Saturday, January 4, 2014

NE - Ex-inmate sues State of Nebraska for $150K over sex assault by prison guard Anthony J. Hansen

Anthony J. Hansen
Anthony J. Hansen
Original Article

01/04/2014

By Todd Cooper

A former prisoner has sued the State of Nebraska after a prison guard sexually assaulted him.

Among the allegations, the ex-prisoner — a 31-year-old Douglas County man — said prison officials repeatedly doubted his story that a guard had sexually assaulted him.

Then he produced something to prove it: a napkin containing the guard's “bodily fluids.”

That resulted in the sexual assault conviction of Anthony J. Hansen, 29, a former Omaha Correctional Center guard.

It also resulted in the lawsuit against the state.

According to the prisoner's lawsuit, filed last month, and court records in Douglas County:

In December 2011, the prisoner was sent to the Omaha Correctional Center in east Omaha after his theft conviction.

Hansen immediately approached the prisoner, who had served prison time under him before.

Hansen told the man that if he “did not comply with his sexual requests, Hansen would cause plaintiff to lose good time or be placed in disciplinary segregation,” Omaha attorney Julie Jorgensen wrote in the lawsuit. “Based on previous encounters . . . plaintiff took the conversation as a threat to his future release.”

On Dec. 10, 2011, Hansen approached the prisoner in the cafeteria “with the proposition to meet in the chapel to engage in sexual activity.”

Hansen later approached the prisoner and told him there were cameras in the chapel and they should meet in the commons area.

The prisoner tried to avoid Hansen, but Hansen continued to talk about having sex and continued to make comments about the prisoner's parole date.


NJ - Public Knowledge and Use of Sexual Offender Internet Registries: Results From a Random Digit Dialing Telephone Survey

Telephone survey
Original Article

12/24/2013

Douglas J. Boyle, JD, PhD Douglas.Boyle@Rutgers.edu
Laura M. Ragusa-Salerno, MA
Andrea Fleisch Marcus, MPH
Marian R. Passannante, PhD
Susan Furrer, PsyD

Abstract:
The present study examines public knowledge and use of a sexual offender Internet registry in New Jersey. A 20-item random digit dial telephone survey of 1,016 New Jersey residents was completed to determine public awareness and use of the New Jersey Sex Offender Internet Registry (NJSOIR). Approximately 51% of respondents reported knowledge of the NJSOIR, while 17% had accessed the site. Of those who accessed the site, 68% took some preventive measure based on the information they obtained. Logistic regression analyses demonstrate that ethnicity, education, and Internet access were associated with residents’ knowledge of the NJSOIR, while sex, race, education, being the parent/caregiver of a child below 18 years of age, and access to the Internet were associated with respondents’ likelihood to visit the registry website. These results suggest that an intervention that will increase public awareness of sex offender registries and provide specific preventive measures the public can take is needed.

See Also:


Compliance Check

User story
The following was sent to us via the CONTACT form and posted with the users permission.

By K:
I just had my first compliance check in the 3 years that I've lived at my current residence. It was done by the county sheriff's office and was not affiliated with the US Marshalls nor the state registering authority (state police). I politely verified and provided all information that I knew was already on file (name, ssn, etc.). The officer then asked me who I was living with which I had never been asked to disclose during registration and knew it was not a requirement in the registration statute. I politely told him that by law I was not required to provide that information. He then said if I did not answer his question he would record me and non-compliant. I reiterated that I was not required to tell him who I was living with. He then made a note saying I was not being cooperative, checked me off as non-compliant, and told me someone would be coming back to verify the information I refused to disclose to him. I said that is fine and he left.

I am assuming that his non-cooperative and non-compliant notation as well as threatening to come back were just scare tactics. After all, if I was required to disclose that information and refused to he would have been able to arrest me on the spot.