Or maybe what you’re really hoping to convey by your crusading journalistic pinache is that no one convicted of a sexual offense against what the state of Illinois calls a “child” should be allowed to own or operate a business? Is that right, Josh Salman of USAToday?

Perhaps you’re simply offended by the notion that a returning citizen who has fully satisfied a sentencing order and paid his debt to society should be allowed to benefit from government programs financed by American taxpayers? Am I getting warmer, Josh Salman of USAToday?

I scratch my head. Because, taking your logic to its furthest extreme—which is a very rational thing to do in this instance—Ezekiel Lopez shouldn’t be allowed to borrow federal money for education, should never be considered for nutrition assistance, should not be entitled to any social security benefits, should probably not even be allowed to vote in a federal election. Is that right, Josh Salman of USAToday?

Please forgive me. You’ve very likely already forgotten who Mr. Lopez is now that the ink has thoroughly dried on your hit piece financed by Gannett Co, Inc.

I’ll keep it simple. Mr. Lopez is—was—an enterprising 49-year-old Native-American who managed a thriving business last week that employed other Americans, paid corporate taxes, deducted payroll taxes, and provided our nation’s veterans with critical janitorial services at medical facilities in and around Chicago, Illinois.

Like many other enterprising Americans, Mr. Lopez (who is also a taxpaying American, in case that isn’t clear) applied for and received federal contracts to provide his services. Equal protection. Equal justice. Equal opportunity. Reasonable, right?

Yet, this week—and exclusively because of you, Josh Salman of USAToday—Mr. Lopez is all-of-the-sudden unemployed, out-of-business, and so universally maligned by your sanguine devotion to journalistic integrity that he may very likely never find another job for the remainder of his life.

The inference of your shoe leather reporting about Mr. Lopez’s scandalous use of taxpayer money is that anyone convicted of a sexual offense—no matter how long ago—should be permanently barred from applying for federal contracts.

This presumption is baseless and totally unfounded. It’s uninformed, even. It drinks from a poisoned pool of inaccurate statistics and outright lies regarding the recidivism of registered sex offenders. This is why you, Josh Salman of USAToday, were able to include statements of indignation and desperate alarm from professor Charles Tiefer and attorney Robert Burton. They drink from that same poisoned well.

Ahh, yes. Ignorance does indeed remain blissful . . . and extremely damaging to others when it curries the favor of “responsible” journalists such as you, Josh Salman of USAToday.

The truth is that the overwhelming majority of registered sex offenders living in the community (or applying for federal contracts) will never commit another sexual crime. In fact, nearly 96% of all new sexual crime is committed by a person who has no previous conviction of a sexual crime and therefore is not a registered sex offender.

That’s right. According to the best statistical data available (and also to you, Josh Salman of USAToday), the individual who is most likely to commit a sexual offense against a teenager is the person who has never been convicted of a sexually based offense in the first place, and, in most cases, has no felony record at all.

A person just like you, as it turns out!

To your credit, Josh Salman of USAToday, you did take time to reach out to Dr. Jill Levenson. Dr. Levenson is a professor of social work at Barry University who has researched and published extensively about the ineffectiveness of our nation’s labyrinthine sex offender registry laws. In a 2o15 interview with NPR, Dr. Levenson stated that “research does not point in the direction of registries reducing sexual crimes or sexual recidivism.”

The factor most closely related to the lack of re-offense among registered sex offenders is a stable lifestyle that includes a place to live and, amazingly enough, employment. By endangering the life and livelihood of this one person, you have systematically endangered dozens of additional lives as well as the public safety at-large.

Black Lives Matter is the mantra of our moment, and indeed they do. But one thing is abundantly clear: The lives of persons on sexual offense registries who have paid their debts to society and are doing their level best to reintegrate and become productive, law-abiding citizens . . . well, they don’t mean a damn thing to you, Josh Salman, or to USAToday, or to the owners and operators of Gannett Co, Inc.

The fair is just another place in a long list of locations that registrants are not allowed to attend.  But WHY?  Do we stop anyone else from going to the State Fair?  I’m going to continue saying this – there is a huge drug problem in this area and yet we don’t stop drug dealers from attending.  The request to allow registrants to go the State Fair is not about the fair itself.  It is about human rights.  It is about the fact that the government has said a registrant cannot go there.  There is no valid justification as to why.  Yes, there has been a person or two arrested at the state fair.  However, what they don’t tell you is if that person was committing some kind of act at the fair OR if they were just merely on the premises.  Maybe they really wanted those gotta-have French Fries that were just featured on the news.  Maybe they were hitting up the deep-fried Oreos vendor.  Maybe they were standing in line for those giant-sized donuts I heard all about this year.  Like most of us, registrants are no different.  They, too, want to fill their bellies with deep-fried-everythings during the week of the fair!  Oh, and by the way, how much publicity was there about the 35 fair workers who were charged with drugs during a single night of monitoring their temporary living quarters?

Let’s forget the registry for just a moment.  Would it be fair to say to that someone with size 11 feet can’t go to the fair – for no other reason than we just have that rule?  Would it be fair to say that a recovering alcoholic couldn’t go since there’s a beer garden there?  Would it be fair to say that someone with animal allergies can’t go since there is a petting zoo there?  Is it really fair to restrict registrants from the fair for 30 years (the length of the registry), no matter what their charge?  You have people with misdemeanor charges who cannot attend for 30 years.  Just plain crazy.  Telling someone they cannot go to certain places because of a charge against them, for which they have already paid the penalty of imprisonment and/or probation, is not fair.  FAIR.  Now that word makes me laugh in the most sarcastic way.  The state “fair” is not “fair.”

To assume all registered citizens are a threat to society is a falsehood.  Do I think sex offenders are discriminated against?  I absolutely do.  I rarely use the word discrimination because I want to be really careful about how I and when it is used.  But yes – as a group, registered sex offenders are discriminated against. NCRSOL’s push to allow registrants to attend the state fair isn’t about the fair and the fries, Oreos, and donuts – it’s about your rights as a human.

NCRSOL – thank you for your voice.  Your members appreciate you.

You must be the change you wish to see in the world.
Be a change agent…

The law has been on the books for the past 3 state fairs — banning the state’s 24,000 registered sex offenders from the festivities.

They could be arrested if caught on the fairgrounds. Now a group is coming in defense of sex offenders and is lobbying the Wake County Sheriff to ignore the law that they argue is unconstitutional.

Monday marks 10 days till the start of the State Fair in Raleigh.

More than a million fairgoers are expected: Moms, dads, and lots of kids.

When ABC11 polled the parents at Moore Square on Monday about this idea of ignoring state law and allowing the state’s registered sex offenders to enjoy the fun too — yes answers were in short supply.
“No, not at all,” said mom Meisha McDonald. “I don’t want them coming up to my son anyways, let alone my son running around freely.”

Brittany Soto has an 11-month-old at home. “I wouldn’t want that. There are a lot of children that go to the fair,” she said.

“The same way that (registered sex offenders) are supposed to live a certain distance away from a school, I think that as far as the state fair. I think that maybe they should not be invited there also,” Shawnette Lubin added.

A group is pushing Wake Sheriff Gerald Baker to ignore the 2015 law that bans registered sex offenders from the North Carolina State Fair.
We’re talking to the president of @ncrsol1 and parents. Plus, response from the sheriff. #abc11

Robin Vander Wall is president of North Carolinians for Rational Sexual Offense Laws.

His group argued laws that ban registered sex offenders from living near school zones are just as unconstitutional as North Carolina’s state fair ban.

They insist registered sex offenders have paid their debt to society and are being denied basic rights.

“We’re calling on the sheriff not to enforce the law, basically,” said Vander Wall. “We’re asking the sheriff to stand on principle and protect the rights and privileges of the citizens of the state and in particular the citizens of Wake County who happen to be sex offenders to allow them to go to the state fair.”

In 2015, the year the state approved the ban, Wake County sheriff’s deputies arrested four registered sex offenders at the fair. — including someone initially charged with flying a drone over the fairgrounds and a convicted child molester charged with posing as a state inspector to get into the kiddie ride section.

ABC11 asked Vander Wall about parents’ concerns about having someone with a predatory past at the child-friendly event.

“I understand and I respect that opinion. But the perception is flawed,” Vander Wall said, “People concerned about the safety of their children ought to be more concerned about people who are at the state fair with no record at all. Because 95 percent of sex crimes that will be committed today will be committed by people who have no record and not on the sex offender registry.”

Despite the efforts of NCRSOL, Wake Sheriff Gerald Baker is holding firm.

“Sheriff Baker wants to assure fair attendees, especially parents bringing their children, that this law will be stringently enforced,” said WCSO Chief Legal Advisor Rick Brown. “There will be increased presence in the children’s area of both uniformed and plain clothes deputies and other law enforcement officers. The sheriff is committed to continue making this great family tradition a safe one.”

The North Carolina State Fair begins Thursday, Oct. 17.

SOURCE: ABC11 WTVD

What does October make you think about?  Cooler temps?  Leaves changing colors?  Decorating with mums?  Pumpkin-flavored anything?  Hayrides, corn mazes, and haunted houses?  Carving pumpkins?  Halloween?

For a registered citizen, October brings on what I refer to as “The Month of Media Attention.”  Every news station does it.  It is generally the scare-tactic approach, but it pulls in the ratings.  So maybe their mission is accomplished as they reach their viewers, but they leave behind a wake of unrest for many.  This is the time of year the Sheriff gets to shine with his/her vow to protect the community.  This is the time of year election ads flurry to “protect the children.”   This is the time of year I just shake my head in disgust trying to figure out how to educate people to the untruths being told by the media.

There are two high profile events that occur in October:  the NC State Fair and Halloween.  Both trigger a flurry of negative attention to registrants.  This year is no different.  I knew to look for it and yes, during the first week of the month every local news station reported on sex offenders being prohibited from attending fairs around the state.  The media is swarming over the Sheriff’s department as they heed the warning that sex offenders prowl on people at the fair.  While it is true that there have been some arrests in previous years of sex offenders attending the state fair, the number is extremely small.  Yet, the media as well as law enforcement often portray a false sense of danger.  It is important to realize that not every registered citizen is a predator.  I absolutely cringe every time the media uses the term Predator as if every registrant is in that category.  That is absolutely not true.  Some registrants are underage couples in consensual relationships.  Some registrants have victimless crimes.  Some registrants are actually innocent and are victims of false accusations.  The truth, which the media fails to report, is that LESS than 1% of the registrants in NC are considered predators.  It is also a proven statistic that most offenses against children are committed by a known person and someone not already on the registry.

While I agree we want to protect our children (and people of all ages for that matter), there are a lot of things we need to protect them from.  Do we keep alcoholics away from the State Fair because they now have a Beer Garden?  Do we keep convicted murders away?  Do we prevent known gang members from coming within a certain number of feet from the premises?  Here’s a kicker – do we keep drug dealers away from the State Fair?  You have to admit there’s a huge drug problem and the number of arrests for drugs far outweigh any other crime.  Yet, I have never once heard the media warn the public that drug dealers may be at the fair lurking after their children.  Again, I am an advocate for protecting people from sexual offenses, so I do not want that misconstrued.  However, the percentage of incidents is so small compared to other offenses. Why is our state spending so much money monitoring registered citizens, many with non-violent offenses, yet not focusing on the drug and gang problem in our area?

Yes, October is a bit of a pain point for me.  My family actually just likes to go to the State Fair for the food and the livestock.  I mean, who doesn’t love the food?  Our desire to attend is so innocent, but it’s not allowed, nor will it be for the 30 years that one is required to be on the registry.  Yes, you read that correctly.  30 years on the registry is the required length of registration.  No matter the offense.  No matter if the charge was a misdemeanor or a felony.  No matter if you’ve already served time in prison or been on probation.  No matter the situation you are in.

Halloween is a lost cause for my family, as our window of Trick-or-Treating together as a family has come and gone.  Those are things one can never get back – the thrill of taking your son or daughter door-to-door and to carnivals in their sweet little costumes.  This is the first year my neighborhood wants to have a block party for neighbors to get to know one another – on Halloween.  I guess, as usual, we will sit inside the house, lights off, and just put on a movie.  That’s about all we do – oh, and wait to see if a deputy stops by the house “for a check.”

So please, Mr. or Ms. Media, please stop using the term “predator” when speaking of registrants.  You are wrong.  And please stop using individuals on the registry to perpetuate fear among our community.

And dear October, while I love the many things you have to offer, I cannot wait to see you go.  My hope is that registered citizens are not unfairly targeted by communities during this time of year because of a false fear perpetuated by the media.

I challenge you to join NCRSOL, ask questions, share your story, and work towards making laws sensible and fair.  There is much support that is offered by NCRSOL members – and together we all do have a voice.

You must be the change you wish to see in the world.
Be a change agent…

CLEVELAND COUNTY, N.C. – Families planning to attend the Cleveland County Fair, may notice extra security in the crowds this year.

Dozens of officers are patrolling the fairgrounds for sex offenders and Sheriff Alan Norman’s message is clear.

“Zero tolerance. You come to the Cleveland County Fair, you will be arrested,” he said.

Officials said North Carolina’s largest county fair is a big playground and deputies want to make sure no one disrupts the fun.

Norman told Channel 9 that cameras will be monitored around the clock to track anything or anyone out of place, and they want parents to help.

“There is a registry you can go to, not only on our website, but it’s linked in with the state website,” Norman said.

Although deputies haven’t had a problem with sex offenders at the fair before, the sheriff said the county has a problem.

“We have an overabundance of what we should have for a county this size,” he said. “I don’t know what the draw is, but I can assure you we are policing them as responsibly as we can,” Norman said.

North Carolina state law prohibits sex offenders from going to any place designed for children, including fairs or playgrounds.

If a registered sex offender is caught at the fair, they can be charged with a felony and sentenced to two years behind bars, depending on their record.

The district attorney said he will give full attention to any sex offender arrested during the fair, which opens Wednesday.

SOURCE

Wilmington, NC

Under a low-hanging gray sky Wednesday morning, Randy Evans dished out eggs and doled out biscuits to about two dozen unsheltered people under a pavilion near the foot of Market Street in downtown Wilmington.

As people sat down to eat at the pavilion’s square wooden tables, conversations inevitably turned to the gradual approach of Hurricane Dorian, just as they did over breakfasts across this port city. One man, who did not want to be identified, told Evans he didn’t want to go to a pet-friendly shelter because his dog would get too stressed out in that environment.

Evans, the founder of advocacy group Walking Tall Wilmington, said, “They’re survivors. They’re going to survive and they’re going to thrive in spite of a hurricane. But that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be acknowledged.”

In New Hanover County, workers at shelters ask for identification, but ID isn’t required to gain admission. During Hurricane Florence, the initial request for identification caused confusion and resulted in about three dozen people staying at Evans’ home, many of whom did not have or did not want to produce ID. Many of those same people lost tarps, tents or personal belongings during last year’s storm.

For instance, Terry Mangum’s spot in a forest was disrupted by trees felled by Florence. The place where he has pitched his tent now, Mangum said, has two trees leaning at precarious angles that could fall in storm-force winds.

“If they don’t, then I’m going to get a chainsaw and take them down myself just in case we get another one,” Mangum said. “There’s two more out there they say, behind this one.”

Mangum added that he was supposed to see his long-estranged daughter for the first time in 18 years this past weekend, but plans were canceled due to the storm’s approach and his need to prepare.

As of Wednesday morning, Mangum was unsure if he would leave his tent to head to a shelter, in part because his 7-year-old dog doesn’t like many people.

“If the winds aren’t all that bad, I’ll just stay out there where I’m at. But then when you see the trees start going six foot one side and six foot to the other side, it’s kind of iffy… Pine trees snap halfway, especially if they are not all that big,” Mangum said.

NO ID REQUIRED

Randy Evans has provided six meals a week to the city’s unsheltered, including breakfast on Monday, Wednesday and Friday. As people arrived one-by-one or in pairs Wednesday, Evans handed them plastic bags containing some provisions, including almonds, beef jerky sticks, fruit cups and tuna salad.

When one woman told him she needed another package for her husband, Evans said, “Your husband, who’s your husband? When did you get married? … Oh, you mean your boyfriend.”

A block away from where breakfast was served, a crew was placing boards over windows at Front Street Brewery’s storefront. Throughout Wednesday, more boards went up along Front Street in the city’s downtown area.

Wednesday afternoon, New Hanover County officials said there were 19 people at Blair Elementary School and another 61 at Codington Elementary School.

Beth Schrader, New Hanover County’s chief strategy officer, said if someone doesn’t have identification, the shelter will ask them for their name and an address, recording that information. Personnel then compare that to an updated list of sex offenders in the area.

“We are not requiring IDs and that is not a change,” Schrader said. “We ask for IDs, but we do not require it.”

Should a sex offender try to enter a shelter, a deputy from the New Hanover County Sheriff’s Office will take them aside, Schrader said, and offer them a location in the New Hanover County Jail, away from inmates.

Schrader also said efforts were still being made Wednesday afternoon to inform people of the anticipated risk from Dorian’s storm surge.

Volunteers with the New Hanover County Disaster Relief Coalition were teaming up with New Hanover County Fire Department personnel Wednesday afternoon to go door-to-door in neighborhoods where flooding was expected, while the county was making reverse 911 calls to at-risk locations.

Evans planned to serve lunch Thursday night and try to convince people to head to a shelter. Then he will hunker down for Dorian before returning to serve dinner Saturday.

“That’ll be kind of my last-ditch effort to get people there,” Evans said.

SOURCE: The News&Observer Online

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.

Those points, which should be obvious, are a sadly necessary corrective to the hysteria that has driven legislators in one state after another to enact indiscriminate, mindlessly restrictive, and covertly punitive laws aimed at sex offenders. ASORCNA, which Watkins calls “the most comprehensive and debilitating sex-offender scheme in the nation,” is a prime example.

The lead plaintiff in this case, dubbed John Doe 1, pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor charges of indecent exposure in the early 1990s, when he was living in Wisconsin. He received a six-month suspended sentence for each charge and was not required to register as a sex offender, even after moving to Alabama in 1994. But 14 years later, Alabama expanded its registry, forcing Doe to comply with ASORCNA’s numerous demands and restrictions under threat of imprisonment. Among other things, that meant his driver’s license was marked with the phrase “CRIMINAL SEX OFFENDER” in bold red letters. Here is how Doe describes the consequences of that notation:

I have never felt so embarrassed and ashamed in all of my life. I would not wish showing this on my worst enemy. It makes me not want to go places where I have to show it, and I try not to go places where I know I will have to. But every week, there is some places that ask me to show it, and every time, I get them evil looks from people—like I’m a murderer or something. I done paid for what I did over 25 years ago. Nobody should have to carry this. It ain’t right, but I don’t have a way out.

On Monday, Judge Watkins ruled that Alabama’s branding of registered sex offenders’ identification cards is a form of compelled speech prohibited by the First Amendment. “The branded-ID requirement compels speech,” he writes, “and it is not the least restrictive means of advancing a compelling state interest.” The state conceded that its ostensible purpose of alerting police officers to a sex offender’s status could be served by a much less conspicuous mark, such as a letter, that the general public would not readily recognize as a badge of shame. “Using one letter would keep officers informed while reducing the unnecessary disclosure of information to others,” Watkins notes.

Another aspect of Alabama’s “debilitating sex-offender scheme” is a requirement that people in the registry report “email addresses or instant message addresses or identifiers used, including any designations or monikers used for self-identification in Internet communications or postings other than those used exclusively in connection with a lawful commercial transaction.” Registrants also have to keep the authorities apprised of “any and all Internet service providers” they use. The information, which includes mundane activities such as logging into a Wi-Fi network outside the home or registering with a website to comment on news articles, must be reported within three business days, and local law enforcement agencies have the discretion to demand that it be done in person.

That requirement also violates the First Amendment, Watkins concluded. “An offender must report to the police every time he connects to a Wi-Fi spot at a new McDonald’s, every time he uses a new computer terminal at a public library, every time he borrows a smartphone to read the news online, and every time he anonymously comments on a news article,” he writes. “Every time he walks into a new coffee shop, he must determine whether opening his laptop is worth the hassle of reporting.” Those burdens “chill a wide swath of protected speech under penalty of felony,” Watkins says, making the law “facially overbroad.”

Watkins notes that the demand for information about online activity applied to Doe and the other four plaintiffs even though their offenses had nothing to do with the internet or children. And like other ASORCNA provisions, such as its restrictions on residency and employment, the rule applies for life, even though the risk of recidivism for most offenders declines over time to the point that registrants pose no greater threat than the average person. “The failure to account for risk is a problem throughout ASORCNA,” Watkins observes. “Not all sex crimes are the same. Nor are all offenders the same.”

That’s a striking statement from a judge who was appointed by George W. Bush just two years after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Alaska’s sex offender registry based partly on fictitious recidivism numbers that continue to influence state and federal courts. It’s a message that judges and legislators throughout the country need to hear.

Source: Reason.com

A divided three-judge panel of the state Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that because officials presented no evidence that satellite-based monitoring is effective, it violates the U.S. Constitution’s bar against unreasonable searches.

The U.S. Supreme Court set that constitutional standard in a 2015 North Carolina decision.

Tuesday’s case involved Thomas Earl Griffin, who spent 11 years in prison for abusing the pre-teen daughter of his live-in girlfriend. A Craven County judge in 2016 ruled he must wear a tracking device for 30 years.

Griffin did not challenge being ordered to register as a sex offender, but argued that the trial court violated his Fourth Amendment rights by ordering him to submit to continuous satellite-based monitoring for 30 years.

“After careful review of the record and applicable law, we are compelled to agree,” the Court of Appeals opinion reads.

Judge Wanda Bryant disagreed, saying it expands the state’s burden of demonstrating the risk of a sex-offender repeating his crimes.

“By requiring our trial courts to find the efficacy of (satellite-based monitoring) in curbing sex offender recidivism in order to satisfy Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches in the context of (satellite-based monitoring), the majority would impose a standard other than is required by Fourth Amendment jurisprudence,” Bryant wrote in her dissent.

Background

On Jan. 29, 2004 in Craven County Superior Court, Griffin took an Alford plea, as a part of a negotiated plea agreement, to the charge of first-degree sex offense with a child. As a part of the plea agreement, the court dismissed a charge of taking indecent liberties with a child.

The state’s recitation of the facts during the plea hearing stated that Griffin was the live-in boyfriend of the victim’s mother. The victim, who was 11 at the time of initial disclosiure, said Griffin had been “messing with her for the past three years.” Griffin made a full confession.

The court sentenced Griffin to a prison term of 144 to 182 months and recommended that while incarcerated, Griffin participate in a sex offender treatment program.

Griffin was released from prison 11 years later, in June 2015. On Sept. 29, 2015, the Department of Public Safety informed Griffin that he could be required to enroll in a satellite-based monitoring program.

During a hearing in August 2016, Griffin’s attorney argued that based on Griffin’s “moderate to low level” of risk and his compliance with all terms of his probation, “this level of intrusion” was not warranted.

On Sept. 1, 2016, the trial court ordered Griffin to register as a sex offender and enroll in satellite-based monitoring for 30 years, based on the facts that he had not completed the sex offender treatment program; took advantage of the victim’s young age and vulnerability; took advantage of a position of trust; and that the sexual abuse occurred over a three-year period of time.

“The court has weighed the Fourth Amendment right of the defendant to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures with the publics [sic] right to be protected from sex offenders and the court concludes that the publics [sic] right of protection outweighs the “de minimis” intrusion upon the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights,” the trial court ruled.

Griffin appealed, and the Court of Appeals released its opinion Tuesday.