Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDocumentation_Regular_Tab 12_12/14/2006VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA MEETING AGENDA ROUTING SHEET MEETING DATE: December 14, 2006 REQUESTED ACTION/SUMMARY: Adopt the proposed Sexual Offender/Predator Ordinance amending Chapter 54 - Offenses of the Village of Tequesta's Code of Ordinances. RESOLUTION OR ORDINANCE NUMBER: Res # Ord # 610-06/07 ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Teduesta Police Department FUNDING SOURCE: Not Applicable ACCOUNT NUMBER: CURRENT BUDGETED AMOUNT AVAILABLE: $ N/A AMOUNT OF THIS ITEM: $ AMOUNT REMAINING AFTER THIS ITEM: $ BUDGET TRANSFER REQUIRED: ^Yes ®No APPROPRIATE FUND BALANCE: ^Yes ®No Piggyback Contract Name and #: Or Competitive Bid # APPROVALS: DEPARTMENT HEAD: FINANCE DIRECTOR: VILLAGE MANAGER: ' VILLAGE MANAG~RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE ITEM: DENY ITEM: ^ VILLAGE ATTORNEY: APPROVED FOR LEGAL SUFFICIENCY ®Yes ^No ^Not Applicable (N/A) TEQUESTA POLICE DEPARTMENT ~ ,~~~UESTq ~~. ~ MEMORANDUM NQL~CF, PT - To: Michael R. Couzzo, Jr. Village Manager From: Chief William E. McCollo ` Date: November 21, 2006 Subject: SEXUAL OFFENDER/PREDATOR ORDINANCE #610-06/07 .~ ~,1 io a Attached for your consideration is a proposal to amend Ordinance 54, entitled Offenses. The amendment to the ordinance would prohibit sexual offenders/predators from residing within 1,000 feet of any location where children congregate. i)i ec!vaai nn At the time the Public Safety Information Act of 1997 passed, Florida had 471 sexual predators and approximately 8,000 sexual offenders listed in the database. Eight years later, that number had grown to more than 4,900 registered predators and 28,500 registered offenders. According to the 2006 Megan Report Card, Florida now reports 35,910 registered sex offenders (Table 1). A search of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement Sexual Offender/Predator website, using a search parameter of 5 miles from the Tequesta Police Department, 357 Tequesta Drive, Tequesta, FL., reveals 20 registered offender/predators and additional offenders who may or may not reside in the area. ~~26 Sexual Offender(s)/Predator(s) in PALM BEACH COUNTY which may or may not be located within the search parameters." Based on confirmation by the Tequesta Police Department, there are currently four (4) known registered sexual offenders living in Tequesta and no sexual predators (attachment A) . Florida State Statute X947.1405 (7) (a) (2) (2005) prohibits a sex offender, whose victim is under 18 years of age, from living within 1,000 feet of a school or where children congregate. Challenges regarding the constitutionality of such a statute continue, but in Doe v. Miller (2005), the United States Supreme Court specifically affirmed the right of a State (Iowa) to restrict the residency of a sexual offender. Since the Doe v. the premise they offenders, have offenders may municipalities i Miller decision, almos do not want to become created statutes to reside. Based on the n Palm Beach County have t predictably, other states, on the dumping ground for sexual restrict where convicted sex same premise, many local enacted ordinances restricting the location where a sexual offender/predator may reside. In May 2006, sixty (60) Florida cities had reportedly passed "restricted residency" or as opponents have coined it "banishment" ordinances (http://www.trumpetamerica.org/060526ta1944.html). Concerns of becoming the location of choice by sexual offenders may not be that far fetched. Recently Jupiter, FL, Tequesta's neighbor, passed a sexual offender/predator ordinance. Within a few days, the Tequesta Police Department received a call wanting to know if Tequesta had the same ordinance. Once the person was advised that no ordinance existed he moved his son, a convicted offender, to Tequesta. Opponents of this type of ordinance cite the failure of the ordinance to ensure its intended purpose. "The law was well-intentioned, but we don't see any evidence of a connection between where a person lives and where they might re-offend (Corwin R. Ritchie, Executive Director of the Iowa County Attorneys Association)." The intention of the proposed ordinance (Village of Tequesta Ordinance #610-06/07) is to protect and ensure the safety of the children who live in Tequesta. Although there is little evidence that indicates a sexual offender offends in close proximity to where they live, it is logical that an increase in sexual offenders living in an area would increase the probability of an offense. According to the Center for Sexual Offender Management (CSOM), "Child molesters have a 13 percent recidivism rate for sexual offenses and rapists have a 19 percent recidivism rate for sexual offenses. (available: www.sexoffender.com)" "Conversely, Prentky, Lee, Knight, and Cerce (1997) found that over a 25-year period, child molesters had higher rates of re-offense than rapists. In this study, recidivism was operationalized as a failure rate and calculated as the proportion of individuals who were rearrested using survival analysis (which takes into account the amount of time each offender has been at risk in the community). Results show that over longer periods of time, child molesters have a higher failure rate-thus, a higher rate of arrest- than rapists (52 percent versus 39 percent over 25 years). The Tequesta Police Department is proposing the Sexual Offender/Predator Ordinance as another step in protecting a growing number of younger residents. The ordinance in not a step toward abandoning supervision of sexual offenders residing within our jurisdiction. Currently, the Tequesta Police Department verifies the address and physical location of sexual offenders and ensures the public is aware of offenders/predators living in their neighborhood. The Department`s detective also participates in Palm Beach County's SPOT program that locates and arrests sexual offenders/predators who fail to register or have absconded. Sexual, Offender/Predator Ordinance Highlights 1. Defines the areas where a sexual offender/predator cannot be. The Florida Statute simply indicates where children congregate. Ordinance Sec. 54-8 clearly delineates areas that are prohibited: to establish a permanent or temporary residence within one thousand feet (1000') of any public or private school, designated public bus stop or sign, private school bus stop (including day care centers) registered pursuant to section 54-09, public library, day care center, home operated day care center with a Village occupational license, park, playground, community center, day camp, or other place where children regularly congregate. 2. Defines a sexual offender/predator. any person who has been convicted of a violation of sections 794.011, Fla. Stat. ("sexual battery"), 800.04. Fla. Stat. ("Lewd or lascivious offenses committed upon or in the presence of a person less than 18 years of age"), 827.021, Fla. Sta#. ("Sexual performance by a child"), or 847.0145, Fla. Stat. ("Buying. or selling minors"), regardless of whether adjudication has been withheld, and in which case the victim of the offenses was less than 18 years of age (hereinafter referred to as sexual offender or sexual predator) 3. Why this type of ordinance? As discussed, sexual offenders have the highest rate of recidivism over all other criminals. Offenders/predators are often transient in where they live. By restricting where they live, it will enable law enforcement a better opportunity to verify their addresses. The proposed ordinance follows the Iowa state model, which has been determined by the U.S. Supreme Court as constitutional. 4. How does it affect sex offenders/predators? The ordinance restricts where a sexual offender/predator may live within the Village of Tequesta. It does not require an offender/predator to move if they were living in their current residences prior to the ordinance being enacted. However, if they move from their current residence it will affect them. 5. Whom else does it affect? Sec. 54-9 makes it unlawful for property owners to rent to a convicted sex offender/predator. A property owner or property manaoer's failure to comply with the requirements of this section shall constitute a violation of this section, and shall subject the property owner, property manager or other person or entity in the care, custody or control of the real property to enforcement proceedings as authorized by this Code and Chapter 162, Fla. Stat., or by any other means of enforcement allowed by law Sec. 54-10 allows a private school's bus stop to be included in the prohibited areas, but only if they register the location with the Village of Tequesta. The prohibition from establishing a residence near a private school bus stop as set forth in this article, shall only apply to those private school bus stops that are registered with the Village pursuant to this section. 6. Why a misdemeanor level of penalty rather than a more serious felony level offense? Municipalities are restricted in the penalties, which may apply to ordinance violations. X162.22 F.S. provides as follows: ~ 162.22 Designation of enforcement methods and penalties for violation of municipal ordinances.--The governing body of a municipality may designate the enforcement methods and penalties to be imposed for the violation of ordinances adapted by the municipality. These enforcement methods may include, but are not limited to, the issuance of a citation, a summons, or a notice to appear in county court or arrest for violation of municipal ordinances as provided for in chapter 901. Unless otherwise specifically authorized and provided for by law, a person convicted of violating a municipal ordinance may be sentenced to pay a fine, not to exceed $500, and may be sentenced to a definite term of imprisonment, not to exceed 60 days, in a municipal detention facility or other facility as authorized by law. 7. Why "grandfather" in locations that may violate the ordinance once adopted? The ex post facto prohibition forbids the Congress and the State to enact laws that imposes a punishment for an act that was not punishable at the time it was committed; or imposes additional punishment to that then prescribed. 8. Why 1,000 feet when other municipalities prescribe 1,500' up to 2, 500' ? The intent of the ordinance is not to eliminate residency, but it is the intent of the ordinance to eliminate the ability of sexual offender/predators from living in proximity of areas where children normally congregate. The Florida State statute provides for 1,000', which is adequate to accomplish the intent of the Tequesta Police Department. It is the request of the Tequesta Police Department that the Village Council enact the Sexual Offender/Predator Ordinance as proposed. The language of the ordinance is similar to other ordinances passed by Palm Beach County municipalities and complies with the Iowa model. The Village's attorney, Scott Hawkins, has reviewed the ordinance for legal form and sufficiency. Other than a few grammatical errors and language corrections, Mr. Hawkins found the ordinance in legal form and sufficient. Mr. Hawkins' changes are included in the final proposed ordinance. For your convenience and clarification of the content of this memorandum quoted reference material is attached. VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA VILLAGE COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA COVER/MEMORANDUM Date Prepared: November 23, 2006 Meeting Date: December I4, 2006 CLASSIFICATION: Subject/Agenda Item/Summary: Approve the proposed Sexual Offender/Predator Ordinance amending Chapter 54 -Offenses of the Village of Tequesta Code of Ordinances. STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO ®APPROVE ^ DENY Reviewed by: Costs: Attachments: Advertised: (please list) N/A Date: 1. Memorandum to Funding Source: Village Manager w/ Paper: ^ Operating attachments ^ Not Required ^ Other (explain) 2. Meeting Agenda 3. Routing Sheet Affected Parties: Budget Acct. # 4. Ordinance 610-06/07 ^ Notified (explain) ^ None ® Not Required Submitted by: Originating Department: Village Manager Council Action: Approval: Chief William McCollom Police Department ~ ^ Approved ~~Z o~ • pproved w/conditions: ~n~ Y ^ Denied ^ Tabled until: ORDINANCE 610-06/07 AN ORDINANCE OF THE VILLAGE COUNCIL OF THE VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA, PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 54, ENTITLED "OFFENSES"; OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA, TO CREATE SEXUAL OFFENDER AND SEXUAL PREDATOR REGULATIONS; CREATING A NEW CODE SECTION 54-6 TO BE ENTITLED "FINDINGS AND INTENT'; CREATING A NEW CODE SECTION 54-7 TO BE ENTITLED "DEFINITIONS"; CREATING A NEW CODE SECTION 54-8 TO BE ENTITLED "PROHIBITIONS, EXCEPTIONS, PENALTIES"; TO PROVIDE A SEPARATION REQUIREMENT OF 1,000 FEET FROM THE RESIDENCES OF SEXUAL OFFENDERS AND PREDATORS AND CERTAIN PERMITTED USES; CREATING A NEW CODE SECTION 54-9, TO BE ENTITLED "RENTAL; OF REAL PROPERTY TO CERTAIN SEXUAL OFFENDERS AND PREDATORS PROHIBITED"; CREATING A NEW CODE SECTION 54-10, TO BE ENTITLED "ANNUAL REGISTRATION OF PRIVATE SCHOOL BUS STOPS"; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ANY LAWS IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Village of Tequesta, Florida is a duly constituted municipality having such power and authority conferred upon it by the Florida Constitution and Chapter 166, Florida Statutes; WHEREAS, the Council of the Village of Tequesta is deeply concerned about recent occurrences in our state and nation, whereby convicted sex offenders and predators who have been released from custody, repeat unlawful acts for which they were previously convicted; WHEREAS, repeat sexual offenders, sexual offenders who use physical violence, sexual offenders who prey on children, and sexual predators present a serious threat to public safety; WHEREAS, sexual offenders and predators are known to use physical violence, repeat offenses, to commit multiple offenses, have more victims than reported, and are prosecuted for only a fraction of their crimes; WHEREAS, the Council of the Village of Tequesta finds from the available information that recidivism for released sex offenders and sexual predators is high, especially for those who committed crimes with children; WHEREAS, the threat that sexual offenders and sexual predators present to public safety, and the long-term effects suffered by victims of sex offenses, present sufficient justification to enact restrictions on where sexual offenders and sexual predators may temporarily and permanently reside with the Village; WHEREAS, the Council of the Village of Tequesta therefore desires to establish a policy providing for maximum protection of the lives, safety and physical and mental well-being of Village of Tequesta residents and guests; WHEREAS, staff recommended that the Village Council amend Chapter 54,: Offenses, creating new Sections 54-6, 54-7, 54-8, 54-9, and 54-10, to prohibit sexual offenders and sexual predators from residing within 1,000 feet of certain uses and locations within the Village, and to provide for the annual registration of private school bus stops; WHEREAS, the Village has the authority, pursuant to Article VIII, Section 2(b) of the Florida Constitution, and Chapter 166, Florida Statutes, to adopt such provisions in order to protect the health, safety, and welfare of its residents; WHEREAS, the United States 8t" Circuit Court of Appeals recently rendered a decision in Doe v. Miller, 405 F. 3rd 700 (8th Cir. April 29, 2005), upholding similar residency restrictions for sexual offenders and sexual predators contained in Iowa State Statutes; WHEREAS, the Village Council has reviewed the recommendations of its staff and determined that creating new Sections 54-6, 54-7, 54-8, 54-9, and 54-10 of Chapter 54, of the Village Code of Ordinances is necessary to further the public health, safety and welfare; WHEREAS, the Village Council finds that amending Chapter 54 and prohibiting convicted Sexual Offenders and Sexual Predators, from living within one thousand feet (1,000') of specified locations in the Village of Tequesta, is in the best interest of the health, safety, and welfare of the residents and citizens of the Village of Tequesta. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE VILLAGE COUNCIL OF THE VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA, PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The foregoing whereas clauses are incorporated herein as true and correct and as findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Village Council. Section 2. Chapter 54 of the Village of Tequesta Code of Ordinances is hereby amended creating new Sections 54-6, 54-7, 54-8, 54-9, and 54-10. Section 3. Chapter 54, Sections 54-6 through 54-10 of the Village of Tequesta Code of Ordinances, are hereby created to read as follows: Chapter 54 OFFENSES Sexual Offenders and Sexual Predators,~& 54-6 - 54-10. Sec. 54-6. Findings and Intent. ~a~ Repeat sexual offenders, sexual offenders who use physical violence and sexual offenders who prey on children are sexual predators who present an extreme threat to public safety. Sexual offenders/predators are extremely likely to use physical violence and to repeat their offenses, and most sexual offenders/predators commit many offenses, have many more victims than are ever reported, and are prosecuted for onl~a fraction of their crimes. (b~ It is the intent of this section to serve and to protect the Village's compelling interest to promote, protect and improve the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the Village by creating areas around locations where children re ug larly congregate in concentrated numbers wherein certain sexual offenders and sexual predators are prohibited from establishing temporary or permanent residence. Sec. 54-7 Definitions. Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in sections 54-6 through 54_ 10 of this article, shall have the meanings ascribed to them, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning. Conviction means a determination of guilt which is the result of a trial or the entry of a plea of guilty or polo contender, regardless of whether adjudication is withheld. Permanent residence means a place where a person abides, resides, lodges for fourteen (14~ more consecutive days, and which includes, motor vehicles, trailers, mobile homes, manufactured homes, vessels, live-aboard vessels, houseboats, and campsites. Private bus stop means a location where private school students from more than one residence are picked up and/or dropped off durin tg_ransportation to and from a private school, including private,day care centers. Temporary residence means a place where a person abides, resides, or lodges for a period of fourteen (14Z days or more in the aggregate, during any calendar year, and which is not the person's~ermanent residence, or place where a person routinely abides, resides, or lodges for a period of four (4) or more consecutive or non-consecutive days in an~month and which is not the person's permanent residence, and which includes, motor vehicles, trailers, mobile homes, manufactured homes, vessels, live-aboard vessels, houseboats, and campsites. Sec. 54-8. Prohibitions; Exceptions; Penalties ~) It is unlawful ,for anyperson who has been convicted of a violation of sections 794.011, Fla. Stat. ~"sexual batter') 800.04, Fla. Stat. ("Lewd or lascivious offenses committed upon or in the presence of a person less than 18 years of age"), 827.021, Fla. Stat. ("Sexual performance by a child"), or 847.0145, Fla. Stat. ("Bing or selling minors"~ regardless of whether adjudication has been withheld, and in which case the victim of the offenses was Less than 18 years of age, (hereinafter referred to as sexual offender or sexual predator), to establish a permanent or temporary residence within one thousand feet (1,000') of any public or private school, desi ngLated public bus stop or si n, private school bus stop including day care centers registered pursuant to section 54-09, public library, day care center, home operated dam center with a Village occupational license, park, playground, community center, day camp, or other place where children re ug lady congregate. (2) For purposes of determining the minimum distance separation, the distance shall be measured by following, a strai hg t line from the outer propertv line of the permanent residence or temporary residence, to the nearest outer propertv line of any public or private school, desi ngLated public bus stop or sign, private school bus stop (including day care centers) registered pursuant to section 54-10, public library, day care center, home operated day care center with a Village occupational license, park, playground, community center, dam camp, or other place where children re ug lady congregate. (3) Exceptions. A person residing within one thousand feet (1,000' of any_public or private school, designated public bus stop or sign, private school bus stop (including day care centers) registered pursuant to section 54-10, public library, day care center, home operated day care center with a Village occupational license, park, playground, community center, da~camp, or other place where children re ug lady congregate, does not commit a violation of this section if any of the following apply: ~) The person established a permanent residence prior to (the date of adoption of this ordinance); (b) The person is a minor; cl The public or private school, designated public bus stop or sign. private school bus sto (including day care centers, re istg erect pursuant to section 54-10, public,library, dam center, home operated day care center with a Village occupational license, park, play rg ound, community center, day camp, or other place where children re ularly congregate within one thousand feet (1,000') of the person's permanent or temporary residence was opened and/or established after the person established their permanent or temporary residence. (4) Penalties. A person who violates this section shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars ($500.00) or by imprisonment for a term not exceeding sixes (60) days, or by both such fine and imprisonment ; for a second or subsequent conviction of a violation of this section, such person shall be punished by a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) and / or imprisonment in the count jail not more than twelve (12) months, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Sec. 54-9 Rental of Real Property to Certain Sexual Offenders and Sexual Predators Prohibited. 11 It unlawful to lease, rent, or otherwise convey anv dwelling, structure, or Hart thereof trailers or other conveyances, to anv person prohibited from establishin sg uch permanent residence or temporary residence pursuant to section 54-8 of this article, if such dwelling, or part thereof, is going to be used a permanent residence or temporary residence of the person, and the dwelling is located with one thousand feet (1,000' of public or private school, desi ng_ated public bus stop or sign, private school bus stop (including dam centers) registered pursuant to section 54-10, public library, day care center, home operated day care center with a Villa e occupational license, ,park, playground, community center, day camp, or other place where children re ug laxly congregate. (2~property owner or propert~ger's failure to comply with the requirements of this section shall constitute a violation of this section, and shall subject the property owner, property manager or other person or entity in the care, custod or control of the real property to enforcement proceedings as authorized by this Code and Chapter 162, Fla. Stat., or bYany other means of enforcement allowed by law. Sec. 54-10 Annual Registration of Private School Bus Stops. (1) The prohibition from establishing a residence near a private school bus stop as set forth in this article, shall only apply to those .private school bus stops that are registered with the Village pursuant to this section. 2) Anv nrivate school, including day care centers, that enrolls children within the Village may register the location of its bus stops with the Village of Tequesta Police Department , and may amend such registration by filing the locations, as amended, with the Village Manager. The registration, or amended registration, as applicable, shall be effective for a single school year from the date of filin tg_hrough February 1 following the school year. Section 4. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding, shall not affect the validity of the remainingportions thereof. Section 5. Repeal of Laws in Conflict. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict. Section 6. Codification. The sections of the Ordinance will be part of the Code of Ordinances of the Village of Tequesta and may renumbered or re-lettered to accomplish such, and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section," "article," or any other term as appropriate. Section 7. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect immediately upon adoption. THE FOREGOING ORDINANCE WAS OFFERED by Councilmember who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by Councilmember ,and upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: FOR ADOPTION AGAINST ADOPTION The Mayor thereupon declared the Resolution duly passed and adopted this day of A.D., 2006. MAYOR OF TEQUESTA Jim Humpage ATTEST: Gwen Carlisle Village Clerk Sex Offender Ordinance Radius Sex Offender Ordinance Radius Page 1 of 1 Pushpins [] Library ~ My Pushpins 2 ^~ Parks Other Bus Stops ® Schools Bus Stops My Pushpins Populated Places ® Major City (1,000,000+) ® City (500,000 - 999,999) o Minor City (100,000 - 499,999) o Town (20,000 - 99,999) Other Place ^®Ooo National Capital ^®oo~ Other Capital sono Neighborhood Copydght ©1988-2002 Microsoft Corp. and/or its suppliers. All rights reserved. http://www.microsoR.com/streets ©Copyright 2001 try 6eo9raphic Data Technology, Inc. All rights reserved. ©2001 Navigation Technologies. All rights reserved. This data includes information taken with permission from Canadian authorities ©Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada file://C:\Documents and Settings\William McCollom\My Documents\Tequesta\Sex Offen... 11/23/2006 Local Sexual Offenders Jaraathan Bickinsara Blovring Racks ~#$te Park - Hell Ga#e 9 ~'~ SE Catalpa 5t - __ _r_ ° 3 ~~ a ~~ #, ~~ ~ ~~ a ~ ~ C 6UTIts~..•Lr~~..~~_...,..._... ....... ~. .~~- ^Cy ~ ~ !1' i' '` ~I ~ '~ _ `~ ~ ~` ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~' ~ Te seta ~ ~' _-.,~'-r:_ '' Te uesia Dt ,~, q Beacon ~t ~~~er ~~ ~ G~!~~ . ~ Cdr ~ f?+~isian ~ ~ ~ _t a i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~~: :~, 871;` ~l ~'_ ,~~ .~ Luaa~~va~.~~c'v .,fiver Aquatic Preserve - , - Alt A1A Jupiter A9. -9 dchl: rc:ern t_. ~ _ __ _-_.- Attarttr~ OC@~'r7 J a Jupiter Inlet ~ .Calarry ,~ -, '~~ ~, Berns, Lawrence (400 Beach Rd #203) Gammaro, James (433 N. Cypress Dr. 1 r :. ,.: Henderson, Anth~ ~ y (19103 Waterwa~o:d 0 c .~,'. 4 Naused, Michael (327 P~ineview Rd.) ~ . ``~ ~~¢?,: Williams, Les (19980 Jasmine Rd.) 4 ~ -~ Mulligan, Patrick (84 Fairview W) Table 1 ~', 2006 Megan's Law Report Card State 2005 Number of Registered Sex Offenders 2006 Number of Registered Offenders Civil Commitment For SVP Lifetime Registration Re uired Minimum/Max ~~ to Life Sentence for Sex Offenses Alabama 5,616 5,193 No Yes 10-15 ears Alaska 2,873 4,219 No No 15 to life Arizona 9,221 11,305 Yes Yes 10-15 ears Arkansas 5,864 6,426 No No 25 to life California 102,180*** 104,824*** Yes No No Colorado 8,381 9,125 No No 10-15-20 to life Connecticut 3,785 4,106 No No 10 to life District of Columbia 624 641 No No l0 to life Delaware 2,961 2,984 No No 15 to life Florida 33,990 35,910 Yes Yes No Geor is 8,958 l 1,744 No No 10 to life Hawaii 1,957 2,170 No Yes No Idaho 2,606 2,801 No Yes No Illinois 17,100 17,890 Yes No 10 to life Indiana 7,300 8,500 No No 10-to life Iowa 6,104 6,058 Yes No 10 to life Kansas 3,563 3,981 Yes No 10 to life Kentuck 4,898 5,351 No No 10 to life Louisiana 6,591 6,921 No No 10 to life Maine 1,553 1,670 No No 10 to life Ma land 4,253 4,340 No No 10 to life Massachusetts 18,000 8,104 Yes No 20 to life Michi an 36,233 38,032 No No 10-25 to life Minnesota 15,819 13,885 Yes No 10 to life Mississi i 3,300 3,689 No No 10 to life Missouri ]0,719 11,031 Yes Yes No Montana 3,370 1,495 No Yes No Nebraska 2,041 2,189 No No 10 to life Nevada 4,734 5,573 No Yes No New Ham shire 3,100 3,250 No No 10 to life New Jerse 10,464 1 1,003 Yes No 15 to life New Mexico 1,864 1,915 No No 10-20 to life New York 20,969 22,209 Yes* No 20 to life North Carolina 10,244 9,228 No No 10 to life North Dakota 801 946 Yes No 10 to life Ohio 13,485 13,750 No No 10 to life Oklahoma 5,507 5,11.8 Yes No 10 to life Ore on 15,259 17,160 No Yes No Penns lvania 7,199 7,736 No No 10 to life Rhode Island 1,640 1,352 No No 10 to life South Carolina 8,049 8,556 Yes Yes No South Dakota 1,707 1,993 No Yes No Tennessee 7,873 8,561 No No 10 to life Texas 46,484 44,336 Yes** No 10 to life Utah 8,000 6,904 No No 10 to life Vermont 2,226 2,340 No No 10 to life California Research Bureau, California State Library Table 2 States With Sex Offender Residency Restriction Laws State Revised Code and Date T e of Restriction Alabama [Ala. Code] § 15-20-26[a] A sex offender may not reside or work within 2,000 feet of Su 2004.) schools or childcare facilities. Arkansas [Ark. Code Ann.] § 5-14- A level 3 or 4 (most serious) sex offender cannot live within 2,000 128 a Michie Su .2003) feet of schools or da care centers. California W&I Code § 6608.5 (f) (2005) Asexually violent predator and a serious paroled sex offender Penal Code § 3003 (g) (1) (3) cannot live within one-fourth of a mile of a school, and high-risk (2005). Parole placement paroled sex offenders cannot reside within one-half mile of a rohibition. school, da care center, or where children con a ate. Florida [Fla. Statute Ann.] § 947. 1405 A sex offender whose victim is under 18 years old cannot live 7 a 2 2005 within 1,000 feet of school or where children con re ate. Georgia [Ga. Code Ann.] § 42-1-13 No sex offender may reside, work, or loiter within 1,000 feet of (2003) § 42-1-15 (2006) any school, childcare facility, school bus stop, or where minors con re ate. Illinois [Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann.] § 5/11- A child sex offender may not reside within 500 feet of a school or 9.3 b-5) 2002 school ro ert . Iowa [Iowa Code Supp.] § Sec. Asexual offender may not reside within 2,000 feet of a school or 692 A (2A (2005 childcare facilit . Kentucky [Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann.] § 17.495 A sex offender may not reside within I ,000 feet of a school, Michie 2004 & Su .2006 childcare facilit ,ball fields, and la rounds. Indiana [Indiana Code Supp.] § 1 I-13-3- A violent sex offender cannot reside within 1,000 feet of any 4 2 A) Jul 2006 school roe for duration of arole. Louisiana [La. Rev. Stat. Ann.] § 14:91.1 Asexually violent predator and serious paroled sex offender may and § 15.538] {(West 2004 & not reside within 1,000 feet of schools or related school activities 2005 includin school buses for life or duration of arole or robation. Missouri [Mo Rev. Stat.] § 589.417 A sex offender may not reside within 1,000 feet of a school or 2005 childcare facilit . Minnesota [Minn. Statutes] Chapter The Parole Commissioner determines if and where a level II and 244.052 et. al. 2005) II[ sex offender ma reside within 1,500 feet of school zones. New Mexico [N.M. Rev. Stat.] § 29-11 A-5.1 Schools within aone-mile radius of registered sex offender must 2005 be notified of his resence. Michigan [MCL 28.721 to 28.732)] § 33 A sex offender cannot reside within 1,000 feet of school safety 2006 zone. Ohio [Ohio Rev. Code Ann.] § A sex offender cannot reside within 1,000 feet of any school, 2950.031 [(A)] ([Anderson] child-care facility, or where children gather. 2003 2006 Oklahoma [Okla. Stat. Ann. Tit. 57,] § 590 It is unlawful for registered sex offender to reside within a 2,000 West 2004 & 2005 feet radius of a school. Oregon [Or. Rev. Stat.] § 144.642 The Department of Correction decides where and how close a sex [(1)(a)], 144.64[4(2)(a)] (Supp offender can live to a school or daycare center based on a decision 2004 & 2005 matrix. South Dakota [SD Rev. Code Ann.] § 22-24B A sex offender cannot reside or loiter within 500 feet of 2006 communit safet zones. Tennessee [Tenn. Code Ann.] § 40-39- A sex offender cannot reside within 1,000 feet of schools, 2 11 a)- b) 2003 childcare facilities, or the victim. Texas [Texas Govt. Code] Chapter The state Parole Board decides where and how close a paroled sex 508.187 b (2001 offender can live or o near to a child safet zone. Washington [Rev. Code. Wash.] § A sex offender convicted of a serious offense with ahigh-risk 9.94A.712(6)(a)(ii) § 9.95.425- assessment (Levels II or III) cannot reside within a community 430 2006 rotection zone within 880 feet of an school or da care center West Virginia [Code of W.V. 1931 ]Art. 12 § A paroled sex offender cannot reside within 1,000 feet of a school 62-12-26 (b (I 2006) or childcare facilit . Source: California Research Bureau/ California State Libra , 2006. California Research Bureau, California State Library 17 Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes :->2006->Ch0775->Section 21 : flsenate.gov Select Year: 2006 Go T~~e 2006 FIol-ic~a Statutes Page 1 of 12 Title Chapter 775 View Entire XLVI DEFINITIONS; GENERAL PENALTIES; REGISTRATION OF Chapter CRIMES CRIMINALS 775.21 The Florida Sexual Predators Act.-- (1) SHORT TITLE.--This section may be cited as "The Florida Sexual Predators Act." (2) DEFINITIONS.--As used in this section, the term: (a) "Chief of police" means the chief law enforcement officer of a municipality. (b) "Community" means any county where the sexual predator lives or otherwise establishes or maintains a temporary or permanent residence. (c) "Conviction" means a determination of guilt which is the result of a trial or the entry of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, regardless of whether adjudication is withheld. A conviction for a similar offense includes, but is not limited to, a conviction by a federal or military tribunal, including courts-martial conducted by the Armed Forces of the United States, and includes a conviction or entry of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere resulting in a sanction in any state of the United States or other jurisdiction. A sanction includes, but is not limited to, a fine, probation, community control, parole, conditional release, control release, or incarceration in a state prison, federal prison, private correctional facility, or local detention facility. (d) "Department" means the Department of Law Enforcement. (e) "Entering the county" includes being discharged from a correctional facility or jail or secure treatment facility within the county or being under supervision within the county for the commission of a violation enumerated in subsection (4). (f) "Permanent residence" means a place where the person abides, lodges, or resides for 5 or more consecutive days. (g) "Temporary residence" means a place where the person abides, lodges, or resides for a period of 5 or more days in the aggregate during any calendar year and which is not the person's permanent address or, for a person whose permanent residence is not in this state, a place where the person is employed, practices a vocation, or is enrolled as a student for any period of time in this state. (h) "Institution of higher education" means a career center, community college, college, state university, or independent postsecondary institution. (i) "Change in enrollment or employment status" means the commencement or termination of enrollment or employment or a change in location of enrollment or employment. (3) LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS AND PURPOSE; LEGISLATIVE INTENT.-- (a) Repeat sexual offenders, sexual offenders who use physical violence, and sexual offenders who prey on children are sexual predators who present an extreme threat to the public safety. Sexual offenders are extremely likely to use physical violence and to repeat their offenses, and most http://www.flsenate.gov/statutes/index.cfm?p=2&App_mode=Display_Statute&Search 5... 11/23/2006 Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes :->2006->Ch0775->Section 21 : flsenate.gov Page 2 of 12 sexual offenders commit many offenses, have many more victims than are ever reported, and are prosecuted for only a fraction of their crimes. This makes the cost of sexual offender victimization to society at large, while incalculable, clearly exorbitant. (b) The high level of threat that a sexual predator presents to the public safety, and the long-term effects suffered by victims of sex offenses, provide the state with sufficient justification to implement a strategy that includes: 1. Incarcerating sexual predators and maintaining adequate facilities to ensure that decisions to release sexual predators into the community are not made on the basis of inadequate space. 2. Providing for specialized supervision of sexual predators who are in the community by specially trained probation officers with low caseloads, as described in ss. 947.1405(7) and 948.30. The sexual predator is subject to specified terms and conditions implemented at sentencing or at the time of release from incarceration, with a requirement that those who are financially able must pay all or part of the costs of supervision. 3. Requiring the registration of sexual predators, with a requirement that complete and accurate information be maintained and accessible for use by law enforcement authorities, communities, and the public. 4. Providing for community and public notification concerning the presence of sexual predators. 5. Prohibiting sexual predators from working with children, either for compensation or as a volunteer. (c) The state has a compelling interest in protecting the public from sexual predators and in protecting children from predatory sexual activity, and there is sufficient justification for requiring sexual predators to register and for requiring community and public notification of the presence of sexual predators. (d) It is the purpose of the Legislature that, upon the court's written finding that an offender is a sexual predator, in order to protect the public, it is necessary that the sexual predator be registered with the department and that members of the community and the public be notified of the sexual predator's presence. The designation of a person as a sexual predator is neither a sentence nor a punishment but simply a status resulting from the conviction of certain crimes. (e) It is the intent of the Legislature to address the problem of sexual predators by: 1. Requiring sexual predators supervised in the community to have special conditions of supervision and to be supervised by probation officers with low caseloads; 2. Requiring sexual predators to register with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, as provided in this section; and 3. Requiring community and public notification of the presence of a sexual predator, as provided in this section. (4) SEXUAL PREDATOR CRITERIA.-- (a) For a current offense committed on or after October 1, 1993, upon conviction, an offender shall be designated as a "sexual predator" under subsection (5), and subject to registration under subsection (6) and community and public notification under subsection (7) if: 1. The felony is: http://www.flsenate.gov/statutes/index.cfm?p=2&App_mode=Display_Statute&Search 5... 11/23/2006 Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes :->2006->Ch0775->Section 21 : flsenate.gov Page 3 of 12 a. A capital, life, or first-degree felony violation, or any attempt thereof, of s. 787.01 or s. 787.02, where the victim is a minor and the defendant is not the victim's parent, or of chapter 794, s: 800.04, or s. 847.0145, or a violation of a similar law of another jurisdiction; or b. Any felony violation, or any attempt thereof, of s. 787.01, s. 787.02, or s. 787.025(2)(c), where the victim is a minor and the defendant is not the victim's parent; chapter 794, excluding ss. 794.011(10) and 794.0235; s. 796.03; s. 796.035; s. 800.04; s. 825.1025(2)(b); s. 827.071; s. 847.0145; or ~s. 985.701(1); or a violation of a similar law of another jurisdiction, and the offender has previously been convicted of or found to have committed, or has pled nolo contendere or guilty to, regardless of adjudication, any violation of s. 787.01, s. 787.02, or s. 787.025(2)(c), where the victim is a minor and the defendant is not the victim's parent; s. 794.011(2), (3), (4), (5), or (8); s. 794.05; s. 796.03; s. 796.035; s. 800.04; s. 825.1025; s. 827.071; s. 847.0133; s. 847.0135; s. 847.0145; or ~s. 985.701(1); or a violation of a similar law of another jurisdiction; 2. The offender has not received a pardon for any felony or similar law of another jurisdiction that is necessary for the operation of this paragraph; and 3. A conviction of a felony or similar law of another jurisdiction necessary to the operation of this paragraph has not been set aside in any postconviction proceeding. (b) In order to be counted as a prior felony for purposes of this subsection, the felony must have resulted in a conviction sentenced separately, or an adjudication of delinquency entered separately, prior to the current offense and sentenced or adjudicated separately from any other felony conviction that is to be counted as a prior felony regardless of the date of offense of the prior felony. (c) If an offender has been registered as a sexual predator by the Department of Corrections, the department, or any other law enforcement agency and if: 1. The court did not, for whatever reason, make a written finding at the time of sentencing that the offender was a sexual predator; or 2. The offender was administratively registered as a sexual predator because the Department of Corrections, the department, or any other law enforcement agency obtained information that indicated that the offender met the criteria for designation as a sexual predator based on a violation of a similar law in another jurisdiction, the department shall remove that offender from the department's list of sexual predators and, for an offender described under subparagraph 1., shall notify the state attorney who prosecuted the offense that met the criteria for administrative designation as a sexual predator, and, for an offender described under this Zsubparagraph, shall notify the state attorney of the county where the offender establishes or maintains a permanent or temporary residence. The state attorney shall bring the matter to the court's attention in order to establish that the offender meets the criteria for designation as a sexual predator. If the court makes a written finding that the offender is a sexual predator, the offender must be designated as a sexual predator, must register or be registered as a sexual predator with the department as provided in subsection (6), and is subject to the community and public notification as provided in subsection (7). If the court does not make a written finding that the offender is a sexual predator, the offender may not be designated as a sexual predator with respect to that offense and is not required to register or be registered as a sexual predator with the department. (d) An offender who has been determined to be a sexually violent predator pursuant to a civil commitment proceeding under chapter 394 shall be designated as a "sexual predator" under subsection (5) and subject to registration under subsection (6) and community and public notification under subsection (7). http://www.flsenate.gov/statutes/index.cfm?p=2&App_mode=Display_Statute&Search 5... 11/23/2006 Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes :->2006->Ch0775->Section 21 : flsenate.gov Page 4 of 12 (5) SEXUAL PREDATOR DESIGNATION.--An offender is designated as a sexual predator as follows: (a}1. An offender who meets the sexual predator criteria described in paragraph (4)(d) is a sexual predator, and the court shall make a written finding at the time such offender is determined to be asexually violent predator under chapter 394 that such person meets the criteria for designation as asexual predator for purposes of this section. The clerk shall transmit a copy of the order containing the written finding to the department within 48 hours after the entry of the order; 2. An offender who meets the sexual predator criteria described in paragraph (4)(a) who is before the court for sentencing for a current offense committed on or after October 1, 1993, is a sexual predator, and the sentencing court must make a written finding at the time of sentencing that the offender is a sexual predator, and the clerk of the court shall transmit a copy of the order containing the written finding to the department within 48 hours after the entry of the order; or 3. If the Department of Corrections, the department, or any other law enforcement agency obtains information which indicates that an offender who establishes or maintains a permanent or temporary residence in this state meets the sexual predator criteria described in paragraph (4)(a) or paragraph (4)(d) because the offender was civilly committed or committed a similar violation in another jurisdiction on or after October 1, 1993, the Department of Corrections, the department, or the law enforcement agency shall notify the state attorney of the county where the offender establishes or maintains a permanent or temporary residence of the offender's presence in the community. The state attorney shalt file a petition with the criminal division of the circuit court for the purpose of holding a hearing to determine if the offender's criminal record or record of civil commitment from another jurisdiction meets the sexual predator criteria. If the court finds that the offender meets the sexual predator criteria because the offender has violated a similar law or similar laws in another jurisdiction, the court shall make a written finding that the offender is a sexual predator. When the court makes a written finding that an offender is a sexual predator, the court shall inform the sexual predator of the registration and community and public notification requirements described in this section. Within 48 hours after the court designating an offender as a sexual predator, the clerk of the circuit court shall transmit a copy of the court's written sexual predator finding to the department. If the offender is sentenced to a term of imprisonment or supervision, a copy of the court's written sexual predator finding must be submitted to the Department of Corrections. (b) If a sexual predator is not sentenced to a term of imprisonment, the clerk of the court shall ensure that the sexual predator's fingerprints are taken and forwarded to the department within 48 hours after the court renders its written sexual predator finding. The fingerprint card shall be clearly marked, "Sexual Predator Registration Card." The clerk of the court that convicts and sentences the sexual predator for the offense or offenses described in subsection (4) shall forward to the department and to the Department of Corrections a certified copy of any order entered by the court imposing any special condition or restriction on the sexual predator which restricts or prohibits access to the victim, if the victim is a minor, or to other minors. (c) If the Department of Corrections, the department, or any other law enforcement agency obtains information which indicates that an offender meets the sexual predator criteria but the court did not make a written finding that the offender is a sexual predator as required in paragraph (a), the Department of Corrections, the department, or the law enforcement agency shall notify the state attorney who prosecuted the offense for offenders described in subparagraph (a)1., or the state attorney of the county where the offender establishes or maintains a residence upon first entering the state for offenders described in subparagraph (a)3. The state attorney shall bring the matter to the court's attention in order to establish that the offender meets the sexual predator criteria. If the state attorney fails to establish that an offender meets the sexual predator criteria and the court does not make a written finding that an offender is a sexual predator, the offender is not required to register with the department as a sexual predator. The Department of Corrections, the department, or any other law enforcement agency shalt not administratively designate an http://www.flsenate.gov/statutes/index.cfm?p=2&App_mode=Display_Statute&Search 5... 11/23/2006 Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes :->2006->Ch0775->Section 21 : flsenate.gov Page 5 of 12 offender as a sexual predator without a written finding from the court that the offender is a sexual predator. (d) A person who establishes or maintains a residence in this state and who has not been designated as a sexual predator by a court of this state but who has been designated as a sexual predator, as a sexually violent predator, or by another sexual offender designation in another state or jurisdiction and was, as a result of such designation, subjected to registration or community or public notification, or both, or would be if the person was a resident of that state or jurisdiction, without regard to whether the person otherwise meets the criteria for registration as a sexual offender, shall register in the manner provided in s. 943.0435 or s. 944.607 and shall be subject to community and public notification as provided in s. 943.0435 or s. 944.607. A person who meets the criteria of this section is subject to the requirements and penalty provisions of s. 943.0435 or s. 944.607 until the person provides the department with an order issued by the court that designated the person as a sexual predator, as a sexually violent predator, or by another sexual offender designation in the state or jurisdiction in which the order was issued which states that such designation has been removed or demonstrates to the department that such designation, if not imposed by a court, has been removed by operation of law or court order in the state or jurisdiction in which the designation was made, and provided such person no longer meets the criteria for registration as a sexual offender under the laws of this state. (6) REGISTRATION.-- (a) Asexual predator must register with the department by providing the following information to the department: 1. Name, social security number, age, race, sex, date of birth, height, weight, hair and eye color, photograph, address of legal residence and address of any current temporary residence, within the state or out of state, including a rural route address and a post office box, date and place of any employment, date and place of each conviction, fingerprints, and a brief description of the crime or crimes committed by the offender. A post office box shall not be provided in lieu of a physical residential address. a. If the sexual predator's place of residence is a motor vehicle, trailer, mobile home, or manufactured home, as defined in chapter 320, the sexual predator shall also provide to the department written notice of the vehicle identification number; the license tag number; the registration number; and a description, including color scheme, of the motor vehicle, trailer, mobile home, or manufactured home. If a sexual predator's place of residence is a vessel, live- aboard vessel, or houseboat, as defined in chapter 327, the sexual predator shall also provide to the department written notice of the hull identification number; the manufacturer's serial number; the name of the vessel, live-aboard vessel, or houseboat; the registration number; and a description, including color scheme, of the vessel, live-aboard vessel, or houseboat. b. If the sexual predator is enrolled, employed, or carrying on a vocation at an institution of higher education in this state, the sexual predator shall also provide to the department the name, address, and county of each institution, including each campus attended, and the sexual predator's enrollment or employment status. Each change in enrollment or employment status shall be reported in person at the sheriffs office, or the Department of Corrections if the sexual predator is in the custody or control of or under the supervision of the Department of Corrections, within 48 hours after any change in status. The sheriff or the Department of Corrections shall promptly notify each institution of the sexual predator's presence and any change in the sexual predator's enrollment or employment status. 2. Any other information determined necessary by the department, including criminal and corrections records; nonprivileged personnel and treatment records; and evidentiary genetic markers when available. (b) If the sexual predator is in the custody or control of, or under the supervision of, the http://www.flsenate.gov/statutes/index.cfm?p=2&App_mode=Display_Statute&Search 5... 11/23/2006 Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes :->2006->Ch0775->Section 21 : flsenate.gov Page 6 of l2 Department of Corrections, or is in the custody of a private correctional facility, the sexual predator must register with the Department of Corrections. The Department of Corrections shall provide to the department registration information and the location of, and local telephone number for, any Department of Corrections office that is responsible for supervising the sexual predator. In addition, the Department of Corrections shall notify the department if the sexual predator escapes or absconds from custody or supervision or if the sexual predator dies. (c) If the sexual predator is in the custody of a local jail, the custodian of the local jail shall register the sexual predator and forward the registration information to the department. The custodian of the local jail shall also take a digitized photograph of the sexual predator while the sexual predator remains in custody and shall provide the digitized photograph to the department. The custodian shall notify the department if the sexual predator escapes from custody or dies. (d) If the sexual predator is under federal supervision, the federal agency responsible for supervising the sexual predator may forward to the department any information regarding the sexual predator which is consistent with the information provided by the Department of Corrections under this section, and may indicate whether use of the information is restricted to law enforcement purposes only or may be used by the department for purposes of public notification. (e) If the sexual predator is not in the custody or control of, or under the supervision of, the Department of Corrections, or is not in the custody of a private correctional facility, and establishes or maintains a residence in the state, the sexual predator shall register in person at the sheriff's office in the county in which the predator establishes or maintains a residence, within 48 hours after establishing permanent or temporary residence in this state. Any change in the sexual predator's permanent or temporary residence or name, after the sexual predator registers in person at the sheriff's office, shall be accomplished in the manner provided in paragraphs (g), (i), and (j). When a sexual predator registers with the sheriffs office, the sheriff shall take a photograph and a set of fingerprints of the predator and forward the photographs and fingerprints to the department, along with the information that the predator is required to provide pursuant to this section. (f) Within 48 hours after the registration required under paragraph (a) or paragraph (e), a sexual predator who is not incarcerated and who resides in the community, including a sexual predator under the supervision of the Department of Corrections, shall register in person at a driver's license office of the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles and shall present proof of registration. At the driver's license office the sexual predator shall: 1. If otherwise qualified, secure a Florida driver's license, renew a Florida driver's license, or secure an identification card. The sexual predator shall identify himself or herself as a sexual predator who is required to comply with this section, provide his or her place of permanent or temporary residence, including a rural route address and a post office box, and submit to the taking of a photograph for use in issuing a driver's license, renewed license, or identification card, and for use by the department in maintaining current records of sexual predators. A post office box shalt not be provided in lieu of a physical residential address. If the sexual predator's place of residence is a motor vehicle, trailer, mobile home, or manufactured home, as defined in chapter 320, the sexual predator shall also provide to the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles the vehicle identification number; the license tag number; the registration number; and a description, including color scheme, of the motor vehicle, trailer, mobile home, or manufactured home. If a sexual predator's place of residence is a vessel, live-aboard vessel, or houseboat, as defined in chapter 327, the sexual predator shall also provide to the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles the hull identification number; the manufacturer's serial number; the name of the vessel, live-aboard vessel, or houseboat; the registration number; and a description, including color scheme, of the vessel, live-aboard vessel, or houseboat. 2. Pay the costs assessed by the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles for issuing or renewing a driver's license or identification card as required by this section. http://www.flsenate.gov/statutes/index.cfm?p=2&App_mode=Display_Statute&Search 5... 11/23/2006 Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes :->2006->Ch0775->Section 21 : flsenate.gov Page 7 of 12 3. Provide, upon request, any additional information necessary to confirm the identity of the sexual predator, including a set of fingerprints. (g)1. Each time a sexual predator's driver's license or identification card is subject to renewal, and, without regard to the status of the predator's driver's license or identification card, within 48 hours after any change of the predator's residence or change in the predator's name by reason of marriage or other legal process, the predator shall report in person to a driver's license office and shall be subject to the requirements specified in paragraph (f). The Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles shall forward to the department and to the Department of Corrections all photographs and information provided by sexual predators. Notwithstanding the restrictions set forth in s. 322.142, the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles is authorized to release a reproduction of acolor-photograph or digital-image license to the Department of Law Enforcement for purposes of public notification of sexual predators as provided in this section. 2. Asexual predator who vacates a permanent residence and fails to establish or maintain another permanent or temporary residence shall, within 48 hours after vacating the permanent residence, report in person to the sheriff's office of the county in which he or she is located. The sexual predator shall specify the date upon which he or she intends to or did vacate such residence. The sexual predator must provide or update all of the registration information required under paragraph (a). The sexual predator must provide an address for the residence or other location that he or she is or will be occupying during the time in which he or she fails to establish or maintain a permanent or temporary residence. 3. Asexual predator who remains at a permanent residence after reporting his or her intent to vacate such residence shall, within 48 hours after the date upon which the predator indicated he or she would or did vacate such residence, report in person to the sheriff's office to which he or she reported pursuant to subparagraph 2. for the purpose of reporting his or her address at such residence. When the sheriff receives the report, the sheriff shall promptly convey the information to the department. An offender who makes a report as required under subparagraph 2. but fails to make a report as required under this subparagraph commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. (h) The department must notify the sheriff and the state attorney of the county and, if applicable, the police chief of the municipality, where the sexual predator maintains a residence. (i) Asexual predator who intends to establish residence in another state or jurisdiction other than the State of Florida shall report in person to the sheriff of the county of current residence within 48 hours before the date he or she intends to leave this state to establish residence in another state or jurisdiction. The sexual predator must provide to the sheriff the address, municipality, county, and state of intended residence. The sheriff shall promptly provide to the department the information received from the sexual predator. The department shall notify the statewide Law enforcement agency, or a comparable agency, in the intended state or jurisdiction of residence of the sexual predator's intended residence. The failure of a sexual predator to provide his or her intended place of residence is punishable as provided in subsection (10). (j) Asexual predator who indicates his or her intent to reside in another state or jurisdiction other than the State of Florida and later decides to remain in this state shall, within 48 hours after the date upon which the sexual predator indicated he or she would leave this state, report in person to the sheriff to which the sexual predator reported the intended change of residence, and report his or her intent to remain in this state. If the sheriff is notified by the sexual predator that he or she intends to remain in this state, the sheriff shall promptly report this information to the department. A sexual predator who reports his or her intent to reside in another state or jurisdiction, but who remains in this state without reporting to the sheriff in the manner required by this paragraph, commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. (k)1. The department is responsible for the on-line maintenance of current information regarding http://www.flsenate.gov/statutes/index.cfm?p=2&App_mode=Display_Statute&Search 5... 11/23/2006 Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes :->2006->Ch0775->Section 21 : flsenate.gov Page 8 of 12 each registered sexual predator. The department must maintain hotline access for state, local, and federal law enforcement agencies to obtain instantaneous locator file and offender characteristics information on all released registered sexual predators for purposes of monitoring, tracking, and prosecution. The photograph and fingerprints do not have to be stored in a computerized format. 2. The department's sexual predator registration list, containing the information described in subparagraph (a)1., is a public record. The department is authorized to disseminate this public information by any means deemed appropriate, including operating atoll-free telephone number for this purpose. When the department provides information regarding a registered sexual predator to the public, department personnel must advise the person making the inquiry that positive identification of a person believed to be a sexual predator cannot be established unless a fingerprint comparison is made, and that it is illegal to use public information regarding a registered sexual predator to facilitate the commission of a crime. 3. The department shall adopt guidelines as necessary regarding the registration of sexual predators and the dissemination of information regarding sexual predators as required by this section. (l) Asexual predator must maintain registration with the department for the duration of his or her life, unless the sexual predator has received a full pardon or has had a conviction set aside in a postconviction proceeding for any offense that met the criteria for the sexual predator designation. However, a sexual predator who was designated as a sexual predator by a court before October 1, 1998, and who has been lawfully released from confinement, supervision, or sanction, whichever is later, for at least 10 years and has not been arrested for any felony or misdemeanor offense since release, may petition the criminal division of the circuit court in the circuit in which the sexual predator resides for the purpose of removing the sexual predator designation. A sexual predator who was designated a sexual predator by a court on or after October 1, 1998, who has been lawfully released from confinement, supervision, or sanction, whichever is later, for at least 20 years, and who has not been arrested for any felony or misdemeanor offense since release may petition the criminal division of the circuit court in the circuit in which the sexual predator resides for the purpose of removing the sexual predator designation. A sexual predator who was designated as a sexual predator by a court on or after September 1, 2005, who has been lawfully released from confinement, supervision, or sanction, whichever is later, for at least 30 years, and who has not been arrested for any felony or misdemeanor offense since release may petition the criminal division of the circuit court in the circuit in which the sexual predator resides for the purpose of removing the sexual predator designation. The court may grant or deny such relief if the petitioner demonstrates to the court that he or she has not been arrested for any crime since release, the requested relief complies with the provisions of the federal Jacob Wetterling Act, as amended, and any other federal standards applicable to the removal of the designation as a sexual predator or required to be met as a condition for the receipt of federal funds by the state, and the court is otherwise satisfied that the petitioner is not a current or potential threat to public safety. The state attorney in the circuit in which the petition is filed must be given notice of the petition at least 3 weeks before the hearing on the matter. The state attorney may present evidence in opposition to the requested relief or may otherwise demonstrate the reasons why the petition should be denied. If the court denies the petition, the court may set a future date at which the sexual predator may again petition the court for relief, subject to the standards for relief provided in this paragraph. Unless specified in the order, a sexual predator who is granted relief under this paragraph must comply with the requirements for registration as a sexual offender and other requirements provided under s. 943.0435 or s. 944.607. If a petitioner obtains an order from the court that imposed the order designating the petitioner as a sexual predator which removes such designation, the petitioner shall forward a certified copy of the written findings or order to the department in order to have the sexual predator designation removed from the sexual predator registry. The sheriff shall promptly provide to the department the information received from the sexual predator. http://www.flsenate.gov/statutes/index.cfm?p=2&App_mode=Display_Statute&Search 5... 11/23/2006 Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes :->2006->Ch0775->Section 21 : flsenate.gov Page 9 of 12 (7) COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC NOTIFICATION.-- (a) Law enforcement agencies must inform members of the community and the public of a sexual predator's presence. Upon notification of the presence of a sexual predator, the sheriff of the county or the chief of police of the municipality where the sexual predator establishes or maintains a permanent or temporary residence shall notify members of the community and the public of the presence of the sexual predator in a manner deemed appropriate by the sheriff or the chief of police. Within 48 hours after receiving notification of the presence of a sexual predator, the sheriff of the county or the chief of police of the municipality where the sexual predator temporarily or permanently resides shall notify each licensed day care center, elementary school, middle school, and high school within a 1-mile radius of the temporary or permanent residence of the sexual predator of the presence of the sexual predator. Information provided to members of the community and the public regarding a sexual predator must include: 1. The name of the sexual predator; 2. A description of the sexual predator, including a photograph; 3. The sexual predator's current address, including the name of the county or municipality if known; 4. The circumstances of the sexual predator's offense or offenses; and 5. Whether the victim of the sexual predator's offense or offenses was, at the time of the offense, a minor or an adult. This paragraph does not authorize the release of the name of any victim of the sexual predator. (b) The sheriff or the police chief may coordinate the community and public notification efforts with the department. Statewide notification to the public is authorized, as deemed appropriate by local taw enforcement personnel and the department. (c) The department shall notify the public of all designated sexual predators through the Internet. The Internet notice shall include the information required by paragraph (a). (d) The department shall adopt a protocol to assist law enforcement agencies in their efforts to notify the community and the public of the presence of sexual predators. (8) VERIFICATION.--The department and the Department of Corrections shall implement a system for verifying the addresses of sexual predators. The system must be consistent with the provisions of the federal Jacob Wetterling Act, as amended, and any other federal standards applicable to such verification or required to be met as a condition for the receipt of federal funds by the state. The Department of Corrections shall verify the addresses of sexual predators who are not incarcerated but who reside in the community under the supervision of the Department of Corrections. County and local law enforcement agencies, in conjunction with the department, shalt verify the addresses of sexual predators who are not under the care, custody, control, or supervision of the Department of Corrections. (a) Asexual predator must report in person each year during the month of the sexual predator's birthday and during the sixth month following the sexual predator's birth month to the sheriff's office in the county in which he or she resides or is otherwise located to reregister. The sheriffs office may determine the appropriate times and days for reporting by the sexual predator, which shall be consistent with the reporting requirements of this paragraph. Reregistration shall include any changes to the following information: 1. Name; social security number; age; race; sex; date of birth; height; weight; hair and eye color; http://www.flsenate.gov/statutes/index.cfm?p=2&App_mode=Display_Statute&Search 5... 11!23/2006 Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes :->2006->Ch0775->Section 21 : flsenate.gov Page 10 of 12 address of any permanent residence and address of any current temporary residence, within the state or out of state, including a rural route address and a post office box; date and place of any employment; vehicle make, model, color, and license tag number; fingerprints; and photograph. A post office box shall not be provided in lieu of a physical residential address. 2. If the sexual predator is enrolled, employed, or carrying on a vocation at an institution of higher education in this state, the sexual predator shall also provide to the department the name, address, and county of each institution, including each campus attended, and the sexual predator's enrollment or employment status. 3. If the sexual predator's place of residence is a motor vehicle, trailer, mobile home, or manufactured home, as defined in chapter 320, the sexual predator shall also provide the vehicle identification number; the license tag number; the registration number; and a description, including color scheme, of the motor vehicle, trailer, mobile home, or manufactured home. If the sexual predator's place of residence is a vessel, live-aboard vessel, or houseboat, as defined in chapter 327, the sexual predator shall also provide the hull identification number; the manufacturer's serial number; the name of the vessel, live-aboard vessel, or houseboat; the registration number; and a description, including color scheme, of the vessel, live-aboard vessel, or houseboat. (b) The sheriffs office shall, within 2 working days, electronically submit and update all information provided by the sexual predator to the department in a manner prescribed by the department. This procedure shall be implemented by December 1, 2005. (9) IMMUNITY.--The department, the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, the Department of Corrections, any taw enforcement agency in this state, and the personnel of those departments; an elected or appointed official, public employee, or school administrator; or an employee, agency, or any individual or entity acting at the request or upon the direction of any law enforcement agency is immune from civil liability for damages for good faith compliance with the requirements of this section or for the release of information under this section, and shall be presumed to have acted in good faith in compiling, recording, reporting, or releasing the information. The presumption of good faith is not overcome if a technical or clerical error is made by the department, the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, the Department of Corrections, the personnel of those departments, or any individual or entity acting at the request or upon the direction of any of those departments in compiling or providing information, or if information is incomplete or incorrect because a sexual predator fails to report or falsely reports his or her current place of permanent or temporary residence. (10) PENALTIES.-- (a) Except as otherwise specifically provided, a sexual predator who fails to register; who fails, after registration, to maintain, acquire, or renew a driver's license or identification card; who fails to provide required location information or change-of-name information; who fails to make a required report in connection with vacating a permanent residence; who fails to reregister as required; who fails to respond to any address verification correspondence from the department within 3 weeks of the date of the correspondence; or who otherwise fails, by act or omission, to comply with the requirements of this section, commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. (b) Asexual predator who has been convicted of or found to have committed, or has pled nolo contendere or guilty to, regardless of adjudication, any violation, or attempted violation, of s. 787.01, s. 787.02, or s. 787.025(2)(c), where the victim is a minor and the defendant is not the victim's parent; s. 794.011(2), (3), (4), (5), or (8); s. 794.05; s. 796.03; s. 796.035; s. 800.04; s. 827.071; s. 847.0133; s. 847.0145; or ~s. 985.701(1); or a violation of a similar law of another jurisdiction when the victim of the offense was a minor, and who works, whether for compensation or as a volunteer, at any business, school, day care center, park, playground, or other place where children regularly congregate, commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. http://www.flsenate.gov/statutes/index.cfm?p=2&App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_5... 11 /23/2006 Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes :->2006->Ch0775->Section 21 : flsenate.gov Page 11 of 12 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. (c) Any person who misuses public records information relating to a sexual predator, as defined in this section, or a sexual offender, as defined in s. 943.0435 or s. 944.607, to secure a payment from such a predator or offender; who knowingly distributes or publishes false information relating to such a predator or offender which the person misrepresents as being public records information; or who materially alters public records information with the intent to misrepresent the information, including documents, summaries of public records information provided by law enforcement agencies, or public records information displayed by law enforcement agencies on websites or provided through other means of communication, commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. (d) Asexual predator who commits any act or omission in violation of this section may be prosecuted for the act or omission in the county in which the act or omission was committed, the county of the last registered address of the sexual predator, or the county in which the conviction occurred for the offense or offenses that meet the criteria for designating a person as a sexual predator. In addition, a sexual predator may be prosecuted for any such act or omission in the county in which he or she was designated a sexual predator. (e) An arrest on charges of failure to register, the service of an information or a complaint for a violation of this section, or an arraignment on charges for a violation of this section constitutes actual notice of the duty to register when the predator has been provided and advised of his or her statutory obligation to register under subsection (6). A sexual predator's failure to immediately register as required by this section following such arrest, service, or arraignment constitutes grounds for a subsequent charge of failure to register. A sexual predator charged with the crime of failure to register who asserts, or intends to assert, a lack of notice of the duty to register as a defense to a charge of failure to register shall immediately register as required by this section. A sexual predator who is charged with a subsequent failure to register may not assert the defense of a lack of notice of the duty to register. (f) Registration following such arrest, service, or arraignment is not a defense and does not relieve the sexual predator of criminal liability for the failure to register. (g) Any person who has reason to believe that a sexual predator is not complying, or has not complied, with the requirements of this section and who, with the intent to assist the sexual predator in eluding a law enforcement agency that is seeking to find the sexual predator to question the sexual predator about, or to arrest the sexual predator for, his or her noncompliance with the requirements of this section: 1. Withholds information from, or does not notify, the law enforcement agency about the sexuai predator's noncompliance with the requirements of this section, and, if known, the whereabouts of the sexual predator; 2. Harbors, or attempts to harbor, or assists another person in harboring or attempting to harbor, the sexual predator; 3. Conceals or attempts to conceal, or assists another person in concealing or attempting to conceal, the sexual predator; or 4. Provides information to the law enforcement agency regarding the sexual predator which the person knows to be false information, commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. This paragraph does not apply if the sexual predator is incarcerated in or is in the custody of a state correctional facility, a private correctional facility, a local jail, or a federal correctional facility. http://www.flsenate.gov/statutes/index.cfm?p=2&App_mode=Display_Statute&Search 5... 11/23/2006 Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes :->2006->Ch0775->Section 21 : flsenate.gov Page 12 of 12 History.--s. 1, ch. 93-277; s. 1, ch. 95-264; s. 54, ch. 95-283; s. 61, ch. 96-388; s. 5, ch. 97-299; s. 3, ch. 98-81; s. 1, ch. 98-267; s. 1, ch. 2000-207; s. 3, ch. 2000-246; s. 113, ch. 2000-349; s. 1, ch. 2002-58; s. 1, ch. 2004-371; s. 33, ch. 2004-373; s. 3, ch. 2005-28; s. 5, ch. 2005-67; s. 1, ch. 2006- 200; s. 1, ch. 2006-235; s. 2, ch. 2006-299. Note.--Substituted by the editors for a reference to s. 985.4045(1) to conform to the redesignation of s. 985.4045 as s. 985.701 by s. 98, ch. 2006-120. 2Note.--The material referenced is not within a subparagraph. Disclaimer: The information on this system is unverified. The journals or printed bills of the respective chambers should be consulted for official purposes. Copyright O 2000-2005 State of Florida. 11 /23/2006 http://www.flsenate.gov/statutes/index.cfm?p=2&App_mode=Display_Statute&Search S Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes :->2006->Ch0947->Section 1405 : flsenate.gov Page 1 of 5 Select Year: 2006 The 2006 Flor~icla Stat~ltes Go Title XLVII Chapter 947 View Entire Chapter CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND CORRECTIONS PAROLE COMMISSION 947.1405 Conditional release program.-- (1) This section and s. 947.141 may be cited as the "Conditional Release Program Act." (2) Any inmate who: (a) Is convicted of a crime committed on or after October 1, 1988, and before January 1, 1994, and any inmate who is convicted of a crime committed on or after January 1, 1994, which crime is or was contained in category 1, category 2, category 3, or category 4 of Rule 3.701 and Rule 3.988, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure (1993), and who has served at least one prior felony commitment at a state or federal correctional institution; (b) Is sentenced as a habitual or violent habitual offender or a violent career criminal pursuant to s. 775.084; or (c) Is found to be a sexual predator under s. 775.21 or former s. 775.23, shall, upon reaching the tentative release date or provisional release date, whichever is earlier, as established by the Department of Corrections, be released under supervision subject to specified terms and conditions, including payment of the cost of supervision pursuant to s. 948.09. Such supervision shall be applicable to all sentences within the overall term of sentences if an inmate's overall term of sentences includes one or more sentences that are eligible for conditional release supervision as provided herein. Effective July 1, 1994, and applicable for offenses committed on or after that date, the commission may require, as a condition of conditional release, that the releasee make payment of the debt due and owing to a county or municipal detention facility under s. 951.032 for medical care, treatment, hospitalization, or transportation received by the releasee while in that detention facility. The commission, in determining whether to order such repayment and the amount of such repayment, shall consider the amount of the debt, whether there was any fault of the institution for the medical expenses incurred, the financial resources of the releasee, the present and potential future financial needs and earning ability of the releasee, and dependents, and other appropriate factors. If any inmate placed on conditional release supervision is also subject to probation or community control, resulting from a probationary or community control split sentence within the overall term of sentences, the Department of Corrections shall supervise such person according to the conditions imposed by the court and the commission shall defer to such supervision. If the court revokes probation or community control and resentences the offender to a term of incarceration, such revocation also constitutes a sufficient basis for the revocation of the conditional release supervision on any nonprobationary or noncommunity control sentence without further hearing by the commission. If any such supervision on any nonprobationary or noncommunity control sentence is revoked, such revocation may result in a forfeiture of all gain-time, and the commission may revoke the resulting deferred conditional release supervision or take other action it considers appropriate. If the term of conditional release supervision exceeds that of the probation or community control, then, upon expiration of the probation or community control, authority for the supervision shall revert to the commission and the supervision shall be subject to the conditions imposed by the commission. A panel of no fewer than two commissioners shall establish the terms and conditions of any such release. If the offense was a controlled substance violation, the conditions shall include a requirement that the offender submit to random substance abuse testing intermittently throughout the term of conditional release supervision, upon the direction of the correctional probation officer as defined in s. 943.10 (3). The commission shall also determine whether the terms and conditions of such release have http://www.flsenate.gov/statutes/index.cfm?p=2&App_mode=Display_Statute&Search 5... 11/24/2006 Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes :->2006->Ch0947->Section 1405 : flsenate.gov Page 2 of 5 been violated and whether such violation warrants revocation of the conditional release. (3) As part of the conditional release process, the commission, through review and consideration of information provided by the department, shall determine: (a) The amount of reparation or restitution. (b) The consequences of the offense as reported by the aggrieved party. (c) The aggrieved party's fear of the inmate or concerns about the release of the inmate. (4) The commission shall provide to the aggrieved party information regarding the manner in which notice of any developments concerning the status of the inmate during the term of conditional release may be requested. (5) Within 180 days prior to the tentative release date or provisional release date, whichever is earlier, a representative of the department shall review the inmate's program participation, disciplinary record, psychological and medical records, criminal records, and any other information pertinent to the impending release. The department shall gather and compile information necessary for the commission to make the determinations set forth in subsection (3). A department representative shall conduct a personal interview with the inmate for the purpose of determining the details of the inmate's release plan, including the inmate's planned residence and employment. The department representative shall forward the inmate's release plan to the commission and recommend to the commission the terms and conditions of the conditional release. (6) The commission shall review the recommendations of the department, and such other information as it deems relevant, and may conduct a review of the inmate's record for the purpose of establishing the terms and conditions of the conditional release. The commission may impose any special conditions it considers warranted from its review of the release plan and recommendation. If the commission determines that the inmate is eligible for release under this section, the commission shall enter an order establishing the length of supervision and the conditions attendant thereto. However, an inmate who has been convicted of a violation of chapter 794 or found by the court to be a sexual predator is subject to the maximum level of supervision provided, with the mandatory conditions as required in subsection (7), and that supervision shall continue through the end of the releasee's original court-imposed sentence. The length of supervision must not exceed the maximum penalty imposed by the court. (7)(a) Any inmate who is convicted of a crime committed on or after October 1, 1995, or who has been previously convicted of a crime committed on or after October 1, 1995, in violation of chapter 794, s. 800.04, s. 827.071, or s. 847.0145, and is subject to conditional release supervision, shall have, in addition to any other conditions imposed, the following special conditions imposed by the commission: 1. A mandatory curfew from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. The commission may designate another 8-hour period if the offender's employment precludes the above specified time, and such alternative is recommended by the Department of Corrections. If the commission determines that imposing a curfew would endanger the victim, the commission may consider alternative sanctions. 2. If the victim was under the age of 18, a prohibition on living within 1,000 feet of a school, day care center, park, playground, designated public school bus stop, or other place where children regularly congregate. A releasee who is subject to this subparagraph may not relocate to a residence that is within 1,000 feet of a public school bus stop. Beginning October 1, 2004, the commission or the department may not approve a residence that is located within 1,000 feet of a school, day care center, park, playground, designated school bus stop, or other place where children regularly congregate for any releasee who is subject to this subparagraph. On October 1, 2004, the department shall notify each affected school district of the location of the residence of a http://www.flsenate.gov/statutes/index.cfm?p=2&App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_5... 11 /24/2006 Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes :->2006->Ch0947->Section 1405 : flsenate.gov Page 3 of 5 releasee 30 days prior to release and thereafter, if the releasee relocates to a new residence, shall notify any affected school district of the residence of the releasee within 30 days after relocation. If, on October 1, 2004, any public school bus stop is located within 1,000 feet of the existing residence of such releasee, the district school board shall relocate that school bus stop. Beginning October 1, 2004, a district school board may not establish or relocate a public school bus stop within 1,000 feet of the residence of a releasee who is subject to this subparagraph. The failure of the district school board to comply with this subparagraph shall not result in a violation of conditional release supervision. 3. Active participation in and successful completion of a sex offender treatment program with qualified practitioners specifically trained to treat sex offenders, at the releasee's own expense. If a qualified practitioner is not available within a 50-mile radius of the releasee's residence, the offender shall participate in other appropriate therapy. 4. A prohibition on any contact with the victim, directly or indirectly, including through a third person, unless approved by the victim, the offender's therapist, and the sentencing court. 5. If the victim was under the age of 18, a prohibition against contact with children under the age of 18 without review and approval by the commission. The commission may approve supervised contact with a child under the age of 18 if the approval is based upon a recommendation for contact issued by a qualified practitioner who is basing the recommendation on a risk assessment. Further, the sex offender must be currently enrolled in or have successfully completed a sex offender therapy program. The commission may not grant supervised contact with a child if the contact is not recommended by a qualified practitioner and may deny supervised contact with a child at any time. When considering whether to approve supervised contact with a child, the commission must review and consider the following: a. A risk assessment completed by a qualified practitioner. The qualified practitioner must prepare a written report that must include the findings of the assessment and address each of the following components: (I) The sex offender's current legal status; (II) The sex offender's history of adult charges with apparent sexual motivation; (III) The sex offender's history of adult charges without apparent sexual motivation; (IV) The sex offender's history of juvenile charges, whenever available; (V) The sex offender's offender treatment history, including a consultation from the sex offender's treating, or most recent treating, therapist; (VI) The sex offender's current mental status; (VII) The sex offender's mental health and substance abuse history as provided by the Department of Corrections; (VIII) The sex offender's personal, social, educational, and work history; (IX) The results of current psychological testing of the sex offender if determined necessary by the qualified practitioner; (X) A description of the proposed contact, including the location, frequency, duration, and supervisory arrangement; http://www.flsenate.gov/statutes/index.cfm?p=2&App_mode=Display_Statute&Search 5... 11/24/2006 Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes :->2006->Ch0947->Section 1405 : flsenate.gov Page 4 of 5 (Xt) The child's preference and relative comfort level with the proposed contact, when age- appropriate; (XII) The parent's or legal guardian's preference regarding the proposed contact; and (X111) The qualified practitioner's opinion, along with the basis for that opinion, as to whether the proposed contact would likely pose significant risk of emotional or physical harm to the child. The written report of the assessment must be given to the commission. b. A recommendation made as a part of the risk-assessment report as to whether supervised contact with the child should be approved; c. A written consent signed by the child's parent or legal guardian, if the parent or legal guardian is not the sex offender, agreeing to the sex offender having supervised contact with the child after receiving full disclosure of the sex offender's present legal status, past criminal history, and the results of the risk assessment. The commission may not approve contact with the child if the parent or legal guardian refuses to give written consent for supervised contact; d. A safety plan prepared by the qualified practitioner, who provides treatment to the offender, in collaboration with the sex offender, the child's parent or legal guardian, and the child, when age appropriate, which details the acceptable conditions of contact between the sex offender and the child. The safety plan must be reviewed and approved by the Department of Corrections before being submitted to the commission; and e. Evidence that the child's parent or legal guardian, if the parent or legal guardian is not the sex offender, understands the need for and agrees to the safety plan and has agreed to provide, or to designate another adult to provide, constant supervision any time the child is in contact with the offender. The commission may not appoint a person to conduct a risk assessment and may not accept a risk assessment from a person who has not demonstrated to the commission that he or she has met the requirements of a qualified practitioner as defined in this section. 6. If the victim was under age 18, a prohibition on working for pay or as a volunteer at any school, day care center, park, playground, or other place where children regularly congregate, as prescribed by the commission. 7. Unless otherwise indicated in the treatment plan provided by the sexual offender treatment program, a prohibition on viewing, owning, or possessing any obscene, pornographic, or sexually stimulating visual or auditory material, including telephone, electronic media, computer programs, or computer services that are relevant to the offender's deviant behavior pattern. 8. Effective for a releasee whose crime is committed on or after July 1, 2005, a prohibition on accessing the Internet or other computer services until the offender's sex offender treatment program, after a risk assessment is completed, approves and implements a safety plan for the offender's accessing or using the Internet or other computer services. 9. A requirement that the releasee must submit two specimens of blood to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement to be registered with the DNA database. 10. A requirement that the releasee make restitution to the victim, as determined by the sentencing court or the commission, for all necessary medical and related professional services relating to physical, psychiatric, and psychological care. 11. Submission to a warrantless search by the community control or probation officer of the http://www.flsenate.gov/statutes/index.cfm?p=2&App_mode=Display_Statute& Search_5... 11 /24/2006 Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes :->2006->Ch0947->Section 1405 : flsenate.gov Page 5 of 5 probationer's or community controllee's person, residence, or vehicle. (b) For a releasee whose crime was committed on or after October 1, 1997, in violation of chapter 794, s. 800.04, s. 827.071, or s. 847.0145, and who is subject to conditional release supervision, in addition to any other provision of this subsection, the commission shall impose the following additional conditions of conditional release supervision: 1. As part of a treatment program, participation in a minimum of one annual polygraph examination to obtain information necessary for risk management and treatment and to reduce the sex offender's denial mechanisms. The polygraph examination must be conducted by a polygrapher trained specifically in the use of the polygraph for the monitoring of sex offenders, where available, and at the expense of the sex offender. The results of the polygraph examination shall not be used as evidence in a hearing to prove that a violation of supervision has occurred. 2. Maintenance of a driving log and a prohibition against driving a motor vehicle alone without the prior approval of the supervising officer. 3. A prohibition against obtaining or using a post office box without the prior approval of the supervising officer. 4. If there was sexual contact, a submission to, at the probationer's or community controllee's expense, an HIV test with the results to be released to the victim or the victim's parent or guardian. 5. Electronic monitoring of any form when ordered by the commission. (8) It is the finding of the legislature that the population of offenders released from state prison into the community who meet the conditional release criteria poses the greatest threat to the public safety of the groups of offenders under community supervision. Therefore, the Department of Corrections is to provide intensive supervision by experienced correctional probation officers to conditional release offenders. Subject to specific appropriation by the Legislature, caseloads may be restricted to a maximum of 40 conditional release offenders per officer to provide for enhanced public safety and to effectively monitor conditions of electronic monitoring or curfews, if so ordered by the commission. (9) The commission shall adopt rules pursuant to ss. 120.536(1) and 120.54 necessary to implement the provisions of the Conditional Release Program Act. (10) Effective for a releasee whose crime was committed on or after September 1, 2005, in violation of chapter 794, s. 800.04(4), (5), or (6), s. 827.071, or s. 847.0145, and the unlawful activity involved a victim who was 15 years of age or younger and the offender is 18 years of age or older or for a releasee who is designated as a sexual predator pursuant to s. 775.21, in addition to any other provision of this section, the commission must order electronic monitoring for the duration of the releasee's supervision. History.--s. 19, ch. 88-122; ss. 12, 17, ch. 89-531; ss. 11, 20, ch. 90-337; s. 2, ch. 91-225; s. 8, ch. 91-280; s. 14, ch. 92-310; s. 1, ch. 93-2; s. 4, ch. 93-277; s. 4, ch. 93-417; s. 2, ch. 94-121; s. 3, ch. 94-294; s. 5, ch. 95-264; s. 57, ch. 95-283; s. 64, ch. 96-388; s. 10, ch. 97-78; s. 1872, ch. 97-102; s. 1, ch. 97-308; s. 3, ch. 2000-246; s. 5, ch. 2001-124; s. 1, ch. 2004-55; s. 16, ch. 2004-371; s. 12, ch. 2005-28; s. 2, ch. 2005-67. Disclaimer: The information on this system is unverified. The journals or printed bills of the respective chambers should be consulted for official purposes. Copyright ©2000-2005 State of Florida. http://www.flsenate.gov/statutes/index.cfm?p=2&App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_5... 11 /24/2006 No. In the Supreme Gburt of the Lhited States JOHN DOE I, JOHN DOE II, JOHN DOE III, on their own behalf and on behalf of the class - Petitioners, v. THOMAS J. MILLER Respondent. On Petition For Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Eighth Circuit PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI PHILIP B. MEARS Mears Law Firm 209 East Washington St., Ste 203 Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 351-4363 RANDALL WILSON Iowa Civil Liberties Union 901 Insurance Exchange Bldg. Des Moines, IA 50309 (515) 243-4032 Counsel for Petitioners QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1. Does the Iowa residency restriction for sex offenders violate the ex post facto prohibition as applied to people who committed their crime before the enactment of the statute in 2002? 2. Does the Iowa residency restriction on sex offenders violate the constitutional right to travel by essentially prohibiting most sex offenders from living in any towns greater than about 250 people? Does the Iowa residency restriction on sex offenders violate the constitutional right to live with your immediate family by prohibiting offenders from moving into the homes of immediate family members? LIST OF PARTIES All parties appear in the caption of the case on the cover page. JOHN DOE I, II and III are the representative parties. The certified plaintiff class is the class of sex offenders currently living in the State of Iowa or who might wish to live in the State of Iowa who are subject to Iowa Code Section 692A.2A. Excluded from the class is anyone currently facing a criminal charge for violation of the Iowa statute. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW ........... i LIST OF PARTIES ............................... ii TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................... iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ....................... vi PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI ............. I I. CITATIONS TO OPINIONS BELOW .......... 1 II. JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT ............. 2 III. CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED ......................... 2 IV. STATEMENT OF THE CASE ................ 5 Proceedings Below .......................... 5 The Statute ................................ 6 Factual Discussion .......................... 6 V. REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT ..... 11 iii I. THE COURT OF APPEALS HAS DECIDED AN IMPORTANT QUESTION OF FEDERAL LAW WHICH HAS NOT BEEN BUT SHOULD BE SETTLED BY THE SUPREME COURT ............................. I 1 II. THE DECISION BELOW CONFLICTS WITH RELEVANT DECISIONS FROM THIS COURT INTENDED TO SAFEGUARD CRITICAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ..................... 16 A. The decision conflicts with prior law with regard to a determination of whether banishment violates the ex post facto clause ..................................... l 6 B. The decision conflicts with prior law with regard to the fundamental right to travel . ................... 22 C. The decision conflicts with prior law with regard to the fundamental right to live with your family. ....... 26 VI. CONCLUSION ........................... 29 INDEX TO APPENDICES FOUND IN SEPARATE VOLUME Appendix A District Court Order Granting Temporary Restraining Order and Certifying Classes - 07/25/03 ............... 1 a Appendix B District Court Opinion and Order Enjoining rv Defendants From Enforcing Iowa Code Section 692A.2A - 02/09/04 ...................................... 29a Appendix C Eighth Circuit Ruling Reversing District Court Judgment - 04/29/05 ............................ 98a Appendix D Eighth Circuit Decision Denying Motion to Stay Mandate - 08/08/05 ............................ 145a Appendix E Eighth Circuit Order Denying Petition for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc - 06/30/05 ................ 152a Appendix F Selected material from trial including maps ... 153a v TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED CASES PAGE NUMBER Doe v. Miller, 216 FRD (S.D.Ia. 2003) ................ 1 Doe v. Miller, 298 F.Supp.2d (S.D.Ia 2004) ............ 1 Doe v. Miller, 405 F.3d (8th Cir. 2005) ................ 1 Doe v. Miller, 418 F.3d (8th Cir. 2005) ................ 1 Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. (1972) ................. 23 In re J. W., 787 N.E.2d (Ill. 2003) ................... 25 Johnson a City of Cincinnati, 310 F.3d (bth Cir. 2002) .. 24 Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S.(1997) ................ 20 Lutz v. City of York, 899 F.2d (3rd Cir. 1990) .......... 24 Memorial Hospital v. Maricapa County, 415 U.S. (1974) 23 Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U. S. (1977) ...... 26 People v. Beach, 147 Cal. App. 3d (2nd Dist. 1983) ... 24-5 Roberts v. united States Jaycees, 468 U.S. (1984) .... 26-7 vi Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. (1999) ...................... 23 Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. (1968) ............... 23 Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. (2003) ................ 16-20, 22 Spencer v. Casavilla, 903 F.2d (2nd Cir. 1990) ......... 24 State v. Franklin, 604 N.W.2d (Minn. 2000) ........... 25 United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. (1966) .............. 23 United States v. Wheeler, 254 U.S. (1920) ............ 25 Village of Bel Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. (1974) ........ 26 Zablocki a Redhail, 434 U.S. (1978) ................. 28 Zobel v. Williams, 457 US 55 (1982) ................ 23 STATUTES AND RULES 28 U.S.C.§ 1254(1) ............................... 2 28 U.S.C.§ 1331 ................................. 2 28 U.S.C.§ 1343 ................................. 2 First Amendment to the United States Constitution ...... 3 vii Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, SectionI ........................................ 3 Article II, Section 10 ............................ 3-4 Article IV, Section 2 .............................. 4 OTHER Ryan Dezember, City tightens sex abuser restrictions, MOBILE REGISTER, September 8, 2005, http://www.al.com/printer/printer.ssf?/base/news/ 112617104 141070. xml&coll=3 .............................. 14 Jason Garcia, Legislator seeks statewide law limiting where sex predators can live, SOUTH FLORIDA SUN-SENTINEL, September I5, 2005, sun-sentinel.com/news/legislature/sfl- fpredl5sep15,1,5133931.story ...................... 14 Hanson and Bussiere, Predicting Relapse: AMeta-Analysis of Sexual Offender Recidivism Studies, 66 JOURNAL OF COUNSELING AND CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY, No. 2, 348-362 ....................................... 19 Dick Hogan, Ely considers sex offender restrictions, THE CEDAR RAPIDS GAZETTE, September 24, 2005, pp. la, 8a ...................................... 30 House Bill 1147, 2005 Wash. Session Laws ........... 12 viii Iowa Code Section 692A2A ................... passim Ind. Code Ann. § 11-13-3-4(g)(2) ................... 12 Michigan Enrolled Senate Bill No.617 ............... 13 MINN. DEFT OF CORRECTIONS, LEVEL THREE SEX OFFENDERS RESIDENTIAL PLACEMENT ISSUES, 2003 Report to the Legislature, at 11 (Jan. 2003) ............ 21 Mo. Code Ann. § 566.147 ......................... 12 Clark Allen Peterson, The Resurgence ofDurational Residency Requirements for the Receipt of Welfare Funds, 27 Loy. L.A. LAW REVIEW, 305,316-17(1993) ....... 23 Tex. C.C.P. Ann. § 42.12 (13B) .................. 12, 13 South Sioux City Ordinance 2005-30 ................ 13 ix IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UMTED STATES PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI Petitioner respectfully prays that a writ of certiorari issue to review the judgment below. I. OPINIONS BELOW The opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit appears in the Appendix at page 98a and is reported at Doe v. Miller, 405 F.3d 700 (8th Cir. 2005). The opinion of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa granting a permanent injunction appears in the Appendix at page 29a and is reported at Doe v. Miller, 98 F.Supp.2d 844 (S.D.Ia. 2004). The opinion of the United States District Court granting preliminary relief appears at the Appendix at page la and is reported at, Doe v. Miller, 216 FRD 462 (S.D.Ia 2003). The opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denying the Motion to Stay the Mandate appears in the Appendix at page 145a and is reported at Doe v. Miller, 418 F.3d 950 (8th Cir. 2005). II. JURISDICTION The United States Court of Appeals decided this case on April 29, 2005. A timely petition for rehearing was denied by the United States Court of Appeals on June 30, 2005. A copy of the order denying rehearing appears at Appendix p. 83a. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1). The United States District Court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 1343. III. CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED Iowa Code Section 692A.2A Residency restrictions -child care facilities and schools. 1. For purposes of this section, "person " means a person who has committed a criminal offense against a minor, or an aggravated offense, sexually violent offense, or other relevant offense that involved a minor. 2. A person shall not reside within two thousand feet of the real property comprising a public or nonpublic elementary or secondary school or a child care facility. 3. A person who resides within two thousand feet of the real property comprising a public or nonpublic elementary or secondary school, ar a child care facility, commits an aggravated misdemeanor. 4. A person residing within two thousand feet of the real property comprising a public or nonpublic elementary or secondary school or a child care facility, does not commit a violation of this section if any of the following apply: i. The person is required to serve a sentence at a jail, 2 prison, juvenile facility, or othercorrectional institution or facility. 2. The person is subject to an order of commitment chapter 229A. 3. The person has established a residence prior to July 1, 2002, or a school or child care facility is newly located on or after July 1, 2002, 4. The person is a minor or a ward under a guardianship. First Amendment to the United States Constitution: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Section I: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor denyto anyperson within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Article II, Section 10 of the United States Constitution No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; Pass any Bill of 3 Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility. Article N Section 2 The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. 4 IV. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Proceedings Below The Iowa Sex Offender Residency Restriction, Section 692A.2A, went into effect on July 1, 2002. This civil rights class action suit was filed on June 24, 2003 by three John Does on behalf of the class of all sex offenders in the state of Iowa subject to the new legislation, § 692A.2A. After a hearing Judge Robert Pratt granted the temporary restraining order in addition to granting class certification of both plaintiff and defendant classes. Appx. la. A final evidentiary hearing was held on December 15 and 16, 2003. The Court heard testimony about 17 sex offenders and experts from both sides. In addition plaintiffs presented maps showing the areas of different towns where class members could not live. On February 9, 2004, the District Court permanently enjoined the statute finding among other things that it violated the ex post facto clause, the right to travel and the right to live with one's family. Appx. 28a. Defendant Thomas Miller, the Iowa Attorney General, appealed. On April 29, 2005, the Eighth Circuit reversed the injunction finding the statute constitutional. Judge Melloy dissented in part, concluding that the statute violated the ex post facto clause, as applied to those people who committed their crimes prior to the enactment date of the statute, July 1, 2002. Appx. p 98a. The plaintiff class sought rehearing en banc. Five of the 11 judges on the Eighth Circuit would have granted rehearing en banc. Appx. p. 152a. 5 The Statute The Sex Offender Residency Restriction, Section 692A.2A provides that sex offenders who committed their crimes against minors "shall not reside within 2,000 feet of the real property comprising a public or non-public elementary or secondary school or a childcare facility." The statute creates exclusion zones around "child care" facilities and schools in the shape of circles with a radius of 2,000 feet. The definition of "child care facilities" includes not only registered daycare centers but also registered childcare homes.' There are a lot of circles. The statute includes a limited grandfather clause. The restriction does not apply to any residence established prior to July 1, 2002. Offenders are allowed to continue to live where they were living as of the effective date of the statute. There are no other exceptions whatsoever to the statute. There is no time limit for how long the restriction lasts. While regis~ation lasts in many cases for only ten years, the residency restriction is not so limited. Factual Discussion With the enactment of the Iowa Residency Restriction statute in 2002 something really bad happened. Most sex offenders were banished from towns of any size in Iowa. 'In Iowa in order to establish a childcare home there is no fee and it is not necessary to have any children actually enrolled. In 2003 there were 7,000 "childcare facilities," of which close to 2,000 were new listings since the 2002 database. (Plaintiff s Exhibit 61). 6 Because of the limited grandfather clause it took a while for the effects to materialize. By December, 2003 when the evidentiary hearing was held, enough time had passed to understand what this statute does and how it effects the class and their families. For a good understanding ofwhat happens under the statute, it is necessary to consider three things. First there is the fact question of how much of the available housing in Iowa is eliminated by the statute. Second it is important to identify the people affected by the statute. Finally it is important to understand how those people are devastated by this statute. The statute creates many, many circles within which sex offenders cannot live. On some level the analysis is simple. There are so many circles that there is nowhere for the class to live. There is a clear pattern in Iowa after examining the many maps presented to the district court. 1. "In larger cities such as Des Moines and Iowa City, the maps show that the 2,000 foot circles cover virtually the entire city area. (See Plaintiffs Exhibit 9A, 11A.) The few areas in Des Moines, for instance, which are not restricted, include only industrial areas or some of the city's newest and most expensive neighborhoods." District Court Finding, Appx. p. 39a. See maps of Des Moines (population 198,682)and the Waterloo- Cedar Falls (population 104,892) area. Appx. p. 156a-157a. 2. In midsize towns (for Iowa) with population of over 10,000 the pattern is the same. See maps of Mason City (population 29,172), Appx. p. 158a, and Carroll (population 10,106) Appx. pp. 155a. 7 3. In towns smaller than 10,000, but large enough for their to be a school or childcare facility, the entire town is off limits. Solon (population 1177) and Oxford (population 705) are examples. Appx. p. 159a. 4. With the very small towns, under 250 people, if there is no school or childcare facility there is no restriction. At the same time all it takes to entirely block off the town is for one person to register as a child care provider. 5. There is no restriction on houses in the country. This pattern can be clearly seen by examining the town of Carroll, population around 10,000 and the surrounding Carroll County. A map of the town of Carroll and the statistics for Carroll County were presented at trial and appear along with the appropriate chart at pages 153a-154a of the Appendix. In Carroll County, 76% of the available housing units in the County are off limits. In the town of Carroll. however, 98% of the housing units are off limits. In fact for the entire county, 98% of the housing units are off limits in towns greater in population than 200 people. The statute makes that very large percentage ofhousing off limits. Sex offenders are left to find housing in the remaining areas, primarily the country. They can find housing assuming that housing is vacant and assuming that it is available to sex offenders. The testimony at trial was that when class members went to look at that small amount of housing that was left, there were often no vacancies, they could not afford the prices, or landlords would not rent to sex offenders. The class consists of sex offenders of all types, as long as 8 their victims were under 18. There were around 5,000 such persons at the time of the hearing. Of the 17 persons whose situations were examined at trial, two were college students. One was retarded and on Social Security disability. Five were married. Four had children living in the home. Seven had been in prison. Ten had received probation. Five were still on probation or parole. Four owned their own home. Five had committed misdemeanors. Four had been evaluated as "low" risk to reoffend. Two were individuals who had committed their crimes in another state but lived in Iowa, had to register in Iowa and were therefore subject to the statute. In their cases, because of the fact that Iowa has a different age of consent for sexual activity, their behavior would not even have been criminal in Iowa. The effect of the statute on these individuals has been real and has been compelling. Some members actually experienced additional incarceration. John Doe II, N, and XVIII were actually stuck in prison or in a halfway house because they could not find an "acceptable" place to live. They had been cleared for release. Before they can actually leave the facility housing must be approved. To be "approved" housing would have to be "legal". That is very difficult under the statute. In many cases the housing sought would be with immediate family. John Doe IV for example was released from prison after the injunction was imposed and went to live with his mother. Appx. pp. 43a-44a, 53a. Some members are stuck in the house where they were living on July 1, 2002. This can be hard. John Doe VII is one of 9 the class members who committed an act that would not even have been illegal under Iowa law. In 2002 he was living in a two bedroom apartment with his wife and small child and mother-in-law. He could not move to a bigger place because of the law. In December 2003 his second child was born. His probation officer would not have objected to his moving to bigger house as long as the house was not right next to a high school. Appx. pp. 45a-46a. Once class members moved from their July 1, 2002 residence they have experienced much difficulty. John Doe XIV and his wife testified. He had pled guilty to the serious misdemeanor in 1995 after exposing himself at a party where a 13 year old girl was present. He was 19. He is a low risk to reoffered. He completed probation. In the summer of 2002 his wife was expecting their second child. Not imagining that the new law applied to them, they moved to a house on a street with shade trees in Waterloo. They thought their daughter would love the house because it was near the elementary school playground around the corner. When he registered the new address with the sheriff on August 1, 2002 he was told he could not live there. He spent two months looking for a place to live in Waterloo. The only places "available" were in an exclusive and high priced neighborhood. They wound up buying a house in the country about 45 miles from Waterloo. He commutes an hour each day to work. In many ways his wife's testimony was even more compelling. She had to quit her job in Waterloo when they moved to the country. She now works two jobs, making less than she did in the city. They have left their family and friends in town. She has to drive 16 miles each day to the daycare center for her children. Appx. pp. SOa-51a. 10 John Doe X was convicted of a simple misdemeanor that was a sex offense. He completed probation. He and his wife both receive disability payments because of mental illness and retardation. To comply with the statute he and his wife moved to an apartment complex outside of town. This interferes significantly with the receipt of services. Appx. pp. 47a-48a; Exhibit K2. John Doe XII was convicted of a misdemeanor and successfully completed probation. Before the residency restriction went into effect, he was going to college, living in a college dormitory, and getting good grades. He had a grant that covered the cost of room and board. At the time the restriction went into effect, he was living with his parents for the summer. He could not go back to the dorm in the fall because there was daycare center nearby. Since he could not move back to the dorm, he lost his grant for roam and board. He had to commute back and forth from his parent's house. His commute was two hours per day. He was regarded as a low risk to re-offend. His probation officer allowed him to live in the dorm before the law went into effect. Appx. pp. 48a-49a. ARGUMENT REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION I. THE COURT OF APPEALS HAS DECIDED AN IMPORTANT QUESTION OF FEDERAL LAW WHICH HAS NOT BEEN BUT SHOULD BE SETTLED BY THE SUPREME COURT. ll The ability to choose where one wants to live, and to live if one chooses with one's closest relatives, are core aspects of personal liberty that most Americans take for granted. For all practical purposes, Section 692A.2A deprives convicted sex offenders in Iowa of those fundamental rights, even if they were convicted before the statute was enacted. It does so by a modern day form of banishment that merits this Court's plenary review. The need for review is especially true because numerous states have now either passed or are considering laws similar to Iowa's. Residency restriction statutes for sex offenders, such as Iowa Code Section 692A.2A, are of relatively recent vintage. This new phenomenon seems to be contagious. The State of Alabama adopted its law in 2001. Iowa adopted § 692A.2A in 2002. By early 2004, when the district court published its opinion, there were 12 states with such restrictions. Since the district court opinion, Missouri, Indiana, Washington and Texas have all adopted residency restrictions.z The Michigan Ind. Code Ann. § 11-13-3-4(g)(2) ("As a condition of parole, the parole board shall... prohibit the offender from residing within one thousand (1,000) feet of school property..."); Mo. Code Ann. § 566.147 ("Any person who has...been convicted of...[certain sexual crimes against minors] shall not establish residency within one thousand feet of any public school,... any private school,... or child care facility"); House Bill 1147, 2005 Wash. Session Laws, which went into effect on 7/24/05 (The Department may not approve a residence location if the residence is within a community protection zone. That is 880 feet from a public or private school.); Tex. C.C.P. Ann. § 42.12 (13B) ("If a judge grants community supervision to a 12 legislature just passed its restriction this month and it is waiting for the governor's signature at this time.3 There is every reason to believe that the number of jurisdictions with such statutes will increase substantially. One choice for sex offenders who are faced with the Iowa statute is to move to other states. To the extent that at the moment Wisconsin, Minnesota, South Dakota and Nebraska do not have such restrictions one can only imagine that they will enact them very soon if not this next legislative session. Indeed since September 1, 2005, when the District Court injunction in this case was dissolved, at least one town across the border from Iowa in Nebraska has adopted its own ordinance restricting where sex offenders can live. South Sioux City ordinance no. 2005-30.4 Of all the statutes around the country, Iowa, at 2,000 feet, is one of the most restrictive. To the extent that the Eighth Circuit has approved one of the most restrictive statutes, it follows that the statutes elsewhere in the country would be defendant... and the judge determines that a child... was the victim of the offense, the judge shall [require] that the defendant not...go in, on, or within 1,000 feet of a premises where children commonly gather..."). 3See Enrolled Senate Bill No. 617; (An individual required to be registered shall not reside within a school safety zone, which is 1000 feet.) QSouth Sioux City Ordinance 2005-30 prohibits all sex offenders from residing within 2000 feet of schools and day care centers. It also goes on to restrict residences within 2000 feet of school bus stops, playgrounds, parks or other places children congregate. 13 acceptable under Eighth Circuit analysis. Indeed Judge Colloton in his opinion noted that this choice on distance is the "sort of task for which the elected policy officials of the State....are properly suited." In the same sentence he observed that he would reach the same conclusion whether the limit was "across the street" or "500 feet or 3,000 feet." Appx. p. 122a. Consideration ofthe case bythe Supreme Court is necessary and appropriate in light of the potential conflicts between the states with regard to this matter. Now that Iowa has its 2,000 foot barriers approved, sex offenders in Iowa may decide to move across the state borders into South Dakota, Nebraska or Minnesota, jurisdictions which do not have as significant or any barriers on establishing a residence. This in turn will prompt those states5 or perhaps even municipalitiesb in those states, to erect barriers to keep the sex offenders out. It should be SThe Florida legislature is considering a law to increase the distance from 1000 feet to 2500 feet. Rep. Susan Goldstein, who introduced the bill said the ultimate goal is "to get these people out of our neighborhoods and hopefully out of our state". Jason Garcia, Legislatorseeksstatcwide law limitingwhere sexpredators can live, SOUTH FLORIDA S1JN-SENTINEL, September 15, 2005, http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/legislature/sfl- fpred 15sep 15,1,5133931.story. bOrange Beach, Alabama, not satisfied with Alabama's 2000 foot restriction, has this month adopted an ordinance that bars sex offenders from living or working within four miles of schools, day cares, parks and public beaches. Ryan Dezember, City tightens sex abuser restrictions, MOBILE REGISTER, September 8, 2005, http : //www. al. c om/printer/printer. s sf?/base/news/ 1 1 26 1 7 104 14 10 70.xm1&coll=3. 14 remembered that most class members are not on probation or parole. For that reason they are otherwise free to move throughout the United States. The barriers created by these statutes and the competition between states and municipalities to keep out sex offenders will result in sex offenders having no place to go at all, in any state. The consequences of the statute remaining in effect are enormous. The district court found that this statute as a practical matter amounts to banishment. Sex offenders are banished from most towns in Iowa with populations greater than 250 people. They cannot live with their immediate family members if their family members have already established residences or own homes in those towns. If they become homeless they cannot in many cases even stay in homeless shelters. That would be prohibited if the shelters were within an exclusion zone. There are several significant constitutional problems with these residency restrictions. The statutes are punitive creating problems under the ex post facto clause when applied to offenders who have already committed their crimes. There are also several fundamental rights that are implicated by this statute. Those particular constitutional protections, the right to travel and the right to live with one's immediate family, are discussed in later sections of this petition. The statute was analyzed by the Eighth Circuit the same as if it had been a zoning regulation. Given the fundamental rights implicated and the punitive nature of the statute, such analysis was inappropriate and contrary to this court's rulings with regard to those fundamental rights. Analyzed with anything other than the most deferential rational basis, the statute will not survwe. 15 There is no real reason for such draconian measures. The Iowa statute does not really make people safer. The State already has the authority to prosecute sex offenders for violating the law. The State has already greatly lengthened the sentences for these offenses. This Court has permitted states, such as Iowa, to initiate civil commitment proceedings against dangerous sex offenders as they finish their imprisonment. But nothing in this Court's prior rulings authorizes what Iowa has done here. Indeed petitioners know of no other instance in modern American life in which a class of people have been declared persona non grata by communities across the country. The question of whether states may constitutionally banish convicted sex offenders presents a novel issue of national significance and scope. Certiorari is appropriate at this time and for this case. II THE DECISION BELOW CONFLICTS WITH RELEVANT DECISIONS FROM THIS COURT INTENDED TO SAFEGUARD CRITICAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS A. The decision conflicts with prior law with regard to a determination of whether banishment violates the ex~ost~ acto clause This Court two years ago in Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (2003) was presented with an ex post facto challenge to the Sex Offender Registry in the State of Alaska. In holding the Alaska registration law constitutional the Court set out quite clearly the analytical framework for considering whether such a statute 16 amounted to "punishment" which would have been proscribed by the ex post facto clause. The Eighth Circuit decision in this case was divided on the question of whether 692A.2A amounted to punishment and therefore violated the ex post facto clause. The analysis by the majority, finding the statute not to be punishment, substantially weakened the analytical framework established by Smith to the point where the analysis does not constitute much of a barrier at all. This cannot be what was intended in Smith. The Eighth Circuit watered down the Smith analysis in two respects. First, the majority decision ignores the factual finding that the statutory banishment is similar to a traditional punishment. Second, the decision does not critically and carefully consider whether the statute is excessive. One of the five analytical factors to be considered under Smith in deciding whether a law is an ex post facto violation, is whether the restriction is a traditional form of punishment. 538 U.S. 84 at 98. The Supreme Court in Smith specifically identified banishment as one of those traditional forms of punishment. 538 U.S. 84 at 99. The Eighth Circuit's opinion below holds that the law in Iowa did not constitute banishment because offenders were still free to venture into the towns where they could not live. Appx. p. 131 a. While it is true that Iowa offenders can still work in those towns and, for that matter, can even stand right across the street from a school without running afoul of the statute, that fact is beside the point. The District Court made a finding of fact that the statute virtually eliminates all available housing in towns of any size in Iowa. Appx. pp. 39a-40a. As Judge Melloy 17 observed, that finding is "not clearly erroneous and should therefore be upheld." Appx. p. 140a. The practical effect of such a law is that sex offenders must reside in remote rural areas or in another state. As a practical matter this restriction significantly prevents a sex offender from living in the community. This means that the Iowa statute, for all practical purposes, is same as the historic "banishment." As Judge Melloy observed; The residency restriction is a permanent stigma as well as a law that effectively casts the person out of the community. Further, Smith also described banishment situations in which individuals could neither return to their original community nor, reputation tarnished, be admitted into a new one. (citation omitted). Under this phrasing Section S92A.2A fits the definition of banishment. Appx. p. 141 a. In Smith this court held that one of the factors to be considered was whether the statute is excessive in relationship to the purpose. 538 U.S. 84 at 97. Again Judge Colloton and Judge Melloy significantly differed on this part of the analysis. Judge Colloton found the statute was not excessive in light of some of the recidivism evidence and the conclusions of some of the defendants' witnesses that there were never going to be any guarantees that sex offenders would not reoffend. Appx. p. 135a. Judge Melloy however focused on the fact that the statute applies to all sex offenders who offended with minors regardless of the level of risk or the nature of the offense. Judge Colloton dismissed this 18 analysis by stating that the Supreme Court's discussion of excessiveness does not require "a close or perfect fit."Appx. p. 135a. As to the possibility of sex offenders reoffending, it is true that in the Smith case the Supreme Court all but took judicial notice of a high rate of recidivism posed by sex offenders.' The evidence presented in this proceeding was that sex offender recidivism rates are not be as great as had been thought.8 In fact even if the reoffense rate was 13%, that means that only one out of 7 or 8 offenders will reoffend. The suggestion of witnesses for the State that one can never reallybe sure about sex offenders is reminiscent oftestimony by 'Such reliance by the Supreme Court and other courts might be outdated. Sex offender treatment only really became available in DepartmentsofCorrectionsduringthe 1990s.Inadditionpunishment for sex offenders substantially increased during that same time period. Statistics that were published in 1997 that were discussed by the Supreme Court in Smith would have relied on case studies prior to or only at the beginning of such treatment and/or increased punishment. Dr. Rosell, the Plaintiff's expert and former director of the Iowa Department of Corrections program, testified that successful treatment has the effect of reducing recidivism by over 40%. Tr. p. 28. The Hanson and Bussiere meta study of 61 prior studies concluded that there was a rate of 13.4%. Hanson and Bussiere, Predicting Relapse: AMeta-Analysis of Sexual Offender Recidivism Studies, 66 JOURNAL OF COUNSELING AND CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY, No. 2, 348-362. Exhibit 50. That rate, extrapolated from data going back several decades, in turn would have to be factored downward with the growing availability of treatment, which reduces recidivism by perhaps 42%. 19 witnesses that "anything is possible." One cannot legislate for such remote possibilities without a real concern for producing an exaggerated response. In Smith the Supreme Court accepted the "categorical. judgment" by the legislature which was not individualized because the restraint at issue in Smith was the "more minor condition of registration." 538 U.S. 84 at 104. This was in contrast with the individualized determination in Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U. S. 346 (1997) where there was a much greater restraint. Given the very significant consequences that accompany the Iowa statute Smith requires a greater fit for this particular statute. The Iowa statute is excessive and unnecessary in a variety of ways. 1. It applies to all sex offenders who had minors as victims regardless of the nature of their crime and the kind of school nearby. Teenage offenders with teenage victims do not have to be kept away from childcare facilities. Dr. Rosell testimony, page 21. 2. There is no reason to keep sex offenders away from childcare facilities. Dr. Rosell sees no safety concern whatsoever with regard to childcare facilities. Toddlers just do not walk home by themselves. Children are picked up and dropped off every morning by their parents. Given state- mandated supervision, there is no safety interest enhanced by the two thousand foot law. Trans. p 43; 3. The statute applies regardless of level of risk. For years Iowa classified its offenders by level of risk. It is excessive to apply this residency restriction to a person who was determined 20 to be low risk. 4. The statute applies regardless of whether individuals are presently on supervision. Probation officers can always keep the person away from a particular facility, if, upon an individual determination, that seems appropriate. After making that individual determination, various probation officers had no objection to various John Does living within 2000 feet of particular childcare facilities. 5. There is no scientific evidence whatsoever that there is any greater safety if a sex offender does not live within 2000 feet of these schools. Almost half of all sex offenses occur within the home. Anothertwenty-five (25) to thirty (30) percent offend with friends and neighbors. (Rosen Tr. p. I9.)9 6. The restriction applies for life. Perhaps more importantly there is evidence that the statute can decrease safety. It decreases safety in a number of ways: 1. If individuals know that their residence is unlawful they may not register at all. Thus the statute may undercut the effectiveness of the registration process. yNone of the scientific studies of recidivism have even looked at proximity to a school as a factor in re-offending. (Tr. p. 38) For all this time people who have been studying the problem have, in fact, been trying to identify the factors of re-offending. No one has even thought enough about proximity to a school to even test that supposition. (Tr. p. 73) The one exception is the Minnesota study, Exhibit 41. That study was prompted by legislative interest in laws such as Iowa's restricting where sex offenders can live. The Minnesota Department of Corrections study concluded that there was no connection at all between reoffending and living near a school or childcare center. 21 2. The statute undercuts the abilities of individuals to obtain viable treatment. The State's expert, Dr. McEchron testified that treatment would be harmed if individuals' lives became chaotic. Deposition p. 38. Not having a legal place to live, obviously, would be chaotic. Moving all the sex offenders into particular sex offender ghettos, or into the country where they experience isolation, is not conducive to treatment. Dr. McEchron also believed taking offenders away from their family and support systems interferes with treatment. Deposition pp. 56-7. By undercutting treatment, safety is diminished. Dr. Rosen agreed with both of these conclusions. Tr. p. 41. This Court should reach the same conclusion reached by Judge Melloy as to whether the Iowa statute is excessive. (T)he severity of residency restriction, the fact that it is applied to all offenders identically, and the fact that it will be enforced for the rest of the offenders' lives, makes the residency restriction excessive. Appx. p. 143a. The question of whether the Iowa Statute is punitive deserves more scrutiny than the Eighth Circuit gave. The Smith analysis would not have authorized such a severe statute as Iowa adopted. For this reason this court should grant certiorari. B. The decision conflicts with prior law with regard to the fundamental right to travel. This Court has long recognized the fundamental right to 22 travel. In United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745, 757 (1966), the Supreme Court stated that the "constitutional right to travel from one state to another occupies a position fundamental to the concept of our federal union. It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized." This right is protected by the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution. See also Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489, 498 (1999); Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 630-31 (1968). This right clearly includes the right to move to someplace and make a home. In Saenz the Supreme Court stated: Our cases have not identified any acceptable reason for qualifying the protection afforded by the Clause (Privileges and Immunities) for `the citizen of State A who ventures into State B to settle there and establish a home.' Zobel457 US at 74 (O'Conner, J., concurring in judgment). 526 U.S. 489 at 502. The Shapiro decision clearly recognizes a right to migrate and resettle. 394 U.S.618 at 629 ("the right to travel includes the right to migrate, resettle, find a job and start a new life.")10 In order to establish a violation of the right to travel, it is only necessary to show that the statute potentially deters travel. Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa County, 415 U.S. 250 at 257- 58. Here class members live out of state and want to move back 10See also Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa County, 415 U.S. 250, 255 (1974); Dunn a Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330, 339-40(1972); See also Clark Allen Peterson, The Resurgence ofDurational Residency Requirements for the Receipt of Welfare Funds, 27 LOY. L.A. LAW REVIEW, 305, 316-17(1993). 23 to Iowa. John Doe XII1, for example, left the state because there was no legal place to live. He lives in Indiana and wishes to return. Appx. p. 49a. The right to travel is implicated or negatively affected by a law in Iowa that essentially says that he cannot move back and live in any town or urban area. Telling out of state class members that they cannot live in most urban areas in Iowa potentially deters them from traveling to the state to live. Most members of the class live in Iowa. Many are grand- fathered into residences they were occupying on July 1, 2002. As time passes, more and more class members are having problems with the statute. The statute essentially says that they cannot move to another residence in most of the urban areas of the state. A person who, for whatever reason, loses this grandfathered residence cannot find another home in much of the state. While not yet specifically recognized by a case from this court, the right to intrastate travel is similarly protected by the fundamental constitutional right to travel. The Sixth Circuit addressed this claim in.Iohnson a City of Cincinnati, 310 F.3d 484 (6th Cir. 2002). That case found that the Cincinnati ordinance that excluded drug offenders from parts of the city was unconstitutional, specifically recognizing the right of individuals to move within the State of Ohio." Judge "For other cases finding a constitutionally protected right to intrastate travel, see Spencer v. Casavilla, 903 F.2d 171, 174 (2nd Cir. 1990); Lutz v. City of York, 899 F.2d 255, 268 (3rd Cir. 1990). For state cases finding the right to intrastate travel violated by a banishment provision as a probation condition, see People v. Beach, 24 Colloton's opinion spoke highly of this right to intrastate travel, even quoting United States v. Wheeler, 254 U.S. 281, 293 (1920) as recognizing the fundamental right to "dwell within the limits of their respective states, to move at will from place to place therein, and to have free ingress thereto and egress therefrom." Appx. p. 116a. At the same time Judge Colloton rejected the argument that any fundamental right to travel, whether inter or intrastate, was violated. He reached this conclusion because he found that the Iowa statute "imposes no obstacle to a sex offender's entry into Iowa and does not erect an actual barrier to interstate movement." Appx. p. 114a. He reached the same conclusion with regard to intrastate movement. Because there is no real "obstacle" to travel, whether intrastate or interstate, he concludes that the constitutional analysis should not be done using strict scrutiny. Not surprisingly he then found the statute constitutional. Appx. p. 118a. The statute however does create real barriers around most towns and cities in Iowa. The barrier exists in that sex offenders cannot live in those areas. It would be no less a barrier if the Legislature actually declared that sex offenders could not live in any town or city over 250 people. The right to travel protects the right to move someplace and establish a home. The Iowa statute is a barrier to the exercise of that right. It is no less a barrier if sex offenders can come into the city 147 Cal. App 3d 612, 622 (2nd Dist. 1983); See also State v. Franklin, 604 N.W.2d 79, 84 (Minn. 2000); In re J. W., 787 N.E.2d 747, 763 (Ill. 2003). 25 limits of such towns for employment ox shopping. If offenders cannot make their homes in a town, there is a barrier created by this statute that is real, is significant, and that implicates the right to travel. If the fundamental right to travel is implicated, then 692A.2A strict scrutiny applies. Under that scrutiny the statute is the same exaggerated response as was discussed under ex postfacto analysis. See Petition at p. 20-22. The statute should be found to be unconstitutional. C. The decision conflicts with prior law with regard to the fundamental right to live with. your family. Twenty-five (25) years ago in the case ofMoore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 503-4 (1977) this Court recognized that a zoning ordinance that substantially interfered with the ability of an extended family to live together impinged on a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution. Such an ordinance was different from the one that had been upheld in Village of Bel Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. 1 (1974). In that case the Supreme Court had found no constitutional problem with an ordinance that limited unrelated people living together. In the Moore case, however, the Court found that there was something special about the fact that the people who wanted to live together were actually part of the same family. Given that critical difference, the statute was subjected to strict scrutiny and was found wanting. In Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 617-18 (1984) the Supreme Court discussed the constitutionally protected "freedom of association." The Court said that it had 26 identified a line of decisions that had "concluded that choices to enter into and maintain certain intimate human relationships must be secured against undue intrusion by the State because of the role such relationships in safeguarding the individual freedom that is central to our constitutional scheme:' 468 U.S. 609 at 617-8. Iowa Code Section 692A.2A interferes with that fundamental right to live with your immediate family. In the first place the Iowa statute greatly limits the ability of class members to find any place to live. Under those circumstances, the one place many offenders look to for a place to live, is their family. The Iowa statute effectively prevents most sex offenders from moving in with their immediate family members because often those family members live in a town or city. Even if family members were inclined to move away from their homes, they would be unable to find a place under this statute. John Doe IV was in prison in June 2003. He received a parole when it was determined that it was safe for him to return to the community. He wanted to come out and live with his mother in Mason City. This was an acceptable residence to his parole officer. Indeed parole officers often want offenders coming out of prison to live with family precisely because they regard it as a good support system. That in turn is important to successful treatment. This could not happen until the statute was enjoined because his mother lived within two thousand feet of a school or child care facility. Appellee's App. p. 44a.'Z 12John Doe VI also wanted to live with his mother. He bought a home and they moved in together. This was acceptable to his parole officer. He was required to move because of the statute. Appx. p. 27 In this case, the statute does not directly prohibit members of the class from being able to live with their family members. The panel from the Eighth Circuit concluded that this lack of direct effect meant that there is no strict scrutiny, citing cases that say that certain incidental effects do not require strict scrutiny. Appx. p. 112a. On some level unless certain words appear in the statute, the effect of any statute can be called "incidental". Whether something is "incidental" however does not say anything about whether it is "significant." That term ought to be the one that is used in considering whether strict scrutiny applies. In Zablocki a Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 383-386 (1978) the Supreme Court struck down a Wisconsin law that required court permission to marry under certain conditions. The Court noted the following: By reaffirming the fundamental character of the right to marry, we do not mean to suggest that every state regulation whichrelates in anywayto the incidents 44a-45a. John Doe VIII was living in Iowa City without a legal residence. He wanted to move in with his parents, but that was prohibited by the statute. It was all right with his probation officer who did not think there was a safety reason to keep him out of his parents' home. App. p. 45a-46a. John Doe XV was given work release by the Board of Parole. Because of the injunction, he was able to leave the work release center and go live with his mother. This was an acceptable residence. If the statute went back into effect, he would not be able to live with his mother. Appx. S l a-52a. John Doe XVII was also released fromprison. He wanted to live with his adult son. This was not permitted by the statute. App. p. 52a- 53a. 28 of or prerequisites for marriage must be subjected to rigorous scrutiny. To the contrary, reasonable regulations that do not significantly interfere with decisions to enter into the marital relationship may legitimately be imposed. 434 U.S.374 at 384. The banishment created by the Iowa statue does in fact significantly interfere with the ability of the class members to live with their immediate family members. It is true that the family members could try to move from their established homes to the country to find a legal residence. Even if they could find such a residence, this requirement that they move would be a substantial burden. The legal question should be whether the Iowa statute creates a substantial burden on families living together. Given the factual determination regarding banishment and the interest in class members being able to live with family members, this Court should find a fundamental right involved and grant certiorari. CONCLUSION In July 2002, Section 692A.2A went into effect. This lawsuit was filed almost a year later, after the effects of the law began to be felt. During that year it became clear that the law has the effect of eliminating almost all housing for affected sex offenders. In fact it eliminates most housing in towns with a population of more than a couple hundred people. The statute effectively banishes most sex offenders to small towns and to 29 the countryside.' 3 As the small towns figure this out they in turn will now take measures to avoid becoming sex offender havens. Given the lack of available housing in those areas the statute will make even more sex offenders homeless. This law is unconstitutional in a number of ways. It violates several fundamental constitutional rights. It is punishment amounting to an ex post facto violation when applied to people who committed their crimes before July 1, 2002. The intent of the legislature was to keep children safe. When all is said and done, however, this statute does not do that. In some ways it may increase the risk to children. While failing to keep children safe, the statute imposes a tremendous cost. When society releases persons from prison or probation, when their sentences are over and the state is not asserting a right to keep them locked up, there must be someplace for those persons to live. In Iowa at this time that is not the case for sex offenders. This court should grant certiorari to address the important questions presented by the Iowa law. "As this petition is being written, the small town of Ely, Iowa located in Linn County has just figured out from the new county map, that because they have no school or childcare facility, that the town has no restrictions. The city council is meeting to consider an ordinance to ban sex offenders from living within 2000 feet of a park. (They must have one of them.) Dick Hogan, Ely considers sex offender restrictions, THE CEDAR RAPIDS GAZETTE, September 24, 2005, pp. lA, 8A. The council must not realize from reading the record in this case that they can accomplish their goal by finding a person to register a child care home. 30 Sex Offender.com -Recidivism of Sex Offenders. Your Source for Child & Family Safet... Page 1 of 26 sexoffender .com ~~ t~. ~:~ &,l ~; l~ ,.1, ~~ Recidivism of Sex Offenders Introduction The criminal justice system manages most convicted sex offenders with some combination of incarceration, community supervision, and specialized treatment (Knopp, Freeman-Longo, and Stevenson, 1992). While the likelihood and length of incarceration for sex offenders has increased in recent years (since 1980, the number of imprisoned sex offenders has grown by more than 7 percent per year; in 1994, nearly one in ten state prisoners were incarcerated for committing a sex offense [Greenfeld, 1997]), the majority are released at some point on probation or parole (either immediately following sentencing or after a period of incarceration in prison or jail). About 60 percent of all sex offenders managed by the U.S. correctional system are under some form of conditional supervision in the community (Greenfeld, 1997). While any offender's subsequent reoffending is of public concern, the prevention of sexual violence is particularly important, given the irrefutable harm that these offenses cause victims and the fear they generate in the community. With this in mind, practitioners making decisions about how to manage sex offenders must ask themselves the following questions: . What is the likelihood that a specific offender will commit subsequent sex crimes? . Under what circumstances is this offender least likely to reoffend? . What can be done to reduce the likelihood of reoffense? The study of recidivism-the commission of a subsequent offense-is important to the criminal justice response to sexual offending. If sex offenders commit a wide variety of offenses, responses from both a public policy and treatment perspective may be no different than is appropriate for the general criminal population (Quinsey, 1984). However, a more specialized response is appropriate if sex offenders tend to commit principally sex offenses. The purpose of this paper is to examine the critical issues in defining recidivism and http://www.sexoffender.com/sorecidivism.html 11/23/2006 Sex Offender.com -Recidivism of Sex Offenders. Your Source for Child & Family Safet... Page 2 of 26 provide a synthesis of the current research on the reoffense rates of sex offenders. The following sections summarize and discuss research findings on sex offenders, factors and conditions that appear to be associated with reduced sexual offending, and the implications that these findings have for sex offender management. Although studies on juvenile sex offender response to treatment exist, the vast majority of research has concentrated on adult males. Thus, this paper focuses primarily on adult male sex offenders. Issues in the Measurement of Sex Offender Recidivism Research on recidivism can be used to inform intervention strategies with sex offenders. However, the way in which recidivism is measured can have a marked difference in study results and applicability to the day-to-day management of this criminal population. The following section explores variables such as the population (s) of sex offenders studied, the criteria used to measure recidivism, the types of offenses studied, and the length of time a study follows a sample. Practitioners must understand how these and other study variables can affect conclusions about sex offender recidivism, as well as decisions regarding individual cases. Defining the Sex Offender Population Studied Sex offenders are a highly heterogeneous mixture of individuals who have committed violent sexual assaults on strangers, offenders who have had inappropriate sexual contact with family members, individuals who have molested children, and those who have engaged in a wide range of other inappropriate and criminal sexual behaviors. If we group various types of offenders and offenses into an ostensibly homogenous category of "sex offenders," distinctions in the factors related to recidivism will be masked and differential results obtained from studies of reoffense patterns. Thus, one of the first issues to consider in reviewing any study of sex offender recidivism is how "sex offender" is defined; who is included in this category, and, as important, who is not. Defining Recidivism Although there is common acceptance that recidivism is the commission of a subsequent offense, there are many operational definitions for this term. For example, recidivism may occur when there is a new arrest, new conviction, or new commitment to custody. Each of these criteria is a valid measure of recidivism, but each measures something different. While the differences may appear minor, they will lead to widely varied outcomes. . Subsequent Arrest-Using new charges or arrests as the determining criteria for "recidivism" will result in a higher recidivism rate, because many individuals are arrested but for a variety of http://wvwv.sexoffender.com/sorecidivism.html 11/23/2006 Sex Offender.com -Recidivism of Sex Offenders. Your Source for Child & Family Safet... Page 3 of 26 reasons, are not convicted. Subsequent Conviction-Measuring new convictions is a more restrictive criterion than new arrests, resulting in a lower recidivism rate. Generally, more confidence is placed in reconviction, since this involves a process through which the individual has been found guilty. However, given the process involved in reporting, prosecution, and conviction in sex offense cases, a number of researchers favor the use of more inclusive criteria (e.g., arrests or charges). Subsequent Incarceration-Some studies utilize return to prison as the criterion for determining recidivism. There are two ways in which individuals may be returned to a correctional institution. One is through the commission of a new offense and return to prison on anew sentence and the other is through a technical violation of parole. The former is by far the more restrictive criterion, since an offender has to have been found guilty and sentenced to prison. Technical violations typically involve violations of conditions of release, such as being alone with minor children or consuming alcohol. Thus, the use of this definition will result in the inclusion of individuals who may not have committed a subsequent criminal offense as recidivists. When one encounters the use of return to prison as the criterion for recidivism, it is imperative to determine if this includes those with new convictions, technical violations, or both. Underestimating Recidivism Reliance on measures of recidivism as reflected through official criminal justice system data obviously omit offenses that are not cleared through an arrest or those that are never reported to the police. This distinction is critical in the measurement of recidivism of sex offenders. For a variety of reasons, sexual assault is a vastly underreported crime. The National Crime Victimization Surveys (Bureau of Justice Statistics) conducted in 1994, 1995, and 1998 indicate that only 32 percent (one out of three) of sexual assaults against persons 12 or older are reported to law enforcement. Athree-year longitudinal study (Kilpatrick, Edmunds, and Seymour, 1992) of 4,008 adult women found that 84 percent of respondents who identified themselves as rape victims did not report the crime to authorities. (No current studies indicate the rate of reporting for child sexual assault, although it is generally assumed that these assaults are equally underreported.) Many victims are afraid to report sexual assault to the police. They may fear that reporting will lead to the following: . further victimization by the offender; . other forms of retribution by the offender or by the offender's friends or family; . arrest, prosecution, and incarceration of an offender who may be a family member or friend and on whom the victim or others may depend; http://www.sexoffender.com/sorecidivism.html 11/23/2006 Sex Offender:com -Recidivism of Sex Offenders. Your Source for Child & Family Safet... Page 4 of 26 . others finding out about the sexual assault (including friends, family members, media, and the public); . not being believed; and . being traumatized by the criminal justice system response. These factors are compounded by the shame and guilt experienced by sexual assault victims, and, for many, a desire to put a tragic experience behind them. Incest victims who have experienced criminal justice involvement are particularly reluctant to report new incest crimes because of the disruption caused to their family. This complex of reasons makes it unlikely that reporting figures will change dramatically in the near future and bring recidivism rates closer to actual reoffense rates. Several studies support the hypothesis that sexual offense recidivism rates are underreported. Marshall and Barbaree (1990) compared official records of a sample of sex offenders with "unofficial" sources of data. They found that the number of subsequent sex offenses revealed through unofficial sources was 2.4 times higher than the number that was recorded in official reports. In addition, research using information generated through polygraph examinations on a sample of imprisoned sex offenders with fewer than two known victims (on average), found that these offenders actually had an average of 110 victims and 318 offenses (Ahlmeyer, Heil, McKee, and English, 2000). Another polygraph study found a sample of imprisoned sex offenders to have extensive criminal histories, committing sex crimes for an average of 16 years before being caught (Ahlmeyer, English, and Simons, 1999). Offense Type For the purpose of their studies, researchers must determine what specific behaviors qualify sex offenders as recidivists. They must decide if only sex offenses will be considered, or if the commission of any crime is sufficient to be classified as a recidivating offense. tf recidivism is determined only through the commission of a subsequent sex offense, researchers must consider if this includes felonies and misdemeanors. Answers to these fundamental questions will influence the level of observed recidivism in each study. Length of Follow-Up Studies often vary in the length of time they "follow-up" on a group of sex offenders in the community. There are two issues of concern with follow-up periods. Ideally, all individuals in any given study should have the same length of time "at risk"-time at large in the community-and, thus, equal opportunity to commit subsequent offenses. In practice, however, this almost never happens. For instance, in a 10-year follow-up study, some subjects will have been in the community for eight, nine, or 10 years while others may have been out for only two years. This problem is addressed by using survival analysis, a methodology #hat takes into account the amount of time every subject has been in the community, rather than a simple percentage. http://www.sexoffender.com/sorecidivism.html 11/23/2006 Sex Offender.com -Recidivism of Sex Offenders. Your Source for Child & Family Safet... Page 5 of 26 Additionally, when researchers compare results across studies, similar time at risk should be used in each of the studies. Obviously, the longer the follow-up period, the more likely reoffense will occur and a higher rate of recidivism will be observed. Many researchers believe that recidivism studies should ideally include afollow-up period of five years or more. Effect on Recidivism Outcomes What are we to make of these caveats regarding recidivism-do they render recidivism a meaningless concept? On the contrary, from a public policy perspective, recidivism is an invaluable measure of the performance of various sanctions and interventions with criminal offenders. However, there is often much ambiguity surrounding what appears to be a simple statement of outcomes regarding recidivism. In comparing the results of various recidivism studies, one should not lose sight of the issues of comparable study samples, criteria for recidivism, the length of the follow-up period, information sources utilized to estimate risk of reoffense, and the likelihood that recidivism rates are underestimated. Factors Associated with Sex Offender Recidivism In many instances, policies and procedures for the management of sex offenders have been driven by public outcry over highly publicized sex offenses. However, criminal justice practitioners must avoid reactionary responses that are based on public fear of this population. Instead, they must strive to make management decisions that are based on the careful assessment of the likelihood of recidivism. The identification of risk factors that may be associated with recidivism of sex offenders can aid practitioners in devising management strategies that best protect the community and reduce the likelihood of further victimization. It is crucial to keep in mind, however, that there are no absolutes or "magic bullets" in the process of identifying these risk factors. Rather, this process is an exercise in isolating factors that tend to be associated with specific behaviors. While this association reflects a likelihood, it does not indicate that all individuals who possess certain characteristics will behave in a certain manner. Some sex offenders will inevitably commit subsequent sex offenses, in spite of our best efforts to identify risk factors and institute management and treatment processes aimed at minimizing these conditions. Likewise, not all sex offenders who have reoffense risk characteristics will recidivate. This section explores several important aspects in the study of recidivism and identification of risk factors associated with sex offenders' commission of subsequent crimes. Application of Studies of General Criminal Recidivism http://www.sexoffender.com/sorecidivism.html 11/23/2006 Sex Offender.com -Recidivism of Sex Offenders. Your Source for Child & Family Safet... Page 6 of 26 The identi#ication of factors associated with criminal recidivism has been an area of significant research over the past 20 years. This work has fueled the development of countless policies and instruments to guide sentencing and release decisions throughout the criminal justice system. If one assumes that sex offenders are similar to other criminal offenders, then the preponderance of research should assist practitioners in identifying risk factors in this population as well. Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) argued that there is little specialization among criminal offenders. In this view, robbers also commit burglary and those who commit assaults also may be drug offenders. The extensive research on recidivism among the general criminal population has identified a set of factors that are consistently associated with subsequent criminal behavior. These factors include being young, having an unstable employment history, abusing alcohol and drugs, holding pro-criminal attitudes, and associating with other criminals (Gendreau, Little, and Goggin, 1996). However, there is some evidence that suggests that sexual offending may differ from other criminal behavior (Hanson and Bussiere, 1998). Although sex offenders may commit other types of offenses, other types of offenders rarely commit sex offenses (Bonta and Hanson, 1995; Hanson, Steffy, and Gauthier, 1995). If this is the case, then a different set of factors may be associated with the recidivism of sex offenders than for the general offender population. This statement is reinforced by the finding that many persistent sex offenders receive low risk scores on instruments designed to predict recidivism among the general offender population (Bonta and Hanson, 1995). Identification of Static and Dynamic Factors Characteristics of offenders can be grouped into two general categories. First, there are historical characteristics, such as age, prior offense history, and age at first sex offense arrest or conviction. Because these items typically cannot be altered, they are often referred to as static factors. Second are those characteristics, circumstances, and attitudes that can change throughout one's life, generally referred to as dynamic factors. Examples of dynamic characteristics include drug or alcohol use, poor attitude (e.g., tow remorse and victim blaming), and intimacy problems. The identification of dynamic factors that are associated with reduced recidivism holds particular promise in effectively managing sex offenders because the strengthening of these factors can be encouraged through various supervision and treatment strategies. Dynamic factors can further be divided into stable and acute categories (Hanson and Harris, 1998). Stable dynamic factors are those characteristics that can change over time, but are relatively lasting qualities. Examples of these characteristics include deviant sexual preferences or alcohol or drug abuse. On the other hand, Hanson and Harris (1998) suggest that acute dynamic factors are conditions that can change over a short period of time. Examples include sexual arousal or intoxication that may immediately precede a reoffense. Understanding Base Rates http://www.sexoffender.com/sorecidivism.html 11/23/2006 offender's record of employment for the previous two years was correlated with the likelihood of recidivism. Sex offenders who had been unemployed or not regularly employed (i.e., employed. with afull-time job at least 75 percent of the time) were found to recidivate at higher rates than sex offenders who experienced stable employment.ss Research in Colorado suggests that sex offenders with positive, informed support (stable housing and social support) have significantly lower criminal and technical violations than sex offenders who had negative or no support (such as friend, family, or roomate who negatively influence the offender or refuse to cooperate with the authorities).56 A U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Statistics study that tracked 9,700 released sex offenders for three years after release found a re-arrest rate for another sex crime of 5.3 percent, and a 3.3 percent re-arrest rate for sex crimes against a child. The study found a general re-arrest rate for all released offenders of 68 percent, compared to a re-arrest rate for all sex offenders of 43 percent. 57 Another U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Statistics study found that the risk of an individual committing a new sex crime is greater among people who have previously committed a sex crime; a sex offender is about four times more likely than anon-sex offender to be arrested for another sex crime.58 A 1998 study of 400 paroled sex offenders drawing from data over afive-year period found a significant attitudinal difference between recidivists and non-recidivists. Recidivists saw themselves as being at little risk for committing new offenses, were less likely to avoid high-risk situations, and were more likely to report (in a polygraph) engaging in deviant sexual behavior.59 In general, people do not want to live near a sex offender. A study conducted in May 2006 by the National Bureau of Economic Research found. that when a sex offender moves into a neighborhood, values of homes within a tenth of a mile drop an average of four percent.bo 20 California Research Bureau, California State Library Sex Offender.com -Recidivism of Sex Offenders. Your Source for Child & Family Safet... Page 7 of 26 Understanding the concept of "base rates" is also essential when studying sex offender recidivism. A base rate is simply the overall rate of recidivism of an entire group of offenders. If the base rate for an entire group is known (e.g., 40 percent), then, without other information, practitioners would predict that any individual in this group has approximately a 40 percent chance of recidivating. If static or dynamic factors related to recidivism are identified, error rates can be improved and this information can be used to make more accurate assessments of the likelihood of rearrest or reconviction. However, if the base rate is at one extreme or the other, additional information may not significantly improve accuracy. For instance, if the base rate were 10 percent, then practitioners would predict that 90 percent of the individuals in this group would not be arrested for a new crime. The error rate would be difficult to improve, regardless of what additional information may be available about individual offenders. In other words, if we simply predicted that no one would be rearrested, we would be wrong only 10 percent of the time. It is quite difficult to make accurate individual predictions in such extreme situations. What has come to be termed as "the low base rate problem" has traditionally plagued sex offender recidivism studies (Quinsey, 1980). As noted previously, lack of reporting, or underreporting, is higher in crimes of sexual violence than general criminal violence and may contribute to the low base rate problem. The following studies have found low base rates for sex offender populations: . Hanson and Bussiere (1998) reported an overall recidivism rate of 13 percent. . Grumfeld and Noreik (1986) found a 10 percent recidivism rate for rapists. . Gibbens, Soothill, and Way (1978) reported a 4 percent recidivism rate for incest offenders. Samples of sex offenders used in some studies may have higher base rates of reoffense than other studies. Quinsey (1984) found this to be the case in his summary of sex offender recidivism studies, as have many other authors who have attempted to synthesize this research. There is wide variation in results, in both the amount of measured recidivism and the factors associated with these outcomes. To a large degree, differences can be explained by variations in the sample of sex offenders involved in the studies. Although this is a simple and somewhat obvious point, this basic fact is "responsible for the disagreements and much of the confusion in the literature" on the recidivism of sex offenders (Quinsey, 1984). Furthermore, results from some studies indicate that there may be higher base rates among certain categories of sex offenders (Quinsey, Laumiere, Rice, and Harris, 1995; Quinsey, Rice, and Harris, 1995). For example, in their follow-up study of sex offenders released from a psychiatric facility, Quinsey, Rice, and Harris (1995) found that rapists had a considerably higher rate of rearrest/reconviction than did child molesters. Conversely, Prentky, Lee, Knight, and Cerce (1997) found that over a 25-year period, child molesters had higher rates of reoffense than rapists. In this study, recidivism was operationalized as a failure rate and calculated as the proportion of individuals who were rearrested using survival analysis (which takes into account the http://www.sexoffender.com/sorecidivism.html 11/23/2006 Sex Offender.com -Recidivism of Sex Offenders. Your Source for Child & Family Safet... Page 8 of 26 amount of time each offender has been at risk in the community). Results show that over longer periods of time, child molesters have a higher failure rate-thus, a higher rate of rearrest-than rapists (52 percent versus 39 percent over 25 years). 6 D% r ~ ew Sex Offer se C harges (Failure Rate) Pra~tky. L ee. FCnrght, and Cerce ({997 52% 5a% Rapists {N=136) 40% ~ Ghild Molesters (N=115) 3a% 2Q% 9% 1 i)% - 696 0% 19% 19% 26% 3a% 39% 1 Year 5 Years 10 Years 25 Years Making Sense of Contradictory Findings Studies on sex offender recidivism vary widely in the quality and rigor of the research design, the sample of sex offenders and behaviors included in the study, the length of follow-up, and the criteria for success or failure. Due to these and other differences, there is often a perceived lack of consistency across studies of sex offender recidivism. For example, there have been varied results regarding whether the age of the offender at the time of institutional release is associated with subsequent criminal sexual behavior. While Beck and Shipley (1987) found that there was no relationship between these variables, Clark and Crum (1985) and Marshall and Barbaree (1990) suggested that younger offenders were more likely to commit future crimes. However, Grunfeld and Noreik (1986) argued that older sex offenders are more likely to have a more developed fixation and thus are more likely to reoffend. A study by the Delaware Statistical Analysis Center (1984) found that those serving longer periods of incarceration had a lower recidivism rate-while Roundtree, Edwards, and Parker (1984) found just the opposite. To a large degree, the variation across individual studies can be explained by the differences in study populations. Schwartz and Cellini (1997) indicated that the use of a heterogeneous group of sex offenders in the analysis of recidivism might be responsible for this confusion: "Mixing an antisocial rapist with a socially skilled fixated pedophile with a developmentally disabled exhibitionist may indeed produce a hodgepodge of results. " http://www. sexoffender.com/sorecidivism.html 11 /23/2006 Sex Offender.com -Recidivism of Sex Offenders. Your Source for Child & Family Safet... Page 9 of 26 Similarly, West, Roy, and Nichols (1978) noted that recidivism rates in studies of sex offenders vary by the characteristics of the offender sample. Such a situation makes the results from follow-up studies of undifferentiated sex offenders difficult to interpret (Quinsey, 1998). One method of dealing with this problem is to examine recidivism studies of specific types of sex offenders. This approach is warranted, given the established base rate differences across types of sex offenders. (Recent research suggests that many offenders have histories of assaulting across genders and age groups, rather than against only one specific victim population. Researchers in a 1999 study (Ahlmeyer, English, and Simons) found that, through polygraph examinations, the number offenders who "crossed over" age groups of victims is extremely high. The study revealed that before polygraph examinations, 6 percent of a sample of incarcerated sex offenders had both child and adult victims, compared to 71 percent after polygraph exams. Thus, caution must be taken in placing sex offenders in exclusive categories.) Marshall and Barbaree (1990) found in their review of studies that the recidivism rate for specific types of offenders varied: . Incest offenders ranged between 4 and 10 percent. . Rapists ranged between 7 and 35 percent. . Child molesters with female victims ranged between 10 and 29 percent. . Child molesters with male victims ranged between 13 and 40 percent. . Exhibitionists ranged between 41 and 71 percent. In summary, practitioners should recognize several key points related to research studies on sex offender recidivism. First, since sexual offending may differ from other criminal behavior, research specific to sex offender recidivism is needed to inform interventions with sex offenders. Second, researchers seek to identify static and dynamic factors associated with recidivism of sex offenders. In particular, the identification of, and support of, "positive" dynamic factors may help reduce the risk of recidivism. Third, although research studies on recidivism of sex offenders often appear to have contradictory findings, variations in outcomes can typically be explained by the differences in the study populations. Finally, since base rate differences have been identified across types of sex offenses, it makes sense to study recidivism of sex offenders by offense type. Review of Studies The following sections present findings from various studies of the recidivism of sex offenders within offense categories of rapists and child molesters (the studies included in this paper do not represent a comprehensive overview of the research on sex offender recidivism. The studies included represent a sampling of available research on these populations and are drawn from to highlight key points). Overall recidivism findings are presented, along with results concerning the factors and characteristics associated with recidivism. http://www.sexoffender.com/sorecidivism.html 11 /23/2006 Sex Offender.com -Recidivism of Sex Offenders. Your Source for Child & Family Saf... Page 10 of 26 Rapists There has been considerable research on the recidivism of rapists across various institutional and community-based settings and with varying periods of follow-up. A follow-up study of sex offenders released from amaximum-security psychiatric institution in California found that 10 of the 57 rapists (19 percent) studied were reconvicted of a rape within five years, most of which occurred during the first year of the follow-up period (Sturgeon and Taylor, 1980). These same authors reported that among 68 sex offenders not found to be mentally disordered who were paroled in 1973, 19 (28 percent) were reconvicted for a sex offense within five years. In a study of 231 sex offenders placed on probation in Philadelphia between 1966 and 1969, 11 percent were rearrested for a sex offense and 57 percent were rearrested for any offense (Romero and Williams, 1985). Rice, Harris, and Quinsey (1990) conducted a more recent study of 54 rapists who were released from prison before 1983. After four years, 28 percent had a reconviction for a sex offense and 43 percent had a conviction for a violent offense. 5096 45% aa96 3596 30°!0 2x96 2096 1596 1096 5% 096 rid Cosy flffonrlar+c Rnloacnrl Rofr`ro 7QA~ In their summary of the research on the recidivism of rapists, Quinsey, Lalumiere, Rice, and Harris (1995) noted that the significant variation in recidivism across studies of rapists is likely due to differences in the types of offenders involved (e.g., institutionalized offenders, mentally disordered offenders, or probationers) or in the length of the follow-up period. They further noted that throughout these studies, the proportion of offenders who had a prior sex offense was similar to the proportion that had a subsequent sex offense. In addition, the rates of reoffending decreased with the seriousness of the offense. That is, the occurrence of officially recorded recidivism for a nonviolent nonsexual offense was the most likely and the incidence of violent sex offenses was the least likely. Child Molesters http://www.sexoffender.com/sorecidivism.html 11/23/2006 Reconvicted for Sex Offense Reconvicted for Violent Offense Sex Offender.com -Recidivism of Sex Offenders. Your Source for Child & Family Saf... Page 11 of 26 Studies of the recidivism of child molesters reveal specific patterns of reoffending across victim types and offender characteristics. Astudy involving mentally disordered sex offenders compared same-sex and opposite-sex child molesters and incest offenders. Results of this five-year follow-up study found that same-sex child molesters had the highest rate of previous sex offenses (53 percent), as well as the highest reconviction rate for sex crimes (30 percent). In comparison, 43 percent of opposite-sex child molesters had prior sex offenses and a reconviction rate for sex crimes of 25 percent, and incest offenders had prior convictions at a rate of 11 percent and a reconviction rate of 6 percent (Sturgeon and Taylor, 1980). Interestingly, the recidivism rate for same-sex child molesters for other crimes against persons was also quite high, with 26 percent having reconvictions for these offenses. Similarly, a number of other studies have found that child molesters have relatively high rates of nonsexual offenses (Quinsey, 1984). ~~o~o A Comparison of Offense Rates for Incest Offenders and Child Molesters ~3y~ 50"fo Stir eonanclTa for X980 X396 ~~ °~o Reoffense 30°l0 ~0°~0 ^ Previous Offense 20 °fo ~ ~ °~a ~ 0 °la Incest Offenders 26 °lo Opposite Sex Child Same Sex Child Molesters Molesters Several studies have involved follow-up of extra-familial child molesters. One such study (Barbaree and Marshall, 1988) included both official and unofficial measures of recidivism (reconviction, new charge, or unofficial record). Using both types of measures, researchers found that 43 percent of these offenders (convicted of sex offenses involving victims under the age of 16 years) sexually reoffended within a four-year follow-up period. Those who had a subsequent sex offense differed from those who did not by their use of force in the offense, the number of previous sexual assault victims, and their score on a sexual index that included a phallometric assessment (also referred to as plethysmography: adevice used to measure sexual arousal (erectile response) to both appropriate (age appropriate and consenting) and deviant sexual stimulus material). In contrast to other studies of child molesters, this study found no difference in recidivism between opposite-sex and same-sex offenders. In a more recent study (Rice, Quinsey, and Harris, 1991), extra-familial child molesters were followed for an average of six years. During that time, 31 percent http://www.sexoffender.com/sorecidivism.html 11/23/2006 Sex Offender.com -Recidivism of Sex Offenders. Your Source for child & Family Sa£.. Page 12 of 26 had a reconviction for a second sexual offense. Those who committed subsequent sex offenses were more likely to have been married, have a personality disorder, and have a more serious sex offense history than those who did not recidivate sexually. In addition, recidivists were more likely to have deviant phallometrically measured sexual preferences (Quinsey, Lalumiere, Rice, and Harris, 1995). In a study utilizing a 24-year follow-up period, victim differences (e.g., gender of the victim) were not found to be associated with the recidivism (defined as those charged with a subsequent sexual offense) of child molesters. This study of 111 extra-familial child molesters found that the number of prior sex offenses and sexual preoccupation with children were related to sex offense recidivism (Prentky, Knight, and Lee, 1997). However, the authors of this study noted that the finding of no victim differences may have been due to the fact that the offenders in this study had an average of three prior sex offenses before their prison release. Thus, this sample may have had a higher base rate of reoffense than child molesters from the general prison population. Probationers Research reviewed to this point has almost exclusively focused upon institutional or prison populations and therefore, presumably a more serious offender population. An important recent study concerns recidivism among a group of sex offenders placed on probation (Kruttschnitt, Uggen, and Shelton, 2000). Although the factors that were related to various types of reoffending were somewhat similar with regard to subsequent sex offenses, the only factor associated with reducing reoffending in this study was the combination of stable employment and sex offender treatment. Such findings emphasize the importance of both formal and informal social controls in holding offenders accountable for their criminal behavior. The findings also provide support for treatment services that focus on coping with inappropriate sexual impulses, fantasies, and behaviors through specific sex offender treatment. Synthesis of Recidivism Studies There have been several notable efforts at conducting a qualitative or narrative synthesis of studies of the recidivism of sex offenders (Quinsey, 1984; Furby, Weinrott, and Blackshaw, 1989; Quinsey, Lalumiere, Rice, and Harris, 1995; Schwartz and Cellini, 1997). Such an approach attempts to summarize findings across various studies by comparing results and searching for patterns or trends. Another technique, known as meta-analysis, relies upon a quantitative approach to synthesizing research results from similar studies. Meta-analysis involves a statistically sophisticated approach to estimating the combined effects of various studies that meet certain methodological criteria and is far from a simple lumping together of disparate studies to obtain average effects. Meta-analyses have certain advantages over more traditional summaries in that http://www.sexoffender.com/sorecidivism.html 11 /23/2006 Sex Offender.com -Recidivism of Sex Offenders. Your Source for Child & Family Saf... Page 13 of 26 through the inclusion of multiple studies, a reliable estimation of effects can be obtained that is generalizable across studies and samples. As noted earlier, the results obtained from individual studies of sex offenders are heavily influenced by the sample of offenders included in the research. Therefore, there is much to be gained through the use of meta-analysis in summarizing sex offender recidivism (see Quinsey, Harris, Rice, and Lalumiere, 1993). As has also previously been observed, it is imperative to distinguish between sex offense recidivism and the commission of other subsequent criminal behavior, as well as the type of current sex offense. One of the most widely recognized meta- analyses of sexual offender recidivism (Hanson and Bussiere, 1998) was structured around these dimensions. Meta-Analysis Studies In Hanson and Bussiere's meta-analysis, 61 research studies met the criteria for inclusion, with all utilizing a longitudinal design and a comparison group. Across all studies, the average sex offense recidivism rate (as evidenced by rearrest or reconviction) was 18.9 percent for rapists and 12.7 percent for child molesters over a four to five year period. The rate of recidivism for nonsexual violent offenses was 22.1 percent for rapists and 9.9 percent for child molesters, while the recidivism rate for any reoffense for rapists was 46.2 percent and 36.9 percent for child molesters over a four to five year period. However, as has been noted previously and as these authors warn, one should be cautious in the interpretation of the data as these studies involved a range of methods and follow-up periods. 50 °!° 45 °l//o +#rr~ °!4 ~;J °l4 30°f° 25 °l° 20 °I° 1~% 10 °lo ~ °fo 0% Meta-Analysis of 61 Studies Manson and Bussiere, 198 Perhaps the greatest advantage of the meta-analysis approach is in determining the relative importance of various factors across studies. Using this technique, one can estimate how strongly certain offender and offense characteristics are related to http://www.sexoffender.com/sorecidivism.html 11 /23/2006 Sexual Reoffense Nonsexual Violent Any Reoffense Reoffense Sex Offender.com -Recidivism of Sex Offenders. Your Source for Child & Family Saf... Page 14 of 26 recidivism because they show up consistently across different studies. In the 1998 Hanson and Bussiere study, these characteristics were grouped into demographics, criminal lifestyle, sexual criminal history, sexual deviancy, and various clinical characteristics. Regarding demographics, being young and single were consistently found to be related, albeit weakly, to subsequent sexual offending. With regard to sex offense history, sex offenders were more likely to recidivate if they had prior sex offenses, male victims, victimized strangers or extra-familial victims, begun sexually offending at an early age, and/or engaged in diverse sex crimes. The factors that were found through this analysis to have the strongest relationship with sexual offense recidivism were those in the sexual deviance category: sexual interest in children, deviant sexual preferences, and sexual interest in boys. Failure to complete treatment was also found to be a moderate predictor of sexual recidivism. Having general psychological problems was not related to sexual offense recidivism, but having a personality disorder was related. Being sexually abused as a child was not related to repeat sexual offending. Studies that Focus on Dynamic Factors As noted earlier, the detection of dynamic factors that are associated with sexual offending behavior is significant, because these characteristics can serve as the focus of intervention. However, many recidivism studies (including most of those previously discussed) have focused almost exclusively on static factors, since they are most readily available from case files. Static, or historical, factors help us to understand etiology and permit predictions of relative likelihood of reoffending. Dynamic factors take into account changes over time that adjust static risk and informs us about the types of interventions that are most useful in lowering risk. In a study focused on dynamic factors, Hanson and Harris (1998) collected data on over 400 sex offenders under community supervision, approximately one-half of whom were recidivists (for the purposes of this study, recidivism was defined as a conviction or charge for a new sexual offense, anon-sexual criminal charge that appeared to be sexually motivated, a violation of supervision conditions for sexual reasons, and self-disclosure by the offender). The recidivists had committed a new sexual offense while on community supervision during afive-year period (1992- 1997). Anumber of significant differences in stable dynamic factors were discovered between recidivists and non-recidivists. Those who committed subsequent sex offenses were more likely to be unemployed {more so for rapists) and have substance abuse problems. The non-recidivists tended to have positive social influences and were more likely to have intimacy problems. There also were considerable attitudinal differences between the recidivists and non-recidivists. Those who committed subsequent sex offenses were less likely to show remorse or concern for the victim. In addition, recidivists tended to see themselves as being at little risk for committing new offenses, were less likely to avoid high-risk situations and were more likely to report engaging in deviant sexual activities. In general, the recidivists were described as having more chaotic, antisocial lifestyles compared to http://www. sexoffender.com/sorecidivism.html 11 /23/2006 Sex Offender.com -Recidivism of Sex Offenders. Your Source for Child & Family Sa£.. Page 15 of 26 the non-recidivists (Hanson and Harris, 1998). The researchers concluded that sex offenders are: "...at most risk of reoffending when they become sexually preoccupied, have access to victims, fail to acknowledge their recidivism risk, and show sharp mood increases, particularly anger. " In sum, because meta-analysis findings can be generalized across studies and samples, they offer the most reliable estimation of factors associated with the recidivism of sex offenders. Most meta-analysis studies, however, have focused on static factors. It is critical that more research be conducted to identify dynamic factors associated with sex offender recidivism. These factors will assuredly provide a foundation for developing more effective intervention strategies for sex offenders. haracteristics* of recidivists include: . multiple victims; • diverse victims; . stranger victims; . juvenile sexual offenses; . multiple paraphilias; • history of abuse and neglect; . long-term separations from parents; • negative relationships with their mothers; • diagnosed antisocial personality disorder; . unemployed; . substance abuse problems; and • chaotic, antisocial lifestyles. t should be noted that these are not ly risk factors. Impact of Interventions on Sex Offender Recidivism Although not the primary purpose of this document, a few words regarding sex offender treatment and supervision are in order. Factors that are linked to sex offender recidivism are of direct relevance for sex offender management. If the characteristics of offenders most likely to recidivate can be isolated, they can serve to identify those who have the highest likelihood of committing subsequent sex offenses. They can also help identify offender populations that are appropriate for http://www.sexoffender.com/sorecidivism.html 11/23/2006 Sex Offender.com -Recidivism of Sex Offenders. Your Source for Child & Family Saf... Page 16 of 26 participation in treatment and specialized supervision and what the components of those interventions must include. Treatment When assessing the efficacy of sex offender treatment, it is vital to recognize that the delivery of treatment occurs within different settings. Those offenders who receive treatment in a community setting are generally assumed to be a different population than those who are treated in institutions. Thus, base rates of recidivating behavior will differ for these groups prior to treatment participation. Sex offender treatment typically consists of three principal approaches: . the cognitive-behavioral approach, which emphasizes changing patterns of thinking that are related to sexual offending and changing deviant patterns of arousal; . the psycho-educational approach, which stresses increasing the offender's concern for the victim and recognition of responsibility for their offense; and . the pharmacological approach, which is based upon the use of medication to reduce sexual arousal. In practice, these approaches are not mutually exclusive and treatment programs are increasingly utilizing a combination of these techniques. Although there has been a considerable amount of writing on the relative merits of these approaches and about sex offender treatment in general, there is a paucity of evaluative research regarding treatment outcomes. There have been very few studies of sufficient rigor (e.g., employing an experimental orquasi-experimental design) to compare the effects of various treatment approaches or comparing treated to untreated sex offenders (Quinsey, 1998). Using less rigorous evaluation strategies, several studies have evaluated the outcomes of offenders receiving sex offender treatment, compared to a group of offenders not receiving treatment. The results of these studies are mixed. For example, Barbaree and Marshall (1988) found a substantial difference in the recidivism rates of extra-familial child molesters who participated in a community based cognitive-behavioral treatment program, compared to a group of similar offenders who did not receive treatment. Those who participated in treatment had a recidivism rate of 18 percent over afour-year follow-up period, compared to a 43 percent recidivism rate for the nonparticipating group of offenders. http://www. sexoffender.com/sorecidivism.html ll /23/2006 Sex Offender.com -Recidivism of Sex Offenders. Your Source for Child & Family Saf... Page 17 of 26 5096 4596 4496 3596 ~0% 25% 20% 1596 1096 S% 0°6 Untreated Child Moleskers Bark~aree and 1L1arsAa!!, 7988 However, no positive effect of treatment was found in several other quasi- experiments involving an institutional behavioral program (Rice, Quinsey, and Harris, 1991) or a milieu therapy approach in an institutional setting (Hanson, Steffy, and Gauthier, 1993). On the other hand, an evaluation of acognitive-behavioral program that employs an experimental design presented preliminary findings that suggest that participation in this form of treatment may have a modest (though not statistically significant) effect in reducing recidivism. After afollow-up period of 34 months, 8 percent of the offenders in the treatment program had a subsequent sex offense, compared with 13 percent of the control group, who had also volunteered for the program, but were not selected through the random assignment process (Marques, Day, Nelson, and West, 1994). Some studies present optimistic conclusions about the effectiveness of programs that are empirically based, offense-specific, and comprehensive. A 1995 meta- analysis study on sex offender treatment outcome studies found a small, yet significant, treatment effect (Hall, 1995). This meta-analysis included 12 studies with some form of control group. Despite the small number of subjects (1,313), the results indicated an 8 percent reduction in the recidivism rate for sex offenders in the treatment group. (For the purposes of this study, recidivism was measured by additional sexually aggressive behavior, including official legal charges as well as, in some studies, unofficial data such as self-report.) Recently, Alexander (1999) conducted an analysis of a large group of treatment outcome studies, encompassing nearly 11,000 sex offenders. In this study, data from 79 sex offender treatment studies were combined and reviewed. Results indicated that sex offenders who participated in relapse prevention treatment programs had a combined rearrest rate of 7.2 percent, compared to 17.6 percent for untreated offenders. The overall rearrest rate for treated sex offenders in this Comparison of Recidivism Rates of Trea#ed and http://www. sexoffender.com/sorecidivism.html 11 /23/2006 Treated Child Molesters Untreated Child Molesters Sex Offender.com -Recidivism of Sex Offenders. Your Source for Child & Family Saf... Page l 8 of 26 analysis was 13.2 percent. (Length of follow-up in this analysis varied from less than one year to more than five years. Most studies in this analysis indicated a three to five year follow-up period.) 20% 1$ °!a 16°!° 14 °Io 12% 1 ~ °Iff° °i0 6% 4 °!° 2 °/4 0°!° Rearrest Rates of Treated and Untreated Sex Qffenders The Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers (ATSA) has established a Collaborative Data Research Project with the goals of defining standards for research on treatment, summarizing existing research, and promoting high quality evaluations. As part of this project, researchers are conducting ameta-analysis of treatment studies. Included in the meta-analysis are studies that compare treatment groups with some form of a control group (average length of follow-up in these studies was four to five years). Preliminary findings indicate that the overall effect of treatment shows reductions in both sexual recidivism, 10 percent of the treatment subjects to 17 percent of the control group subjects, and general recidivism, 32 percent of the treatment subjects to 51 percent of the control group subjects (Hanson, 2000). Just as it is difficult to arrive at definitive conclusions regarding factors that are related to sex offender recidivism, there are similarly no definitive results regarding the effect of interventions with these offenders. Sex offender treatment programs and the results of treatment outcome studies may vary not only due to their therapeutic approach, but also by the location of the treatment (e.g., community, prison, or psychiatric facility), the seriousness of the offender's criminal and sex offense history, the degree of self-selection (whether they chose to participate in treatment or were placed in a program), and the dropout rate of offenders from treatment. Juvenile Treatment Research Research on juvenile sex offender recidivism is particularly lacking. Some studies http://www.sexoffender.com/sorecidivism.html 11 /23/2006 Relapse Prevention All Treated Offenders Untreated Offenders Treatment Sex Offender.com -Recidivism of Sex Offenders. Your Source for Child & Family Saf... Page 19 of 26 have examined the effectiveness of treatment in reducing subsequent sexual offending behavior in youth. Key findings from these studies include the following: Program evaluation data suggest that the sexual recidivism rate for juveniles treated in specialized programs ranges from approximately 7 to 13 percent over follow-up periods of two to five years (Becker, 1990). Juveniles appear to respond well to cognitive-behavioral and/or relapse prevention treatment, with rearrest rates of approximately 7 percent through follow-up periods of more than five years (Alexander, 1999). Studies suggest that rates of nonsexual recidivism are generally higher than sexual recidivism rates, ranging from 25 to 50 percent (Becker, 1990, Kahn and Chambers, 1991, Schram, Milloy, and Rowe, 1991). In a recently conducted study, Hunter and Figueredo (1999) found that as many as 50 percent of youths entering acommunity-based treatment program were expelled during the first year of their participation. Those who failed the program had higher overall levels of sexual maladjustment, as measured on assessment instruments, and were at greater long-term risk for sexual recidivism. Supervision There has been little research on the effectiveness of community supervision programs (exclusively) in reducing reoffense behavior in sex offenders. The majority of supervision programs for sex offenders involve treatment and other interventions to contain offenders' deviant behaviors. Therefore, it is difficult to measure the effects of supervision alone on reoffending behavior-to date, no such studies have been conducted. Evaluating the Effects of Interventions Identification of factors associated with recidivism of sex offenders can play an important role in determining intervention strategies with this population. Yet, the effectiveness of interventions themselves on reducing recidivism must be evaluated if the criminal justice system is to control these offenders and prevent further victimization. However, not only have there been few studies of sufficient rigor on treatment outcomes, less rigorous study results thus far have been mixed. Although one study may find a substantial difference in recidivism rates for offenders who participated in a specific type of treatment, another may find only a modest positive treatment effect, and still other studies may reveal no positive effects. There has been even less research conducted to evaluate the impact of community supervision programs in reducing recidivism. More studies measuring the effects of both treatment and supervision are necessary to truly advance efforts in the field of sex offender management. Implications for Sex Offender Management http://www. sexoffender.com/sorecidivism.html 11 /23/2006 Sex Offender.com -Recidivism of Sex Offenders. Your Source for Child & Family Saf... Page 20 of 26 This paper presented a range of issues that are critical in defining the recidivism of sex offenders. Although there are certainly large gaps in criminal justice knowledge regarding the determinants of recidivism and the characteristics of effective interventions, what is known has significant implications for policy and intervention. The heterogeneity of sex offenders must be acknowledged. Although sex offenders are often referred to as a "type" of offender, there are a wide variety of behaviors and offender backgrounds that fall into this classification of criminals (Knight and Prentky, 1990). As mentioned earlier, many sex offenders have histories of assaulting across sex and age groups-recent research (Ahlmeyer, Heil, McKee, and English, 2000) found that these offenders may be even more heterogeneous than previously believed. Criminal justice professionals must continue to expand their understanding of how sex offenders are different from the general criminal population. Although some sex offenders are unique from the general criminal population (e.g., many extrafamilial child molesters), others (e.g., many rapists) possess many of the same characteristics that are associated with recidivism of general criminal behavior. As criminal justice understanding of these offenders and the factors associated with their behavior increases, more refined classification needs to be developed and treatment programs need to be redesigned to accommodate these differences. Interventions should be based on the growing body of knowledge about sex offender and general criminal recidivism. Research demonstrates that while sex offenders are much more likely to commit subsequent sexual offenses than the general criminal population, they do not exclusively commit sexual offenses. Therefore, some aspects of intervention with the general criminal population may have implications for effective management of sex offenders. Quinsey (1998) has recommended that in the absence of definitive knowledge about effective sex offender treatment, the best approach would be to structure interventions around what is known about the treatment of offenders in general. In the realm of interventions with general criminal offenders, there is a growing body of literature that suggests that the cognitive-behavioral approach holds considerable promise (Gendreau and Andrews, 1990). Cognitive-behavioral treatment involves a comprehensive, structured approach based on sexual learning theory using cognitive restructuring methods and behavioral techniques. Behavioral methods are primarily directed at reducing arousal and increasing pro-social skills. The cognitive behavioral approach employs peer groups and educational classes, and uses a variety of counseling theories. This approach suggests that interventions are most effective when they address the criminogenic needs of high-risk offenders (Andrews, 1982). The characteristics of programs that are more likely to be effective with this population include skill-based training, modeling of pro-social behaviors and attitudes, a directive but non-punitive orientation, a focus on modification of precursors to criminal behavior, and a supervised community component (Quinsey, 1998). Although these program characteristics may be instructive in forming the basis for http://www.sexoffender.com/sorecidivism.html 11 /23/2006 Sex Offender.com -Recidivism of Sex Offenders. Your Source for Child & Family Sa£.. Page 21 of 26 interventions with sex offenders, treatment approaches must incorporate what is known about this particular group of offenders. A number of characteristics that are typically associated with the recidivism of sex offenders were identified in this document, including: victim age, gender, and relationship to the offender; impulsive, antisocial behavior; the seriousness of the offense; and the number of previous sex offenses. Also, an influential factor in sex offender recidivism is the nature of the offender's sexual preferences and sexually deviant interests. The discovery and measurement of these interests can serve as a focus for treatment intervention. Dynamic factors should influence individualized interventions. In addition, dynamic factors associated with recidivism should inform the structure of treatment and supervision, as these are characteristics that can be altered. These factors include the formation of positive relationships with peers, stable employment, avoidance of alcohol and drugs, prevention of depression, reduction of deviant sexual arousal, and increase in appropriate sexual preferences, when they exist. Interventions that strive to facilitate development of positive dynamic factors in sex offenders are consistent with cognitive-behavioral or social learning approaches to treatment. Such approaches determine interventions based upon an individualized planning process, utilizing standard assessment instruments to determine an appropriate intervention strategy. As Quinsey (1998: 419) noted "with the exception of antiandrogenic medication or castration, this model is currently the only approach that enjoys any evidence of effectiveness in reducing sexual recidivism." Conclusion Although there have been many noteworthy research studies on sex offender recidivism in the last 15 to 20 years, there remains much to be (earned about the factors associated with the likelihood of reoffense. Ongoing dialogue between researchers and practitioners supervising and treating sex offenders is essential to identifying research needs, gathering information about offenders and the events leading up to offenses, and ensuring that research activity can be translated into strategies to more effectively manage sex offenders in the community. Ultimately, research on sex offender recidivism must be designed and applied to practice with the goals of preventing further victimization and creating safer communities. Practitioners must continue to look to the most up-to-date research studies on sex offender recidivism to inform their intervention strategies with individual offenders. Researchers can minimize ambiguity in study results by clearly defining measures of recidivism, comparing distinct categories of sex offenders, considering reoffense rates for both sex crimes and all o#her offenses, and utilizing consistent follow-up periods (preferably five years of follow-up or more). In order to reduce underestimations of the risk of recidivism, they also must strive to gather information about offenders' criminal histories from multiple sources, beyond official criminal justice data. In comparing results of various studies, practitioners should not lose http://www.sexoffender.com/sorecidivism.html 11 /23/2006 Sex Offender.com -Recidivism of Sex Offenders. Your Source for Child & Family Saf... Page 22 of 26 sight of how these issues impact research outcomes. Researchers must also continue to accumulate evidence about the relationship of static and dynamic factors to recidivism-such data can assist practitioners in making more accurate assessments of the likelihood of reoffending. In particular, researchers must strive to identify dynamic characteristics associated with sex offending behavior that can serve as the focus for intervention. This information can be utilized to categorize the level of risk posed by offenders, and help determine whether a particular offender is appropriate for treatment and specialized supervision. However, in order to make objective and empirically based decisions about the type of treatment and conditions of supervision that would best control the offender and protect the public, more rigorous research is needed to study the effects of various treatment approaches and community supervision on recidivism. Acknowledgements Tim Bynum, Ph.D., Michigan State ariality, School of Criminal Justice, was the principal author of this paper, with contributions by Madeline Carter, Scott Matson, and Charles Onley. The Center for Sex Offender Management would like to thank David D'Amora, Kim English, Robert Prentky, and Lloyd Sinclair for their assistance and contributions to this article. Kristin Littel and Scott Matson edited the document. Contact Center for Sex Offender Management 8403 Colesville Road, Suite 720 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Phone: (301) 589-9383 Fax: (301) 589-3505 E-mail: askcsom@csom.org Internet: www.csom.org References Alexander, M.A. (1999). Sexual offender treatment efficacy revisited. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 11 (2), 101-117. http://www.sexoffender.com/sorecidivism.html 11 /23/2006 Sex Offender.com -Recidivism of Sex Offenders. Your Source for Child & Family Saf... Page 23 of 26 Ahlmeyer, S., English, K., & Simons, D. (1999). The impact of polygraphy on admissions of crossover offending behavior in adult sexual offenders. Presentation at the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers 18th Annual Research and Treatment Conference, Lake Buena Vista, FL. Ahlmeyer, S., Heil, P., McKee, B., and English, K. (2000). The impact of polygraphy on admissions of victims and offenses in adult sexual offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 12 (2), 123-138. Andrews, D. A. (1982). The supervision of offenders: Identifying and gaining control over the factors which make a difference. Program Branch User Report. Ottawa: Solicitor General of Canada. Barbaree, H.E. & Marshall, W.L. (1988). Deviant sexual arousal, offense history, and demographic variables as predictors of reoffense among child molesters. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 6 (2), 267-280. Beck, A.J. & Shipley, B.E. (1989). Recidivism of prisoners released in 1983. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Becker, J.V. (1990). Treating adolescent sexual offenders. Professional Psychology: Research, and Practice, 21, 362-365. Bonta, J. & Hanson, R.K. (1995). Violent recidivism of men released from prison. Paper presented at the 103' Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, New York. Clarke, S.H. & Crum, L. (1985). Returns to prison in North Carolina. Chapel Hill, NC: Institute of Government, axiality of North Carolina. Delaware Statistical Analysis Center. (1984). Recidivism in Delaware after release from incarceration. Dover, DE: Author. English, K., Pullen, S., & Jones, L. (Eds.) (1996). Managing adult sex offenders: A containment approach. Lexington, KY: American Probation and Parole Association. Furby, L., Weinrott, M.R., 8~ Blackshaw, L. (1989). Sex offender recidivism: A review. Psychological Bupetin, 105 (1), 3-30. Gottfredson, M.R. & Hirschi, T. {1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford axiality Press. Gendreau, P. & Andrews, D.A. (1990). What the meta-analysis of the offender treatment literature tell us about what works. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 32, 173-184. Gendreau, P., Little, T., & Goggin, C. (1996). Ameta-analysis of the predictors of adult criminal recidivism: What works. Criminology, 34, 575-607. Gibbens, T.C.N., Soothill, K.L., & Way, C.K. (1978). Sibling and parent-child incest offenders. British Journal of Criminology, 18, 40-52. Greenfeld, L.A. (1997). Sex offenses and offenders: An analysis of data on rape and sexual assault. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. http://www.sexoffender.com/sorecidivism.html 11 /23/2006 Sex Offender.com -Recidivism of Sex Offenders. Your Source for Child & Family Saf... Page 24 of 26 Grunfetd, B. & Noreik, K. (1986). Recidivism among sex offenders: Afollow-up study of 541 Norwegian sex offenders. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 9, 95-102. Hall, G.C.N. (1995). Sex offender recidivism revisited: Ameta-analysis of recent treatment studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63 (5), 802-809. Hanson, R.K. (2000). The effectiveness of treatment for sexual offenders: Report of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers Collaborative Dafa Research Committee. Presentation at the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers 19th Annual Research and Treatment Conference, San Diego, CA. Hanson, R.K. 8~ Bussiere, M. (1998). Predicting relapse: Ameta-analysis of sexual offender recidivism studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66 (2), 348-362. Hanson, R.K. & Harris, A. {1998). Dynamic predictors of sexual recidivism. Ottawa: Solicitor General of Canada. Hanson, R.K., Scott, H., & Steffy, R.A. (1995). A comparison of child molesters and nonsexual criminals: Risk predictors and long-term recidivism. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 32 (3), 325-337. Hanson, R.K., Steffy, R.A., & Gauthier, R. (1993). Long-term recidivism of child molesters. Journal of Consulting and Criminal Psychology, 61 (4), 646-652. Hunter, J.A. & Figueredo, A.J. (1999). Factors associated with treatment compliance in a population of juvenile sexual offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 11, 49-68. Kahn, T.J. & Chambers, H.J. (1991). Assessing reoffense risk with juvenile sexual offenders. Child Welfare, 19, 333-345. Kilpatrick, D.G., Edmunds, C.N., & Seymour, A. (1992). Rape in America: A report to the nation. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Victims of Crime and Crime Victims Research and Treatment Center. Knight, R.A. & Prentky, R.A. (1990). Classifying sexual offenders: The development and corroboration of taxonomic models. In W.L. Marshall, D.R. Laws, and H.E. Barbaree (Eds.), Handbook of sexual assault: Issues, theories, and treatment of the offender (pp. 23-52). New York: Plenum. Knopp, F.A., Freeman-Longo, R., & Stevenson, W.F. (1992). Nationwide survey of juvenile and adult sex offender treatment programs and models. Orwell, VT: Safer Society Press. Kruttschnitt, C., Uggen, C., & Shelton, K. (2000). Predictors of desistance among sex offenders: The interactions of formal and informal social controls. Justice Quarterly, 17 (1), 61-87. Marques, J.K., Day, D.M., Nelson, C., & West, M.A. (1994). Effects of cognitive-behavioral treatment on sex offenders' recidivism: Preliminary results of a longitudinal study. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 21, 28-54. Marshall, W.L. &Barbaree, H.E. (1990). Outcomes of comprehensive cognitive-behavioral treatment programs. In W.L. Marshall, D.R. Laws, and H.E. Barbaree (Eds.), Handbook of sexual assault: Issues, theories, and treatment of the offender (pp. 363-385). New York: Plenum. http://www.sexoffender.com/sorecidivism.html 11/23/2006 Sex Offender.com -Recidivism of Sex Offenders. Your Source for Child & Family Saf... Page 25 of 26 Prentky, R., Knight, R., & Lee, A. (1997). Risk factors associated with recidivism among extra-familial child molesters. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65 (1), 141-149. Prentky, R., Lee, A., Knight, R., & Cerce, D. (1997). Recidivism rates among child molesters and rapists: A methodological analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 635-659. Quinsey, V.L. (1980). The base-rate problem and the prediction of dangerousness: A reappraisal. Journal of Psychiatry and the Law, 8, 329-340. Quinsey, V.L. (1984). Sexual aggression: Studies of offenders against women. In D.N. Weisstub (Ed.). Law and Mental Health: International Perspectives (pp. 140-172), Vol. 2. New York: Pergamon. Quinsey, V.L. (1998). Treatment of sex offenders. In M. Tonry (Ed.), The handbook of crime and punishment (pp. 403-425). New York: Oxford ariality Press. Quinsey, V.L., Harris, G.T., Rice, M.E., &Lalumiere, M. (1993). Assessing treatment efficacy in outcome studies of sex offenders. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 8, 512-523. Quinsey, V.L., Lalumiere, M.L., Rice, M.E., & Harris, G.T. (1995). Predicting sexual offenses. In J.C. Campbell (Ed.), Assessing dangerousness: Violence by sexual offenders, batterers, and child abusers (pp. 114-137). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Quinsey, V.L., Rice, M.E., & Harris, G.T. (1995). Actuarial prediction of sexual recidivism. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 10 (1), 85-105. Rice, M.E., Harris, G.T., &Quinsey, V.L. (1990). Afollow-up of rapists assessed in a maximum security psychiatric facility. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 5 (4), 435-448. Rice, M.E., Quinsey, V.L., & Harris, G.T. (1991). Sexual recidivism among child molesters released from a maximum security institution. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59, 381-386. Romero, J. & Williams, L. (1985). Recidivism among convicted sex offenders: A 10-year follow-up study. Federal Probation, 49, 58-64. Roundtree, G.A., Edwards, D.W., & Parker, J.B. (1984). A study of personal characteristics of probationers as related to recidivism. Journal of Offender Counseling, 8, 53-61. Schram, D.D., Milloy, C. D., & Rowe, W.E. (1991). Juvenile sex offenders: Afollow-up study of reoffense behavior. Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy. Schwartz, B.K. & Cellini, H.R. (1997). Sex offender recidivism and risk factors in the involuntary commitment process. Albuquerque, NM: Training and Research Institute Inc. Sturgeon, V.H. & Taylor, J. (1980). Report of a five-year follow-up study of mentally disordered sex offenders released from Atascadero State Hospital in 1973. Criminal Justice Journal, 4, 31-63. West, D.J., Roy, C., & Nichols, F.L. (1978). Understanding sexual attacks: A study based upon a group of rapists undergoing psychotherapy. London: Heinemann. http://www.sexoffender.com/sorecidivism.html 11/23/2006 Sex Offender.com -Recidivism of Sex Offenders. Your Source for Child & Family Saf... Page 26 of 2b Established in June 9997, CSOM's goal is to enhance public safety by preventing further victimization through improving the management of adulf and juvenile sex offenders who are in the community. A collaborative effort of fhe Office of Justice Programs, the National Institute of Corrections, and the State Justice Institute, CSOM is administered by the Center for Effective Public Policy and the American Probation and Parole Association. This project was supported by Grant No. 97-WT-VX-K007, awarded by the Office of Justice Programs, tJ. S. Department of Justice. Points of view in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U. S. Department of Justice. This page was updated on 1/17/2004 http://www.sexoffender.com/sorecidivism.html 11 /23/2006 ~~ !) J~ ,~ , ~ ~~ ~ f~~~~ ~~ ~ ,~:~~~" ~~ r ~ ~~ 1 .G2 L-I '~,~: .~ c l.~ n /~