any crime again. So once again, the registration and notification laws have been shown to have a negative effect.

So far, we have looked at the effect of notification laws; that they create a stigmatized individual, that it creates more crime than it prevents, and that it tramples on the constitution and the right of privacy. So what can we do? Finally, we will look at what could and should happen if we eliminate the notification laws.

By eliminating the notification laws, we can reduce crime, and allow convicted sex offenders to assimilate into our society at a much quicker rate (NAC, 6B). While there are a good number of parental groups that would be worried if we eliminated the notification laws, it is something that needs to be done in order to protect the right of privacy for all of us. This is a slippery-slope argument that is used by numerous groups including the National Rifle Association, the ACLU and others. Once we start to take away some of the rights guaranteed to us by the constitution, it can lead to even more rights being taken away. So we need to take a close look at this law, and see that it does need to be repealed.

"The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly." - Abraham Lincoln

IA - Panel moving to close loophole in sex offender residence law (Since when did passing unconstitutional ex post facto laws become a "loophole?")

Original Article



Iowa Senate committee approves removing out-of-state exemption in 2,000-foot rule after TH investigated the issue.

An Iowa Senate committee approved a bill Wednesday that would close a legal loophole allowing sex offenders who were convicted out of state to live next to schools and day care centers.
- You see, they word it differently than what the law is actually about. This law, is an ex post facto law, which the Iowa and US constitutions forbid. And these politicians took an "oath of office" to defend the constitution, which they clearly are not doing!

The Telegraph Herald investigated the issue last month, finding that a man convicted in Florida of first-degree rape with a victim younger than 13 years old lived across the street from Prescott Elementary School.

Last year, lawmakers reformed the state's sex offender laws, applying the 2,000-foot residency requirement to offenders convicted only of the most serious crimes and adding tougher restrictions on where sex offenders can go during the day. Because of an oversight in the law, sex offenders convicted out of state do not have to abide by the 2,000-foot rule, even though they must continue to register with authorities. A bill to fix the loophole passed out of committee Wednesday and will go to the floor for debate.

"We're trying to make it as retroactive as we can," said state Sen. Keith Kreiman (Email), D-Bloomfield, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. "It's going to make sure that people who were on the registry, before we passed the bill last year, continue to be subject to those laws."
- Here it is, this Senator, who took an oath of office to defend the constitution, is clearly stating he wants it ex post facto, which is a retroactive law, and a direct violation of his oath of office and the constitution.  These types of idiots, who lied to get into office, should be fired! 

Lawmakers took up the issue last year after law enforcement complained that all-encompassing residency requirements gave sex offenders few options for legal housing. As a result, many offenders dodged the registry, forcing authorities to spend time tracking them down. After the law took effect in July, local law enforcement said the compliance rates have increased.

"Our overall goal is to make sure our neighborhoods are safe," said Sen. Pam Jochum (Email), D-Iowa, who worked with Kreiman on the legislation. "The way the law was designed before, (sex offenders) were going underground, they weren't reporting, (authorities) weren't sure where they were living. The real thrust of this legislation is that it's not as important where they sleep, it's more important what they're doing during their waking hours."
- So how is passing an unconstitutional ex post facto law going to "keep neighborhoods safe," and so you can "know where they are?"  If the laws are so strict that people cannot get a job or home, it's obvious they are going to stop registering.

Jochum said the story reported in the Telegraph Herald brought the glitch to lawmakers' attention, spurring them to propose the change in a bill that also addresses other issues.

The proposal also would take the heat off schools and libraries who try to enforce the ban on sex offenders loitering within 300 feet of the building without a good reason or prior approval. Establishments that try to enforce the rule could not be sued for making a "good faith effort."

The reform bill passed last year with all but three votes in the House, despite fears expressed by some lawmakers that they would appear weak on crime. Those who voted against the measure said they favored the residency restrictions applying to a wider range of offenders, and criticized the timing -- the bill was unveiled about a week before the end of the session.
- This is why politicians continue to pass unconstitutional laws, they do not have the balls to stand up for what is right and defend their oath of office, so they take the easy way out!

"The cooperation on this bill has been exceptional, really bipartisan," Kreiman said. "I'm really hopeful that this won't be contentious and we won't back-track."

"The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly." - Abraham Lincoln

FL - So, why didn't the residency restrictions or registry prevent this? It won't and never will!

Original Article

Just like I have said for years now, the sex offender laws are about punishment, and making politicians look like they are actually doing something, so they can get votes and appear to be doing something, all the while, the laws do nothing to prevent a crime, nor protect anybody, but the sheeple will continue to believe they are safer due to the residency restrictions and registry. So, why did the residency restrictions and registry not prevent this man from committing another crime then? It will never prevent anything! But you continue to believe you are living in Wonderland where all is wonderful and safe!


By Jerome Burdi

Delray Beach police arrested _____ on Thursday after he allegedly jumped out of his van in nothing but a baseball cap and exposed himself in front of two teenage sisters.

_____, 53, who lives west of Delray Beach, was charged with lewd and lascivious behavior and exposure of sexual organs.

He's a sex offender out of New York state and has been charged with sex crimes for over 30 years, according to Delray Beach police spokesman Jeff Messer.

According to police:

_____ pulled up to the two girls in his blue van about 6 p.m. and jumped out in the 1100 block of Miami Boulevard. He was naked and faced the two teens from about 30 feet away, according to police.

One of the victims called their mother. As _____ drove by the victims' home, her parents confronted him.

"You exposed yourself to my daughters," one of the parents said. But _____ sped away.

"The victims and their parents gave [police] a very accurate and detailed description of the vehicle _____ was driving," Messer said. "Officers from Delray Beach followed up on this information and found _____ at his home."

Police think there are other incidents in which _____ has driven through neighborhoods acting suspicious. He drives a late-model blue Chevrolet van with New York tag _____.

Police ask anyone who has seen the van or _____ acting inappropriately to call Detective John Young at 561-243-7826; the police anonymous tips line at 561-243-7839; or Crime Stoppers, 800-458-8477.

"The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly." - Abraham Lincoln

OK - Sex offenders face housing limits in Oklahoma

Original Article

This is proof these sex offender laws are not about rehabilitation, prevention and education! It's all about punishment and keeping the money making prison system raking in the dough!



Budget restraints have officials at the state Corrections Department considering eliminating the agency’s prison sex offender treatment program.

Department spokesman Jerry Massie said this means community-based treatment will be needed more than ever to keep sex offenders from committing more crimes.

"Treatment should be in the community, because that’s where they pose the biggest risk,” Massie said.
- What the hell is this?  Treatment should be in prison, before they get out into the community.  This is like making a drunk go to an alcohol store for therapy, because that is where their crime occurred.  Yeah, doesn't make much sense.

The prison program only has slots for 55 sex offenders, but there are more than 450 offenders incarcerated, The Oklahoman reported in July.
- Sounds like you need to be pushing the tax payers for more money to treat offenders in prison then, not reduce treatment, that is just absurd!

Statewide there are more than 5,000 registered sex offenders, but only 1,700 are on supervised probation who may require treatment.

Nowhere to go
Donna K. Thompson, director of prison ministry for the Oklahoma Baptist State Convention, said there is already a shortfall in community-based programs for sex offenders. And the restrictions on where they can live force many of them underground or to be homeless, she said.
- And so we lock people up for years, do not give them treatment, and when they get out, we make them jobless and homeless, and then expect them to pay for treatment?  We all know that is just insane.  They will not be able to afford it, and will wind up back in jail/prison, which, I believe, is the ultimate goal in the first place, but, in the meantime, we are wasting tons of tax payer dollars.

"It’s falling on the churches and the community more and more to find places for sex offenders to stay and help to keep them from re-offending,” Thompson said. "But even we are hitting brick walls in trying to help.”
- It's because of the very laws the legislature are passing.  Repeal the laws, and put the registry offline and used by police only, then most of the problem is solved.  But, that is common sense, which we have little of in politics.

Thompson said many times the only housing they can find for a registered sex offender is in a motel, because the clerks don’t ask about criminal history. She said more organizations need to be allowed to house sex offenders released from prison so they can transition back into society.
- The laws make transitioning back into society impossible!

Hand Up in Oklahoma City houses 152 registered sex offenders and is the only transitional program of its kind that allows registered sex offenders to live under the same roof. The nonprofit organization was grandfathered before the 2006 state law prohibiting it.
- Wow, they grandfather stuff like this, but they continue to pass unconstitutional ex post facto laws and punish sex offenders after the fact.  What a screwed up injustice system we have!

Hand Up office manager James Womack said its residents have to pay $25 to $35 a week for counseling when many of them can’t get jobs because of the accompanying stigma of being a sex offender.
- So when you are jobless and homeless, how do you expect someone to pay this?  This may not seem like a lot, but when you are broke, it's a lot.

"The state requires they go to counseling, but no one is willing to pick up the tab,” Womack said. "They’ve already put so many restrictions on sex offenders it makes it impossible for them to re-establish themselves.”
- If the state requires counseling, then the state and tax payers should be paying for that.  If we put them in prison, do not give them treatment, then let them out years later and expect them to pay for it, you can bet they won't be able to, and thus the legislature is putting more people in potential danger.

Individual cottages
To get around the 2006 state law, Lincoln County resident Tom Wright is building individual cottages for his ministry that provides room and board for sex offenders in exchange for carpentry work. He has eight sex offenders living on his property three miles north of Chandler.

Earlier this month, authorities told Wright he was violating state laws by allowing the men to live under the same roof, and not providing counseling. Neighbors complained to the district attorney after learning Wright was sheltering sex offenders.
- Yeah, the state doesn't want sex offenders to succeed, they want them to fail, so the prison system (money maker) continues to rake in the dough.  And when it doesn't involve sex offenders, what other group do you force to give people treatment?  None!  What about all the homeless drug addicts who are living in homeless shelters?  Are you forcing those shelters to give the drug addicts drug counseling?  No, why not?

District Attorney Richard Smothermon said law enforcement has inspected Wright’s property and he is getting it into compliance. He said they’re being careful not to create a situation where the men living with Wright are left homeless and without supervision.

Holly Chandler is one of 19 professionals who contract with the state to operate sex offender treatment programs in Oklahoma. She has sessions in 23 cities, most of which the public has no idea go on.

Chandler said she has to have sessions at night and rent space from landlords willing to respect her need for a low profile.

That’s because instead of being seen as a public safety service, she’s often treated worse than an offender, Chandler said.
- Treated worse than an offender?  I doubt that very much!

"I’ve had windows broken and death threats on my answering machine,” Chandler said. "People don’t understand that if they’re in treatment, we can keep an eye on them. Instead, they’d rather run them and me into hiding.”
- Well, when the media and politicians continue their fear-mongering campaigns, spreading lies and disinformation, this is what you get, a scared and uninformed public!

Chandler said programs for sex offenders last two to three years and include polygraph tests every six months and intense counseling. Many of her clients voluntarily continue counseling for years after they’ve completed the program, she said.

"The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly." - Abraham Lincoln

CA - Former BPD Detective (Christopher Bowersox) facing child pornography charges

Original Article
Related Article
Click here to read the criminal complaint


Bakersfield - A veteran former officer with the Bakersfield Police Department is facing federal child pornography charges. Thirty-eight year-old Christopher Bowersox was taken into custody by the FBI Friday morning .

Bowersox allegedly was in possession of child pornography on his home computer according to court documents obtained by Eyewitness News.

The case was discovered when police in Tampa, Florida arrested _____ in September of 2009 for possession of child pornography during an undercover investigation.

_____ told law enforcement officers he used an Internet file sharing program called "Gigatribe" to obtain child pornography. A computer forensic review of _____'s computer revealed that he had communicated via Yahoo! messenger with several others, including one user whose screen name was "cbowersox" according to the documents.

Investigators say that screen name was registered to Christopher K. Bowersox of Bakersfield and the account was currently active.

Further review found conversations between the screen names cbowersox and zdasher18. The conversations contained multiple references to the raping, injuring and killing of children.

At one point, the two discuss a way to have sex with a child. Screen name zdasher18 writes, "I know it can't happen here, it's got to be somewhere else with a bought kid or something. We'd definitely get caught if we did it here."

To which cbowersox responds, "Cambodia...Thailand....Mexico....deep deep Mexico".

The pair also talk about committing murder/suicide if they should be discovered by law enforcement. The documents say detectives found a folder in Bowersox' computer which appeared to be surveillance photographs of students at Bakersfield High School.

In an interview with police, Bowersox reluctantly described the fantasies as things between men and boys and violence between men and boys.

The court documents state that Bowersox acknowledged the conversations and stated that the communication was all fantasy and that he never carried out any of the described actions.

Bowersox resigned from his position as a Police Detective earlier this week. A detention hearing will be held within ten days to determine bail and whether he should remain out of custody.

Video Link

Video Link

"The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly." - Abraham Lincoln