Wednesday, April 4, 2012


Original Article

In this case we determine the constitutionality of R.C. 2152.86, which creates a new class of juvenile sex-offender registrants: public-registry-qualified juvenile-offender registrants. These offenders are automatically subject to mandatory, lifetime sex-offender registration and notification requirements, including notification on the Internet. We hold that to the extent that it imposes such requirements on juvenile offenders tried within the juvenile system, R.C. 2152.86 violates the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment contained in the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 9, and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 16.

leagle, LawSuit, ohio

This item is posted automatically via IFTTT when new items are added to Diigo

AZ - Facebook Addiction Leads To Ten Years In Prison For Arizona Sex Offender

Original Article


By Kashmir Hill

Back in October 2010, [name withheld] was convicted of “attempted sexual exploitation of a minor” and “surreptitious photographing.” His sentence seems on the surface fairly light: 10 years of probation and having his name and photo added to the sex offender registry. But one of the conditions of his probation was that he “refrain from using or possessing computer equipment or accessing the Internet without prior written approval” from his probation officer. This is an increasingly common punishment for sex offenders, trying to keep them off the Internet where we fear they will continue seeking out “prey.” This condition was particular tough for [name withheld], though, because of his job: he’s a Web designer.
- Well your own personal fear and reality do not jive.  Some people will get online and look for other people to harm, but not all offenders will, and by passing a law that affects all offenders instead of a one-on-one basis, then it's unconstitutional.  That is like forcing all drug offenders from visiting stores because a few have visited stores to get stuff to make meth.

His probation officer let him get a laptop, but loaded it up with spyware so that he could monitor [name withheld]’s activity. And as part of his probation, [name withheld] agreed, that he would “not use an electronic bulletin board system, Internet relay chat channel, DCC chat channel, instant messaging, newsgroup, user group, peer to peer (e.g.Napster, Gnutella, Freenet, etc).” (What about Facebook? Based on the language and site examples, it’s obvious that these probation guidelines are a bit dated.)

A couple of months later, when the probation officer checked out [name withheld]’s activity on his laptop, he discovered he was in fact visiting Facebook and MySpace, so the probation officer blocked those sites on the laptop. [name withheld] did not stop, though, and allegedly began going to Facebook and MySpace using the desktop computer that he had not in fact gotten rid of.

It’s pretty hard to work up a lot of sympathy for sex offenders (though journalists have successfully done so at times, such as the Details writer who interviewed sex offenders in Miami a few years back who were not allowed to leave the city, but also not allowed to live anywhere in the city due to restrictions on being close to schools and playgrounds, forcing them to hunker down en masse under a bridge like trolls). Some have criticized heavy Internet restrictions for sex offenders, given the centrality of the Internet and social networking sites in our day-to-day lives. Telling them they can’t use the Internet thus exiles them to a kind of digital no-man’s land, as challenging a place to be as under a bridge in Florida. (In Louisiana, a judge ruled recently that it’s unconstitutional to ban sex offenders from using social networking sites.)

[name withheld] told his probation officer that he routinely used Facebook as “a successful part of his marketing strategy” for his web-design business. [name withheld] claims that his probation officer did not alert him that Facebook was one of those “electronic bulletin boards” that he shouldn’t be visiting, and that he didn’t realize Facebook and MySpace were off-limits since they weren’t listed as prohibited sites.

When [name withheld] suddenly moved to a new residence without alerting his probation officer, the officer tracked him down and discovered he still had the desktop computer and was still going on Facebook and MySpace after they had been blocked on his desktop. The officer filed a notice with the court that [name withheld] had violated the terms of his probation. The court agreed and revoked [name withheld]’s probation, so that the 10-year probation became a 10-year prison sentence. Ouch.

[name withheld] appealed the decision, but an Arizona appeals court ruled last month that [name withheld] should have realized that his continuing visits to Facebook violated the ban on using “electronic bulletin board systems,” even if social networking sites were not specifically listed there. The court rejected “[name withheld]’s argument that ‘Facebook’ was not a listed example,” because “the list of examples ends with ‘et cetera.’

It sounds like [name withheld] is going to prison for 10 years, in part because of attempted molestation and secret photo-taking, but also because he was addicted to Facebook. The decision includes this testimony from [name withheld]’s probation officer:

Q: So you were monitoring [name withheld] after you told him no social networking, you specifically blocked Facebook and MySpace.

OFFICER: Correct.

Q: Then you monitored-then you were watching what he was doing. You saw that he
was trying to access other social networks, and then you blocked those sites?

OFFICER: Correct.

Q: And then he-was he trying continually to try to get [to] the social
networking sites and [you] kept on blocking them?


“Potentially being banned from Facebook for life” is just one more addition to the long list of reasons not to molest — or to attempt to molest — children.

See Also:

WV - Pocahontas sheriff's deputy (Bradley C. Totten) charged with 12 sex crimes

Original Article


A longtime Pocahontas County sheriff's deputy has been charged with 12 sex crimes against four girls under the age of 16 and one woman while in police custody, State Police said Wednesday.

Sgt. Michael Baylous said a grand jury returned the indictment against Deputy Bradley C. Totten of Hillsboro on Tuesday after a lengthy investigation by State Police and the FBI in Clarksburg.

Totten, 40, was a deputy for more than 10 years, Baylous said.

A woman who answered the phone at the sheriff's department Wednesday said he is no longer employed there but declined further comment.

Totten is charged with one count each of first-degree sexual abuse, second-degree sexual assault and attempted first-degree sexual abuse. He's also charged with three counts of third-degree sexual assault and six counts of sexual abuse by a parent guardian or custodian.

The indictment says the crimes, including oral sex and intercourse, date to May 1999. The most recent cited was from April 2010. The indictment does not say where most of the alleged assaults occurred, but it says the adult victim, identified only by initials, was incarcerated at the time.

State Police are also urging any other potential victims to contact law enforcement. Baylous said the investigation is continuing and more charges may be filed.

Fayette County Assistant Prosecutor Brian Parsons will serve as special prosecutor in the case, but he also declined comment, citing professional rules of conduct.

Totten, who has not yet been arraigned, didn't immediately return a telephone message left at his home.

UK - Former police worker (Nicholas White) jailed for 110,000 child sex images

Nicholas White
Original Article


A former police worker has been jailed for six months for downloading more than 110,000 child sex abuse images.

Nicholas White’s depraved collection included level five images of child abuse, the most serious category, some of which pictured children being forced into sex acts with animals.

The 28-year-old, who had been a communications officer at Cambridgeshire Police until he resigned following his arrest last year, also had a guide on how to abuse children on his computer.

He admitted 18 counts of making indecent images of children, two counts of possession of indecent images of children and two counts of possessing extreme pornography at Cambridge Crown Court today.

The court heard police knocked on the door of White’s home in Old North Road, Royston, in February last year and he immediately admitted downloading the images.

They searched his computer and an external drive and found 110,000 images of child sex abuse.

Alexander Taylor-Camara, mitigating, said White, a martial arts fan, was an isolated figure after a series of bad relationships, which he said “explained but did not excuse” his behaviour.

White also worked for the Association of Chief Police Officers before his arrest.

Mr Justice Saunders, sentencing White, said: “Children are exploited in the way they are exploited because people like you download these images."

White was jailed for six months, disqualified from working with children indefinitely and made subject of a sexual offences prevention order for seven years.

He must also sign the sex offenders’ register and is banned from using the internet, apart from for business.


Original Article

In August 2009, the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (Agency) filed a petition in the juvenile court under section 300, subdivision (b), alleging two-month-old A.R. was at substantial risk of harm because Renee had a violent confrontation with a roommate, she used drugs, and she left A.R. with Kevin, who was a registered sex offender. Kevin was listed as A.R.'s father, and Peter was listed as T.A.'s father. At a detention hearing, the court found, in Peter's absence, that Peter was A.R.'s presumed father by marriage under Family Code section 7611, subdivision (a). When genetic tests showed Kevin was A.R.'s biological father, the court entered a judgment of paternity on his behalf. Although Agency knew Peter's address, it did not send him notice of the proceedings.

leagle, LawSuit, california

This item is posted automatically via IFTTT when new items are added to Diigo


Original Article

Joyner, pro se, filed a notice of appeal from the trial court's denial of his application for writ of habeas corpus. In his application, Joyner claimed he was being illegally restrained on charges of failure to comply with sex offender registration requirements. After the filing of the notice of appeal in this case, Joyner was tried and convicted of theft in trial court cause number 1278852, which is appeal number 14-11-00807-CR in our court. An appellate court may take judicial notice of its own records in a related proceeding involving the same or nearly the same parties. See Turner v. State, 733 S.W.2d 218, 221-22 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987), and Goodson v. State, 221 S.W.3d 303, 304, n. 2 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2007, no pet.). In both this appeal and 14-11-00807-CR, the appellant is named Joyner, was born on the same date, and has the same SPN number. The appellant in both cases was convicted of the same four prior offenses. Also, the appellant has filed pro se motions that have both appellate numbers on the motion. We therefore conclude Joyner is the appellant in appeal number 14-11-00807-CR and take judicial notice of our record in that appeal.

leagle, LawSuit, texas

This item is posted automatically via IFTTT when new items are added to Diigo