MA - Templeton approves sex offender residency restrictions

Original Article

07/11/2014

By George Barnes

TEMPLETON - Voters at a special town meeting Thursday night approved a bylaw establishing sex offender residency restrictions.

The restrictions, proposed by resident Rachael Messina, were overwhelmingly approved after Police Chief Michael Bennett and Selectman Kenn Robinson both spoke in favor of the bylaw.

Chief Bennett said there are many communities across the state that have adopted residency restrictions for sex offenders. Among the communities in Worcester County with restrictions are Leominster, Bolton, Charlton, Dudley, Spencer, Webster and West Boylston.

Templeton has three Level 3 and 13 Level 2 sex offenders in town. The regulations would not affect them unless they change their residence.

The bylaw prohibits a Level 2 or 3 sex offender from establishing a permanent or temporary residence within 1,000 feet of property of public or private schools, parks, elderly housing, an over-55 community, senior citizens center or licensed day care center.

To enforce the bylaw, police may file criminal or noncriminal complaints, but in both cases the fine is $300 for each offense.

Ms. Messina said she filed for the bylaw out of concern that sex offenders posed a risk to residents of the town. It is the second time the town has approved a sex offender residency bylaw. A similar law was approved by the town in May 2013 but disallowed by the state Attorney General's office in October. The reasons given for rejecting the bylaw were it was too vague, did not sufficiently specify prohibited conduct and did not include some terms in the definitions section of the bylaw.

Ms Messina said that in the hope of winning approval this time, she drew up a new bylaw based on similar documents in other communities.

MA - SJC ends lifetime parole supervision for sex offenders

Original Article

06/11/2014

By Maria Cramer and John R. Ellement

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled Wednesday that it is unconstitutional for sex offenders who have completed their sentences to be subject to lifetime supervision by the state’s Parole Board, declaring that only judges have the authority to order additional jail time for criminal violations.

The 6-1 decision ordered an end to the state Parole Board’s oversight of an estimated 300 sex offenders — oversight that allowed the board to impose jail sentences for parole violations — in a ruling that many lawyers declared a victory for due process. But victims’ rights advocates and a state prosecutor said they fear the decision removes a critical safeguard.

“The effect this case has is to remove that automatic hammer on offenders who refuse to confine their actions to the requirements of the law, thereby decreasing their incentive to improve themselves and become law-abiding members of society,” Plymouth District Attorney Timothy J. Cruz said in a statement. “I am disappointed with the loss of this public safety tool that was intended to protect vulnerable people and children.”

The court said the 1999 state law that created “community parole supervision for life’’ for some sex offenders unconstitutionally granted sentencing powers to the Parole Board, which is part of the executive branch of the state government, violating the separation of government powers. An offender sentenced to lifetime parole could be sent to jail for violating the terms set forth by the Parole Board, even after the offender’s original sentence is completed.

Lifetime parole “constitutes an impermissible delegation to the executive branch of the core judicial function of imposing sentences,” Justice Ralph D. Gants wrote for the majority. “A judicially imposed sentence is final and may not be modified by another branch.’’

Laura M. Banwarth, a Plymouth lawyer who argued that the law was unconstitutional, said the court had no choice but to strike it down.

She noted that the SJC ruling instructs the offenders who are affected to file a motion with the courts; a prosecutor then may ask a judge to impose a new sentence. Judges have the discretion to put an offender on probation for months, years, or the rest of his of her life.

“The SJC didn’t make any new laws today,” Banwarth said. “They didn’t give any new rights to sex offenders. They just looked at the Constitution and reached the only result that they could, that sentences can only be handed down by judges.”

Supporters of the law said that it provided for strict oversight over dangerous criminals. Many of those sentenced to lifetime supervision were sometimes ordered to wear GPS devices and clear many activities, from going to the movies to buying a cellphone, with their parole officers.

But the vast majority of the 275 to 300 sex offenders currently under Parole Board lifetime oversight came under the panel’s supervision because they failed to register as a sex offender after being released from incarceration, not because they had committed another sex crime, according to those familiar with the process.

The lifetime supervision could be onerous for offenders trying to get their lives on track after being released, said Eric Tennen, an attorney who often represents sex offenders.

“It was horribly restrictive and just totally ineffective helping persons reintegrate into society,” Tennen said. Offenders on lifetime supervision could be incarcerated for 30 days for their first violation of their parole conditions, 180 days for a second violation, and one year for a third violation.

The violations could be as minor as getting caught with alcohol or leaving the state without notifying a parole officer.

The SJC ruling was made in the case of _____, a Level 2 sex offender who was placed on parole for life after he failed to tell police he had moved from West Bridgewater to Taunton.

He challenged the sentence, his lawyers arguing that it was unconstitutional under the doctrine of separation of government powers.

Cruz and Toni Troop, spokeswoman for Jane Doe Inc., a statewide coalition that advocates for the rights of victims of rape and domestic violence, urged the Legislature to pass an alternative law that would allow continued monitoring for sex offenders.

“Lifetime parole and supervision . . . has been a cutting-edge and critical tool in sex offender management and community safety,” Troop said.

State Senator Bruce Tarr, a Gloucester Republican, said that the Legislature would have to act fast to come up with legislation that passes constitutional muster. The legislative session is scheduled to end July 31.

“There is no question that we need to act here, because the court has taken away a serious tool for public safety,” Tarr said.

But Suffolk University Law School associate professor Chris Dearborn said the court’s decision will not create a threat to public safety. Offenders must still register with the Sex Offender Registry Board or face criminal prosecution.

“I don’t think there should be any mass hysteria that 300 really dangerous deviant people are going to go out and commit a lot of heinous acts,’’ Dearborn said.

In his dissent, Justice Robert Cordy wrote that while the law was flawed, lifetime supervision should be allowed.

“A [community parole supervision for life] sentence serves an important and central monitoring purpose, facilitating public safety by permitting and requiring intensive supervision of the sex offender population,” Cordy wrote.

MA - Retroactive Application of Sex Offender Law Rejected

Original Article

04/01/2014

By Amaris Elliott-Engel

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has declared unconstitutional the retroactive application of the state's amended sex offender registration law. The ruling came in a proposed class action brought by all level-two sex offenders in Massachusetts (Moe v. Sex Offender Registry Board).

State law was amended July 12, 2013, to require the Massachusetts Sex Offender Registry Board to publish in its registry information about defendants given a level-two or level-three classification. Previously, the board was barred from publishing on-line information about level-two offenders—those deemed at moderate risk of reoffending. While legislators intended the change to the registration regime to apply retroactively, the state’s court of last resort said that would violate due process under the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.
- And if it's unconstitutional for Level 2 & 3, so is it for Level 1's as well.

“The practical consequence of the recent amendments is that offenders whose degree of dangerousness, according to SORB, was not so substantial that Internet publication of their information was needed to protect the public safety would now be subject to Internet publication of their registry information,” the court said.

“And further, those offenders who did not challenge their level-two classification … because they specifically relied on their accurate understanding that a level-two classification did not carry the consequence of Internet publication of their registry information, would now be subject to exactly that.”

The court remanded the case for an entry of an order certifying the class and permanently enjoining the board from publishing information about any offender finally classified as a level-two sex offender on or before July 12, 2013.

“Of the 11,171 sex offenders registered with SORB as of July 12, 2013, registry information is currently available on the Internet only for the 2,422 level-three offenders, a group that comprises approximately 21.7 per cent of registered sex offenders,” the court said. “Were the recent amendments to become effective, the number of offenders whose registry information is publicly available would rise to 8,496, approximately 76.1 per cent of the sex offenders registered with SORB.”

MA - Limiting where sex offenders live in Mansfield

Ronald Sellon

Original Article

03/27/2014

By Susan Parkou Weinstein

Police Chief Ronald Sellon has submitted a Town Meeting article that would restrict where the more serious sex offenders could live in Mansfield.
- We are willing to bet he will be running for congress or similar office soon.

Sellon said the sex offender registration and residential safety zone would bar Level 2 and 3 sex offenders from living within a 1,000-foot buffer of places such as schools, daycare centers and playgrounds and better protect children, developmentally disabled adults and other vulnerable members of the local population.

"This is an effort to further safeguard people in the community," he told selectmen Wednesday night.

There are three Level 3 and 25 Level 2 sex offenders living or working in town who have registered with police as required by law. They must register every year and the information is public. But there are no restrictions barring them from living close to a school and similar locations unless there is a provision in their probation or parole, Sellon said.

Police have been checking the compliance status of the local registered Level 2 and 3 offenders and found one Level 2 not in compliance this week. That number may change in the coming weeks, Sellon said.

According to the state sex offender registry board, Level 1 sex offenders are the least likely to reoffend and do not pose enough danger to be named publicly.

Level 2 and Level 3 offenders are considered at moderate risk and high risk to reoffend, respectively.

A dozen cities and towns in the state have adopted the stricter laws.

Sellon said he was also looking into joining a regional team to locate sex offenders and take more aggressive steps to document their whereabouts.

Selectmen said they would support the article.

"This sounds like a great idea to me," Selectman Doug Annino said.

MA - SJC ruling keeps 6,000 Level 2 sex offenders off state web registry

Original Article

The entire registry should be offline and used by police only! It doesn't prevent crime nor protect anybody, it's nothing more than a glorified phone book for vigilantes.

03/26/2014

By Laurel J. Sweet

Thousands of Level 2 sex offenders will remain hidden from the state web registry of predators, thanks to a ruling today by the Supreme Judicial Court that found only criminals who were classified after a July 2013 law should be listed (Case Info).
- Not all those who wear the "sex offender" label and are on the online hit-list are predators!

“While we recognize that the Legislature enacted these amendments in the belief that Internet access to the registry information of level two offenders would reduce the number of new sex crimes committed by these offenders by enabling individuals to identify them as sex offenders and take cautionary steps to protect themselves and those under their care, there is no evidence in the record to indicate that any sex crime has been prevented, or that the incidence of sex crimes or sex offender recidivism has decreased by such publication,” Supreme Judicial Court justices wrote in their opinion.

The law, signed by Gov. Deval Patrick in 2013, would have put all 6,000 Level 2 offenders on the Sex Offender Registry board’s web site alongside Level 3 convicts — those deemed most likely to reoffend. Under the SJC’s ruling, those offenders cannot be grandfathered in, and only new offenders will be listed.

“Nothing in this order affects the ability of SORB to publish on the Internet the registry information of any individual who was given a final classification as a level two sex offender after July 12, 2013,” the court said, ruling in favor of public defenders who sued last year to temporarily enjoin those names from being published.

The state has made available to the public online the names, home and work addresses and sex-crime convictions of Level 3 offenders since 2003.

“When SORB gave a sex offender a level two classification after the 2003 amendment (that put offenders’ names online), SORB implicitly determined that the offender was not so dangerous that the interest of public safety required Internet publication of the offender’s registry information, because SORB would have given the offender a level three classification if it believed that Internet publication of the offender’s registry information was warranted,” the SJC found. “Thus, the practical consequence of the recent amendments is that offenders whose degree of dangerousness, according to SORB, was not so substantial that Internet publication of their information was needed to protect the public safety would now be subject to Internet publication of their registry information. And further, those offenders who did not challenge their level two classification, either administratively or through judicial review because they specifically relied on their accurate understanding that a level two classification did not carry the consequence of Internet publication of their registry information, would now be subject to exactly that.”

SORB directs to local police stations anyone interested in obtaining information on the whereabouts of Level 2 offenders classified prior to July 2012.