Retired judge: Michigan sex offense registry 'like a cancer'

9-8-15 Michigan, Indiana:

Elkhart teenager still awaits new ruling in Berrien County case

On Aug. 5, Berrien County District Judge Dennis Wiley raised Zachery Anderson’s hopes with a promise of a new ruling in his case “soon.”

A month later, Zach Anderson — who at 19 met a Niles girl online who told him she was 17, had sex and later learned she was actually 14 — and his family are still waiting.

A month later, Zach’s story — that of a young man whose punishment has included a jail term, being listed on two sex offender registries for 25 years and subject to long lists of restrictions from two probation departments — continues to spread, most recently the subject of a TV network’s crime show to be broadcast this fall.

But a month later, a former Michigan judge hopes the increased attention and public outrage will spur legislators to take action.

Retired Van Buren County Circuit Court Judge William Buhl has long lobbied his state’s legislators to reform its sex offender registry, ever since he decided during his 36 years as a judge that the registry is ineffective and overly broad.

State appeals sex offender law ruling

10-31-2008 Nevada:

The Nevada attorney general's office will appeal a federal judge's decision that bars the state from applying a new sex offender law retroactively.

The attorney general's office filed a notice of appeal this week with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals challenging Judge James Mahan's September decision.

Mahan ruled that a new sex offender law, Assembly Bill 579, was unconstitutional because it would punish convicted sex offenders who had paid their debt to society.

The law changes the way Nevada classifies sex offenders. Instead of categorizing them by risk to re-offend, the law categorizes sex offenders by the crime they were convicted of.

"Our mandate is to defend the laws of the state of Nevada. We will pursue that mandate," said Binu Palal, deputy attorney general.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada and attorney Robert Langford challenged the law on behalf of about a dozen sex offenders.

Maggie McLetchie, staff attorney with the ACLU of Nevada, said she was disappointed with the attorney general's decision to appeal Mahan's decision. She said an appeal will be costly for the state, which is already facing budget woes. She said the ACLU has already billed the state about $140,000 in legal fees for the sex offender case.

"Our hope was to sit down and work collaboratively with the attorney general's office and legislators on this issue," she said. "There are ways to work this out and further public safety goals."

ACLU Executive Director Gary Peck said the law the attorney general's office is supporting isn't enhancing public safety. He called the appeal "a colossal waste of time, energy and money." ..Source.. by DAVID KIHARA, REVIEW-JOURNAL

IN Supreme court limits sex-offender residency law

7-4-2009 Indiana:

Retroactive penalty reversed in Indiana

INDIANAPOLIS — Convicted sex offenders who lived near schools or other places frequented by children before a state law restricting their residency was enacted in 2006 would not have to move under a ruling by the Indiana Supreme Court.

The court ruled Wednesday that the residency law violated the Indiana constitution by retroactively punishing Anthony W. Pollard, a Blackford County sex offender who died in December.

Pollard had owned his home in northeastern Indiana for about 10 years when he was convicted of a sex offense against a child in 1997. He was then charged in January 2007 with violating the 2006 law that prohibits convicted sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of a school, public park or youth program center.

Blackford Superior Court Judge John Forcum dismissed the charge as unconstitutional, and the state appealed.

The Court of Appeals and the state Supreme Court both upheld Forcum's decision.

The state Supreme Court decision said the residency law prevents a sex offender from living in his home — even if he bought it before the law took effect and even if a school or youth center moved within 1,000 feet of a home where he already lived.

"Although the statute does not affect ownership of property, it does affect one's freedom to live on one's own property," Justice Robert Rucker wrote. "A sex offender is subject to constant eviction because there is no way for him or her to find a permanent home in that there are no guarantees a school or youth program center will not open within 1,000 feet of any given location."

Bryan Corbin, a spokesman for the attorney general's office, which handled the appeal, said a staff attorney interpreted the ruling to apply only to offenders who were charged, convicted and sentenced before the residency law was enacted.

Attorneys for the state Supreme Court declined to comment because they are prohibited from interpreting the court's rulings.

The decision was the latest by the state Supreme Court to find that certain laws regarding state oversight of sex offenders violate the Indiana constitution's ban on laws punishing people for acts that were legal when they were committed.

In April, the court overturned a man's conviction for not registering as a sex offender because he had already completed a sentence for child molestation before the state's Sex Offender Registration Act was passed.

In light of that ruling, the Pollard decision "was not surprising," said Steve Johnson, executive director of the Indiana Prosecuting Attorneys Council.

However, he said the ruling might be interpreted differently depending on the circumstances.

"For example, I would hope that the residency restriction law would apply to a person convicted of child molesting in 2005 and who then intentionally moved across the street from an elementary school in 2009," Johnson said in an e-mail.

Corbin said the attorney general's staff doubted the ruling would have a wide effect.

"We doubt that this will impact a significant number of cases," he said. ..Source.. by Charles Wilson

IN- Charges against Patterson have been dismissed

5-5-2009 Indiana:

The case against Robert "Bobby" Patterson of Bloomfield was dismissed Tuesday after both the defense and the prosecution had filed motions in Greene Superior Court requesting the case be dropped.

Patterson was charged in late March with failure to register as a sex or violent offender, a class D felony.The 62-year-old Patterson is considered a violent offender because of his conviction on Nov. 12, 1981, of the murder of 15-year-old Kathy Sanford in Bloomfield in late January, 1980. At the age of 35, Patterson was sentenced to 40 years in prison. With "good time" credit, he completed his sentence and was released from prison in 2002.

Patterson current offense was charged under the Indiana Sex and Violent Offender Registration Act.

When this registration law was enacted, it only applied to sex offenders. In 2007, the law was amended to include violent offenders -- five years after Patterson was released from prison on the murder conviction.

Both motions for dismissal were prompted by an Indiana Supreme Court decision handed down last Thursday in a similar case involving Richard Wallace, a convicted sex offender. Patterson is a convicted violent offender. Both were required to register under Indiana law.

In both cases, they were charged, convicted and had served their sentence for their crime before the requirement for them to register was enacted. In Wallace's case, it was the requirement to register as a sex offender, in Patterson's, as a violent offender.

The defense motion to dismiss pointed out, "The Indiana Constitution provides that 'no ex post facto law ... shall ever be passed.'""Ex post facto" is a Latin term for "after the fact." A general explanation of an ex post facto law is a law that is retroactive, or that changes the consequences of a crime after the crime was committed.

In the Wallace case, he had already completed a sentence for child molesting before the Act was enacted. When the decision was made last Thursday, the court said Wallace's conviction violated the state constitution's prohibition of retroactive laws.

The Indiana Supreme Court is composed of five justices -- the decision was unanimous.

The Supreme Court said in Wallace's case, the law "imposes burdens that have the effect of adding punishment beyond that which could have been imposed when his crime was committed.

Wallace's conviction was overturned by the Supreme Court.

The first motion to dismiss the Patterson case was filed Monday morning by Greene County Public Defender Alan Baughman who was appointed to represent Patterson.

The defense motion contended that the law under which Patterson has been charged, the Indiana Sex and Violent Offender Registration Act, subjected him to punishment which is prohibited under the Indiana Constitution.

The second motion was filed Tuesday by Greene County Deputy Prosecutor Cheryl Jackson-Stone.

The state's motion requested the court dismiss the case for the reason that it cannot proceed with prosecution due to the recent Indiana Supreme Court decision in Wallace v. State.

On Tuesday morning, Prosecutor Jarrod Holtsclaw said he had read the Wallace decision.

"We have no choice," said Holtsclaw. "The Indiana Supreme Court does have the final say on Indiana laws. Unless it's taken to the United States Supreme Court, we have to abide by the Indiana Supreme Court's decision."

After the second motion was filed, Superior Court Judge Dena Martin ordered the case be dismissed and all scheduled hearings were vacated.

The prosecutor acknowledged that public opinion may be opposed to dropping Patterson's case but due to the Supreme Court's decision,Holtsclaw said the prosecutor's office simply cannot proceed with the case.

Holtsclaw said the Supreme Court had made their position clear.

"The right thing to do is to follow the Supreme Court's decision," said Holtsclaw.

Holtsclaw said most people in Indiana's judicial arena have been waiting on this decision for quite some time.

Not only does the ruling affect the Patterson case, but it is expected to affect many other cases in the state.

"This could affect hundreds, maybe thousands, of other cases. We're trying to see how many other cases in Greene County will be affected. I've asked the Public Defender's Office to take a look at other cases," said Holtsclaw.

Since Patterson's arrest, he has been been incarcerated in the Greene County Jail in lieu of $75,000 bond.

As of late Tuesday afternoon, Patterson was still in jail and no information was available about when he might be released -- there was a hold on his release due to a probation or parole violation. ..Source.. by Anna Rochelle, Staff Writer