By MICHAEL HOBBES . . . The first time Damian Winters got evicted was in 2015. He was living with his wife and two sons in suburban Nashville when his probation officer called his landlord and informed him that Winters was a registered sex offender.

A state law takes effect that day prohibiting sex offenders from being near places where children “frequently congregate” – including schools, parks, arcades and day care centers – when minors are present.

Robin Vanderwall, president of N.C. Reform Sex Offender Laws, calls the legislation more restrictive to sex offenders than any in the country, except Alabama.

“Even Walmart and McDonald’s will be shut down to them,” said Vanderwall, whose organization opposes the new law.

Gov. Pat McCrory signed the bill into law in July. It is meant to replace portions of a 2008 law that a U.S. District Court judge ruled earlier this year to be unconstitutionally vague and overly broad.

On Dec. 7, Judge James Beaty struck down a segment of the former state law that prohibited registered sex offenders from entering places where a portion of the premises is intended for the use, care or supervision of children. Those places could include churches with day care centers.

Four months later, Beaty struck down another subsection of the law that restricts registered sex offenders from being within 300 feet of locations where children gather.

Beaty, of the Middle District of North Carolina, left intact a provision that bars registered sex offenders from entering schools, daycare centers and other places used exclusively by children.

Beaty noted in his December ruling that nothing in it “prevents the General Assembly from amending the statute or enacting entirely new restrictions that comply with constitutional requirements.”

The state appealed Beaty’s rulings to the N.C. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The appeal is pending. Shortly after it was filed, the General Assembly approved the new law.

Under it, Brandon Michael Wiggins will be arrested if he continues to work at the car repair shop after Aug. 31, said Ronnie Mitchell, the lawyer for the Cumberland County Sheriff’s Office.

Mitchell said Wiggins – who came to the Observer’s attention because of a resident’s complaint – will be told about the law and its consequences before the deadline. He said the more than 650 people on Cumberland County’s sex offender registry will be notified of the new law by mail.

Wiggins, 30, was convicted of second-degree sexual exploitation of a minor in March 2015. He was put on probation for 2 1/2 years.

“I got into something I shouldn’t have two years ago,” Wiggins said. “I learned from it. I’m trying to make a living, you know. I’m trying to move on from it.”

Wiggins said he has worked at the repair shop for about a month. He said he understands concerns about the shop being close to the Boys & Girls Club and a daycare.

“I understand that being an issue or a problem, but I don’t have any interest in doing anything but my job, which is to serve customers and work on cars,” he said.

Wiggins said he worries that his name in the newspaper will make it difficult to get another job.

North Carolina has had a sex offender registry since Jan. 1, 1996. Sex offenders who commit heinous crimes, such as rape of a child, are required to remain on the registry for life. Lesser offenses had required offenders to be on the registry for 10 years. The legislature amended the law in 2006, requiring many offenders to remain on the registry for 30 years.

The latest lawsuit was filed on behalf of five registered sex offenders – named as John Does – against McCrory and Attorney General Roy Cooper.

Among the five was a man convicted in 1995 of receiving material involving the sexual exploitation of a minor. The man served five years in federal prison, where he completed a sex offender treatment program. He later completed terms of his probation.

He had been attending his local church, which contained a child-care center within 300 feet of the main congregation hall. He was arrested in 2011 for violating the sex offender law when an anonymous caller reported him. The charge was later dropped.

According to the lawsuit, all five people who sued the state “have expressed concern and confusion regarding precisely where they are prohibited from going. Many times when the Plaintiffs have asked for clarification, they have received conflicting answers, noncommittal answers, or no answer at all.”

The Cumberland County Sheriff’s Office is responsible for keeping track of the sex offenders on the county’s registry – making sure they follow all of the rules, including registering as a sex offender and notifying the office when they move.

Mitchell said changes in the law are needed. He said he wants to see sex offenders who abuse children under age 13 treated more harshly than others.

“The ones who do deliberate acts and engage in deliberate forcible acts and deliberate sexual acts against minors have committed acts that are reprehensible, that should have both direct and collateral consequences,” Mitchell said, adding that people who commit those acts are most likely to be repeat offenders. (Read full story in The Fayetteville Observer)

The justices sided with Lester Nichols, a Kansas man who moved to the Philippines in 2012 after his release from prison without telling authorities.

Nichols was arrested in Manila and brought back to the United States, where he was convicted of failing to update his sex-offender registration. A federal appeals court upheld his conviction, but the Supreme Court reversed that.

Writing for the court, Justice Samuel Alito said a straightforward reading of the 2006 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act does not require registry updates after a sex offender moves out of the United States.

The justices took up the case to resolve an unusual split between appeals courts that had reached different outcomes in the cases of two men who lived within a few miles of each other – one in Kansas City, Kansas, the other in Kansas City, Missouri.

The federal appeals court in Denver upheld Nichols’ conviction, but the federal appeals court in St. Louis said a convicted sex offender from Missouri did not have to register after he also moved to the Philippines.

Alito said the high court’s ruling on Monday does not allow sex offenders to escape any punishment for leaving the country without notice. Congress recently criminalized the failure of sex offenders to provide information about “travel in foreign commerce.” Alito said the new law would apply to Nichols’ conduct and noted that Nichols’ actions also violated state law in Kansas.

“We are thus reassured that our holding today is not likely to create loopholes and deficiencies,” in the federal legislation designed to keep track of sex offenders, Alito said.

The case is Nichols v. United States, 15-5238.
(from CBSNews)

When something I write references something read elsewhere, especially when I use direct quotes, I always link to the other piece. Due to my refusal to give the other piece or its publisher any credence or recognition, this post will be the exception to that rule.

In a major election year, one expects nasty, attack campaign ads. The last few years the level of sleaze has deepened and this year threatens, like a spewing volcano, to engulf the entire political process in its roiling, broiling morass.

Interesting parallel — each year the level of sleaze leveled at the entire class of those who are required to be on a sex offender registry deepens, with the list of “cannots” against them growing and spreading, much like the deadly lava of a volcano.

They cannot live where they wish or, often, be where they wish.
They often cannot get/keep employment.
They cannot assume their normal rights as parents or as citizens.
They cannot assume the right to travel freely.
They cannot live free of fear and anxiety for their own and their family’s safety.
Some cannot hide their infamy from anyone viewing their drivers’ licenses or, soon and for all, their passports.
Most importantly, they cannot — ever — be forgiven.

And now, due to an interesting convergence of both political and sex offender sleaze, it seems a new cannot has been added.

In a political ad pretending to be actual journalism, one designed not to directly promote a specific candidate but to destroy one, a candidate was linked with an organization renowned for fighting for unpopular causes in matters of civil rights.

It seems that this organization is “an organization that has an appalling history of providing legal support for sex offenders throughout the nation.”

And the candidate? “Shockingly…like the ACLU, has a history of defending sex offenders as well.”

Appalling history? Shocking? The inference here is that those facing charges for sexual offenses should not be allowed legal support, and that anyone who dares provide it is doing something unconscionable and beyond the pale.

So a new cannot joins the others: Those accused of sexual offenses even though, like everyone accused of any crime, considered innocent until proven guilty, CANNOT be represented by counsel because no attorney worth the name would represent such a person.

Much about the public registry and all that it has spawned plays fast and loose with many of our constitutional protections. Now, with this, the Sixth Amendment is not just biting the dust but being stomped, ground, and broken upon the cold, hard earth.