California state courts have been flooded with claims by people required to register as sex offenders challenging the residency restrictions of Jessica’s Law. Jessica’s Law mandated that registered sex offenders live at least 2000 feet from any school, playground or place where children congregate. While this may sound good in theory it has caused a lot of problems. For one thing, there are whole counties in the state which have no residences or very few places that meet this qualification. At the same time many registrants are under conditions of parole that they live within a certain county.

Last February, the Supreme Court in In Re E. J held that the constitutionality of the residency restriction must be decided on a case by case basis. Since then numerous suits have been filed by those required to register. While these suits can crawl along at a very slow pace many judges have restrained the state from enforcing the residency restrictions against the individuals who have sued and some judges have gone so far as to order countywide bans on enforcement. In Los Angeles County the Superior Court has prohibited enforcement of the registration requirement countywide until the individual suits have been decided.

California State Senator Mark Leno is attempting to terminate the residency ban in order to improve public safety. The ban forces many sex offenders to live on the street. As a result of the ban over 2100 sex offenders, statewide, are homeless. Approximately one third of the states paroled sex offenders are homeless. This makes it more difficult for law enforcement officials to keep track of the parolees. California’s version of Jessxica’s Law was passed as an initiative in 2006. Since that time the number of homeless sex offender parolees has increased by 24-fold. In San Francisco 80 per cent of sex offenders on parole are homeless. But Leno has an uphill battle. Since it was enacted as a statewide proposition it either requires another statewide vote or a two thirds majority in the legislature. Jessica’s Law still has strong support in the legislature where Democrats do not want to appear to be soft on crime and Republicans want to support law and order. In order to be successful Leno will have to show his fellow legislators that amending Jessica’s Law will improve public safety by getting sex offenders off the street and improving the ability of parole officers and police to keep track of sex offenders whereabouts.

A Texas mother is accused of sexting a sixteen year old son of a friend. It is alleged that Lori Darling David texted two nude pictures of herself to the young man. For this she is facing twenty years in prison.

Find Law makes light of what I and I suspect most people would consider an outrageous sentence by pointing out that most people in the woman’s situation enter into a plea bargain under which they do not spend any time in prison. Well of course, if we consider the woman to be innocent until proven guilty as we must under our system of law, she is put into an impossible situation. She can either plead guilty, knowing that she is innocent and not be sent to prison or she can throw the dice and go to trial knowing that if she is found guilty she might get twenty years. If convicted at trial and perhaps even if she enters into a plea bargain she might be facing a lifetime registration requirement which may come with residential limitations preventing her from living anywhere near a school or a park where children play.

The Texas legislature is considering legislation that will make sexting a misdemeanor with a maximum sentence of one year in jail. But this law may not help David since it will be aimed only at minors. While it may be more offensive when adult sext minors it is still not worth twenty years in prison and the law should be changed for all.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott and state Sen. Kirk Watson plan to introduce legislation making sexting a misdemeanor. Sexting is the primarily teenage fad of sending text messages to each other of sexually provocative pictures.

Currently it is rarely prosecuted because the only law making it illegal is a felony initially devised to punish senders of pornography. The hope is that by making it a misdemeanor it will be prosecuted more often and more attention will be paid to the issue.

But if anyone thinks that legislation is going to end sexting, I have a bridge to sell them. One study found that one in five teenagers sexted messages and that one in three received at least one message. With sexting so prevalent no law going to prevent it and the only effect of such a law will be to give some relatively innocent teenagers a criminal records which may come back to haunt them as adults. Sexting is probably no more harmful than the streaking that occurred on college campuses during the 1970′s when students ran across campus nude. Both are fads which last for a while and then come to an end.

If teens find it offensive, and they should, they can refuse to open up future texts from the offending senders. But I have seen no evidence that sexting leads to permissive sex or to unwanted pregnancies.

Its more of a problem when the fad is adopted by adults who use it, particularly in the workplace as a type of sexual harassment. Then it can become a power play if used by supervisors to force underlings into sexual activity. But in those cases the matter can be handled by our civil laws.

The Court of Appeals of Virginia has joined a number of other courts in finding that attaching a GPS device to a car while it is parked on public property and maintaining contact with the car while a suspect is driving it is not a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

David L. Foltz is a convicted sex offender. He was employed and used a company truck in the course of his employment. He had permission to use the truck to drive to and from work and to stop to go to treatment meetings on his way home. The police knew that there was a series of sexual assaults in the area around his work and his meetings. They further knew that the modus operandi was similar to that used by Foltz in the past.

They attached a GPS unit under the bumper while the car was parked on the street near Foltz’s residence. The unit had the power to keep track of his travel and and to allow the police to track the vehicle in real time.

Five days later a sexual assault occurred. The police checked the GPS log and discovered that the truck was in the area of the crime. The following day they followed the van without using the GPS. They saw Foltz attempt to assault a woman and arrested him.

He was charged with abduction with intent to defile. He moved to suppress the evidence on Fourth Amendment grounds. The motion was denied. He went to trial and was sentenced to life in prison. On appeal the court upheld the denial of the suppression motion. The United State Supreme Court in United States v. Karo held in 1984 that it was not a violation of the Fourth Amendment for a supplier to put a beeper in an ether container and for the police to follow the vehicle by using the beeper.

The Virgina court and several other courts have found Karo to be precedent. They ruled that if it was not a violation of the Fourth Amendment to place a beeper in an ether container and follow the vehicle using the beeper, it is not a violation to attach a beeper to the bumper and electronically follow the vehicle. In both cases electronic devices are being use to accomplish a task that could be done with human eyes. If Foltz drove the truck where he could have been followed by the police in an unmarked vehicle then tracking the vehicle with an electronic device is not a violation of Foltz’s Fourth Amendment privacy rights.

The test for a Fourth Amendment violation is whether the government violates a subjective expectation of privacy that society recognizes as reasonable. While Foltz parked his car on the street, I suspect that if he knew that a GPS device was being attached to the vehicle he would have believed that his privacy was being violated. In fact, if I looked out my window and saw someone putting something under my bumper I would not only think that my privacy was being violated but I may think that it was a bomb and call the police. Certainly, if Foltz parked his car in his garage and officers entered the garage to place the GPS device on the vehicle we would all agree that Foltz had a legitimate expectation of privacy and that the government violated it. But because Foltz is not wealthy enough to have a garage the court finds that he does not have a legimate expectation of privacy. A Fourth Amendment right should not be based upon the wealth or poverty of the defendant.

But what I don’t understand is in many states, including Virginia, a defendant can be required to surrender his/her Fourth Amendment rights in order to be put on probation. If Foltz had been required to surrender his Fourth Amendment rights when he was put on probation prior to his current arrest he would not have been able to move to suppress the evidence and the GPS issue would not have been raised. In many states new laws mandate that sex offenders must wear a electronic monitor at all times allowing the authorities to keep track of them. Apparently this was not the law in Virginia at the time of Foltz’s arrest but it is certainly becoming more common. We will no doubt be seeing cases challenging these laws on Fourth Amendment grounds in the future.

Despite Warren Jeff’s victory reversing his conviction for aiding and abetting the rape of Elissa Wall for his role in the compelled marriage of the fourteen-year-old girl to her nineteen-year-old first cousin, Allen Steed, he still has plenty of problems. The leader and “prophet” of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints not only faces a possible retrial of the Utah case but he also faces a Federal trial for being a fugitive from justice and a trial in Texas for bigamy, aggravated sexual assault and assault charges over alleged incidents with underage girls at a church ranch. Charges in Arizona, however have been dropped.

In Texas Jeffs is facing a maximum of 99 years in prison. The Arizona prosecutor did not want to waste state resources trying someone who may end up spending the rest of his live in a Texas prison. Likewise the Utah prosecutor may decide not to retry Jeffs if he is convicted in Texas.

Yesterday, Jeffs, in a Utah courtroom, refused to waive extradition, setting up a extradition hearing. Such hearing are generally very simple matters since the only real issue is whether Jeffs is the person wanted in Texas. Generally it involves a fingerprint expert testifying that a set of fingerprints from Texas belong to the same person as a set of fingerprints taken from Jeffs when he was booked in Utah. If Texas does not have a set of his fingerprints it is not difficult to find another means of proving his identity.

Thus the only reason to refuse to waive extradition is to buy time. Considering that he is facing 99 years in Texas this may not be a bad idea. His attorney, Walter Bugden, says that he wants the retrial of the Utah case to occur prior to the extradition to Texas, since extradition to Texas may delay the Utah retrial for several years. But Utah’s Attorney General Mark Shurtleff wants the Texas trial to go first. After all if Jeffs gets 99 years in Texas there is little reason to retry him in Utah.

While an extradition hearing is fairly simple, bureaucratic delay in communications between Utah and Texas may take some time and the next hearing is two months off. Jeff’s attorney may then try to appeal the extradition order and in some states that could take years. But at the same time there are post-decision motions that need to be heard in the Utah Supreme Court and a new trial may take a while. So don’t expect a decision any time soon.

The United States Supreme Court reversed a conviction for violating the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA). SORNA, passed by Congress in 2006 makes state sex offenders registration laws more uniform and effective. It makes it a Federal crime for 1) people who are required to register as a sex offender to (2) travel in interstate or foreign commerce, and (3) knowingly fail to register or update a registration.

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a conviction could be upheld even though the required travel occurred prior to the passage of the act as long as the defendant had sufficient time after the passage of the act to register. The Supreme Court ruled that since the restriction on interstate travel only affects those who are required to register and since the Federal requirement to register did not occur before the passage of the act in 2006, the travel had to occur after the act’s passage. Furthermore the act uses the present tense to indicate the travel requirement and Congress thereby indicated that the travel that the travel could not occur before the act was imposed.

In May 2004 Thomas Carr plead guilty to first-degree sexual abuse in Alabama. Later that year or in the beginning of 2005 he moved to Indiana and failed to comply with Indiana’s registration requirements. Even though SORNA did not take effect until 2006 the United States Attorney charged him with violating the act when he failed to register after the act took effect. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the conviction based on the pre-enactment travel and the Supreme Court reversed.

By holding that the law requires that the travel occur after the enactment of the act the Court avoided considering whether or not the law violated the Constitution’s ex post facto clause which bans punishing people for acts committed before a law is passed making the act illegal.

In either case the decision is for the best. Otherwise people could be punished for acts that occurred many years ago. State registration statutes have been in effect for many years and the states are capable of punishing people who failed to register prior to 2006.

Congress passed a bill authorizing the Federal government to petition the courts to institutionalize an offender beyond the time of his/her maximum sentence if that person either committed or attempted to commit an act of sexual violence or child molestation and the offender is a danger to society.

Four Florida inmates challenged their commitments under 18 U. S. C. §4248 in United States v, Comstock on the basis that the Constitution does not grant the Federal government authority to institutionalize them beyond their maximum prison commitment. Article I of the Constitution grants Congress specific limited powers. The Tenth Amendment states that all powers not granted to the Federal government are reserved for the states.

Despite the defendants arguing that Congress was without authority to commit individuals after their sentence was completed, the Court ruled that the legislation was authorized by the Necessary and Proper Clause, under which Congress can pass any law necessary and proper to the carrying out the duties enumerated in Article I. For example, one of the enumerated duties authorizes a postal service. The building of post offices is a necessary and proper tool to establishing a postal service.

The court evaluated five factors in determining that the post-prison commitment of sexually violent inmates is necessary and proper means to carry out its duty to provide mental health care for Federal prisoners. The factors are “(1) the breadth of the Necessary and Proper Clause, (2) the long history of federal involvement in this arena, (3) the sound reasons for the statute’s enactment in light of the Government’s custodial interest in safeguarding the public from dangers posed by those in federal custody, (4) the statute’s accommodation of state interests, and (5) the statute’s narrow scope.” The Court ruled that the Necessary and Proper Clause allows Congress to pass legislation that is convenient, useful or conducive to carrying out one of its assigned duties. The Court found that while it is not independently proof of constitutionality the government has a long history of legislating prison mental health issues. Congress reasonably enacted the legislation to protect people who lived near Federal prisons from sexual violence by released inmates. The statute allows the Federal government to institutionalize those who would otherwise be released only after the states in which they were arrested and in which they live refuse to take custody of a dangerous inmate. Finally the court found that the post-prison institutionalization of sexually dangerous inmates was not too attenuated from Article I duties of Congress.

Justice Clarence Thomas dissented. He points to the pivotal 1819 case, McCulloch v. Maryland, Chief Justice Marshall wrote:

“Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional.”

Thus to be constitutional it must

satisfies a two-part test: First, the law must be directed toward a “legitimate” end, which McCulloch defines as one “within the scope of the [C]onstitution”–that is, the powers expressly delegated to the Federal Government by some provision in the Constitution. Second, there must be a necessary and proper fit between the “means” (the federal law) and the “end” (the enumerated power or powers) it is designed to serve.

The only crimes the constitution specifically authorizes the Federal government to prosecute are counterfeiting, treason, piracy, crimes committed on the high seas and those against the Law of Nations. No one today would limit the Federal government to prosecuting those crimes. Certainly any number of crimes can be prosecuted under the Necessary and Proper Clause. But it is time to reconsider some of the crimes prosecuted by the Federal government. For example, is it really necessary to have the federal government prosecute drug, sex, and internet crimes. The basic police duties of government should be left to the state governments.

In 2006 Congress enacted the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act. The act requires among other things that youth as young as fourteen years register, often for life, following a conviction or a juvenile adjudication for certain sex offenses. it also mandates the publication on the internet of specific information about certain sex offenders including their addresses.

A study by the Associated Press found as to juveniles convicted of registrable offenses the law has not been fully implemented in most jurisdictions. Twenty-one states, according to the study, now require juveniles to register as sex offenders and another nineteen state require them to register if they are convicted as adults. The law is quite complicated and Ohio is the only state fully in compliance. Other states risk loosing Federal funds to support criminal justice programs.

Part of the problem is that states vary in their perception of the need to require juveniles to register as sex offenders. Sex offender registrants often have trouble getting jobs, finding housing, and blending into society. This is particularly true now that the names of registrants are available on the internet.

Long term registration may be appropriate for those who are uncurable. But many experts in the field feel that juveniles can be rehabilitated and registration only makes it more difficult. There is the case of the sixteen year old Iowa boy who was required to register after having sex with a thirteen year old girl. Such behavior is not necessarily proof of a long term sex offender requiring lifetime registration.

The large headline claiming that a fifteen year old girl sold her seven year old sister for sex at a Trenton, New Jersey party last month certainly attracted attention. But the actual facts are much muddier and we may never know what happened. Besides the sister two men and three juveniles were arrested. Apparently much of the information that we have heard comes from the police interrogation of the two youngest juveniles who are 13 and 14 years old. Both of them have learning disabilities. One is illiterate. Those who have listened to the tapes of the interviews say the police used leading questions and promised the boys that they would be released if they cooperated. At times the polices put words in the boys’ mouths and pushed the kids into implicating particular people.

The thirteen year old cried throughout the interrogation and continually asked for his mother. At one point in the interview he said: “I should just make up a story to get it over with.”

The interview with the seven year old is not much more helpful. She apparently walked into a room and watched her sister having consensual sex for money. Then her statement parroted her sister’s statement.

We may never know the whole truth although the results of DNA tests should clarify the situation to some degree.

Catherine Miller plead guilty in Federal Court to crossing state lines to have sex with a minor. The presentence report recommended a within guidelines sentence of between 70 and 87 months. However the court sentenced her to 120 months.

The Sentencing Guidelines as originally passed were considered mandatory and judges had only a limited ability to deviate from them. But in United States v. Booker the Supreme Court found the guidelines to be advisory. While the courts have the ability to deviate from the Guideline deviations are limited and must be reasonable.

At sentencing and on appeal Miller objected to the courts adoption of the Probation Department’s recommendation that that the sentencing guidelines be enhanced by an undue influence enhancement. However such enhancement, while subject to rebuttal are required in cases where there is an age difference of over ten years. Neither the trial court not the Seventh Circuit found that the enhancement had been rebutted despite some evidence that the juvenile had prior sexual experiences and seemed open to a romantic relationship with Miller.

The second issue on appeal was the government’s use of surprize evidence at the sentencing hearing. Specifically, the government introduced photo albums showing Miller with other minors. When Miller’s attorney objected, the court gave him a five minute recess to talk to his client. He said thank you and did not further object. Therefore the appellate court found that Miller waived any objection on appeal.

The final issue was the fifty percent upward deviation from the guidelines. The trial court based its decision on the high rate of recidivism among sex offenders. The appellate court rejected the finding and returned the case to the trial court for resentencing. First it found that if there is a high rate of recidivism it applies to all people charged with the crime and the Sentencing Commission would have taken this into consideration in writing the guidelines. Second it found there was no evidence at the sentencing hearing that supported a belief in a high rate of recidivism and there is evidence to the contrary. Therefore it reversed the sentence.