Sex Offenders

i was told sex offenders were the easy cases to supervises because they were "compliant". i should submit the officer's name to tallahassee to be first on the list for drug testing because the dude must have smoked crack before he told me this bit of 411.

[mystikwarrior]

i was told sex offenders were the easy cases to supervises because they were "compliant".

So you think they aren't? Can you clarify that further?
How many sex offender cases do you have?
How many sex offender cases have you violated in the past year for a new sex crime?
New crime of any type?
Technical violations that would be considered a 'red-flag' such as unauthorized contact with minors as opposed to paper violations like being behind on COS?

I'd like to hear from you or any other PO here that supervises sex offender cases. What's the real deal? Are the sex offenders easier or harder than the drug offenders for example? Is the problem with the offenders, or the rules you and the offender both have to follow?

The OPPAGA report says sex offender cases were responsible for:
2.4% of the murders/attmepts
13.7% of sexual batteries
2% of sexual performance by a child
4.7% of false imprisonment
18.4% of L&L offenses
0.0% of child abuse offenses
2.5% of robbery offenses
2.6% of stalking offenses
0.0% of vehicular homicides

Looks like all the other cases are far more likely to not be compliant from a new crimes perspective.

I supervise sex offenders and I think the biggest difference right now is the HUGE microscope that is on them. When they mess up, you have a bad day ahead of you! Just read the newspapers or listen to the news- alot of times the information about these offenders is inaccurate, i.e. Joseph Smith was a convicted sex predator instead of what he was a DOP. I can't tell you how many times I had people ask me why we didn't do more with John Couey and I had to explain that he wasn't on State probation. My point is that there is quite a bit of paranoia among the powers that be, so when they do violate you have more eyes looking at what you did as an officer. As for being harder or easier, I've done regular probation and cc, and I think there are pros and cons to every caseload. I know the DOP officers in my circuit are sitting the prettiest and they say so. Supervision of any caseload is manageable, until they hit the news.

[Merlin]

So you think they aren't? Can you clarify that further?
How many sex offender cases do you have?
How many sex offender cases have you violated in the past year for a new sex crime?
New crime of any type?
Technical violations that would be considered a 'red-flag' such as unauthorized contact with minors as opposed to paper violations like being behind on COS?

I'd like to hear from you or any other PO here that supervises sex offender cases. What's the real deal? Are the sex offenders easier or harder than the drug offenders for example? Is the problem with the offenders, or the rules you and the offender both have to follow?

Whether or not a certain type of case is easier or harder to supervise depends on the officer I think. Each officer has his/her own style, skill level, interests, goals, strengths, weaknesses, challenges and {GASP} victim issues to deal with. It’s easier in my opinion to supervise a caseload I am best at. Whether or not a certain type of case re-offends more or less often than another type is irrelevant to me. I could care less if I did 1 or 20 VOPs in the last few weeks since my administrative skills are pretty darn good. I don’t mind doing long complex PSIs either because I enjoy interviewing, investigating and writing. What I would have a difficult time with is boring mundane cases that pose little or no challenge. Working in PTI (with or without JABBA), for example, would bore me to tears and cause difficulty for me in the long run. It’s all a matter of perspective. Whether an offender is a murderer, sex offender or drug addict makes absolutely no difference to me. Others may feel differently for whatever reasons.

Sex Offenders are much harder to supervise because you have to worry about every little thing they do unlike a normal probationer because of the political environment now and hope you dont allow something that someone thought unwise later. You may have way more violations with regular probationers but sex offenders are much more of a headache especially dealing with some of their attitudes......

i'm sure their attitude would not be as bad if the rules didn't change every time they wake up....never know from one day to the next just what our glorious government is going to make illegal or off limits next.....i mean just how friendly would you be if you never know from one day to the next if the home you have lived in for years is now going to be illegal and you have 30 days to move or go to jail...just because some idiot school board which has the glorious registry to know just where they are and they still put school bus stops right on top of them...and then demand that the sex offender move....if it was me and you showed up at my door with that little you got 30days to move since you are now too close to a bus stop i would tell you that you have 30 days to move the stop....

i'm sure their attitude would not be as bad if the rules didn't change every time they wake up....never know from one day to the next just what our glorious government is going to make illegal or off limits next.....i mean just how friendly would you be if you never know from one day to the next if the home you have lived in for years is now going to be illegal and you have 30 days to move or go to jail...

What are you so worried about Worried Citizen? Are you trying to tell us that sex offenders had great attitudes BEFORE all these glorious new laws went into effect? :roll:
[/quote]

no i am well aware that not everybody is nice and polite...just saying you would have a much better chance to have people willing to follow the rules...if they would stay the same from one week to the next..but when they never know when they are going to change and require them to move or whatever from one day to the next...it's going to show up in people mood.....and since according to the figures from the USDOJ 80% of sex offenders don't reoffend...especially when they get treatment...which for some reason florida doesn't figure they need until AFTER they leave prison.....life for everybody would be much smoother if the govt would stop causing upheaveals in their lives from one day to the next...and it would also help police..as sooner or later the US Supreme Court is going to get involved and this constant change and change and increase is going to get it all thrown out...as an after the fact increase in punishment....which would be bad as those who are infact violent offenders need to be monitored...just afraid all of this constant change and stupid feel-good laws are going to cause it all to be lost.

sex offenders never stop. they learn to be sneakier.

[Merlin]

no i am well aware that not everybody is nice and polite...just saying you would have a much better chance to have people willing to follow the rules...if they would stay the same from one week to the next..but when they never know when they are going to change and require them to move or whatever from one day to the next...it's going to show up in people mood.....and since according to the figures from the USDOJ 80% of sex offenders don't reoffend...especially when they get treatment...which for some reason florida doesn't figure they need until AFTER they leave prison.....life for everybody would be much smoother if the govt would stop causing upheaveals in their lives from one day to the next...and it would also help police..as sooner or later the US Supreme Court is going to get involved and this constant change and change and increase is going to get it all thrown out...as an after the fact increase in punishment....which would be bad as those who are infact violent offenders need to be monitored...just afraid all of this constant change and stupid feel-good laws are going to cause it all to be lost.

The Department of Corrections has nothing to do with the buffer zones (aka local ordinances). Although I must admit I'm a little confused about the lack of housing in the community and DOC's hands off approach to assisting offenders transition into the community. If DOC isn't assisting the offenders then who is? I'm thinking no one. How can this be tolerated? Do the taxpayers know we are locking up homeless sex offenders? FDLE accepts homeless sex offenders on the registry so what gives with DOC?

All the taxpayer would be hollering is why in the hell would DOC be assisting a Sex Offender to move into his neighborhood to molest his kid yesterday and the news would be right there with the Headline: DOC places sex offender in neighborhood leading to rape of a 10 year old boy......

[Merlin]

All the taxpayer would be hollering is why in the hell would DOC be assisting a Sex Offender to move into his neighborhood to molest his kid yesterday and the news would be right there with the Headline: DOC places sex offender in neighborhood leading to rape of a 10 year old boy......

So what's the solution? We keep bouncing these guys from probation to prison back out on CRD then back to prison. Eventually these guys will max out. Then what? What are we really accomplishing?[/quote]

I dont know maybe all the cities will pass 2500 feet then they will have to come up with sex offender island or something off the coast - nothing else will satify the public in the current climate......

[Merlin]

I work in a county without local sex offender ordinances. I noticed quite a few places in the state have the 2,500 foot rule. Has anyone taken the time to read them? I was in utter shock with North Miami's 3,000 foot rule. What's wrong with this picture?

I work in a county without local sex offender ordinances. I noticed quite a few places in the state have the 2,500 foot rule. Has anyone taken the time to read them? I was in utter shock with North Miami's 3,000 foot rule. What's wrong with this picture?

We are starting to get castoffs from the county in our circuit that does have restrictions. I have read what the paper says about if their rental deal is up they cant renew and have to move and if they own the house they cant make them move if already there. I am hoping we pass one even though they might get overturned a few years down the road because of the castoffs....

[Merlin]

We are starting to get castoffs from the county in our circuit that does have restrictions. I have read what the paper says about if their rental deal is up they cant renew and have to move and if they own the house they cant make them move if already there. I am hoping we pass one even though they might get overturned a few years down the road because of the castoffs....

Where and when does it end? This is madness. Each county is blindly passing ordinances just because someone else did.

Have you ever seen any recent studies done that prove proximity laws help reduce the probability of reoffenses?

We are starting to get castoffs from the county in our circuit that does have restrictions. I have read what the paper says about if their rental deal is up they cant renew and have to move and if they own the house they cant make them move if already there. I am hoping we pass one even though they might get overturned a few years down the road because of the castoffs....

Where and when does it end? This is madness. Each county is blindly passing ordinances just because someone else did.

Have you ever seen any recent studies done that prove proximity laws help reduce the probability of reoffenses?

I agree with you and the funny thing is it is driving more offenders out of the cities into the rural areas where the crime took place that brought about this law. I am surprised they arent hollering about this increasing their sex offender numbers ...?

[Merlin]

I agree with you and the funny thing is it is driving more offenders out of the cities into the rural areas where the crime took place that brought about this law. I am surprised they arent hollering about this increasing their sex offender numbers ...?

Yep. I work in a rural area and see many coming out of the inner city....problem is that the inner city is where their families are. So what do they do? They get an address in the country, register it, go visit the family in town where their PO is not likely to show up to see if the neices and nephews are around, then they go home at curfew time. What a joke.

i look at these new rules forcing the sex offenders farther and farther away....adding more and more places they can't live...soon there will be laws saying just where they have to live....might as well say getto's....and more and more states starting to put some kind of mark on there licence...and even florida is now talking about some kind of mark.....well let's take a trip down memory lane....it is now 1933 germany....jews are now required to carry papers marked with the star of david and they must have the mark on their clothes where it may be seen by anyone....as for where they live....let's go to the warsaw ghetto......sound familiar? don't know about you but if it was me, being herded like that would only happen over my dead body..and i would have company....

What does unsupervised contact with minors mean to you, and does it differ with the your circuit's definition?

What does unsupervised contact with minors mean to you, and does it differ with the your circuit's definition?

do you mean NO UNSUPERVISED contact?

[Merlin]

The problematic language in 948.30 was clarified last year.


(e) If the victim was under the age of 18, a prohibition on contact with a child under the age of 18 except as provided in this paragraph. The court 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 court 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 court must review and consider the following:

1. 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:

a. The sex offender's current legal status;

b. The sex offender's history of adult charges with apparent sexual motivation;

c. The sex offender's history of adult charges without apparent sexual motivation;

d. The sex offender's history of juvenile charges, whenever available;

e. The sex offender's offender treatment history, including consultations with the sex offender's treating, or most recent treating, therapist;

f. The sex offender's current mental status;

g. The sex offender's mental health and substance abuse treatment history as provided by the Department of Corrections;

h. The sex offender's personal, social, educational, and work history;

i. The results of current psychological testing of the sex offender if determined necessary by the qualified practitioner;

j. A description of the proposed contact, including the location, frequency, duration, and supervisory arrangement;

k. The child's preference and relative comfort level with the proposed contact, when age appropriate;

l. The parent's or legal guardian's preference regarding the proposed contact; and

m. 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 court;

2. A recommendation made as a part of the risk assessment report as to whether supervised contact with the child should be approved;

3. 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 court may not approve contact with the child if the parent or legal guardian refuses to give written consent for supervised contact;

4. 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, if the parent or legal guardian is not the sex offender, 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 court; and

5. Evidence that the child's parent or legal guardian 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 court 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 court that he or she has met the requirements of a qualified practitioner as defined in this section.

In my circuit, all the cities, towns and villages have their own buffer zones, ranging from 1500-2500 feet. As a matter of fact, our unincorportated area of the county is going to 2500 feet. And we are supposed to keep up with the many changes. We were told that if their residence doesn't violate the F.S. 1000' rule, then we can approve the move regardless of the city ordinance. Then, when the city "whoever" shows up at their door and tells them to move, their failure to comply within the timeframe given will ultimately result in an ordinance violation and then a VOP. I voiced my opinion on this one and was told that was how it is. This includes PLC. So, now I may "approve" an address with the attachment that it is in violation of the city ordinance and the offender will be arrested. Is anyone else having the same issue or even the same direction form above? :shock:

[Merlin]

In my circuit, all the cities, towns and villages have their own buffer zones, ranging from 1500-2500 feet. As a matter of fact, our unincorportated area of the county is going to 2500 feet. And we are supposed to keep up with the many changes. We were told that if their residence doesn't violate the F.S. 1000' rule, then we can approve the move regardless of the city ordinance. Then, when the city "whoever" shows up at their door and tells them to move, their failure to comply within the timeframe given will ultimately result in an ordinance violation and then a VOP. I voiced my opinion on this one and was told that was how it is. This includes PLC. So, now I may "approve" an address with the attachment that it is in violation of the city ordinance and the offender will be arrested. Is anyone else having the same issue or even the same direction form above?

So what I hear you saying is that your circuit is purposely sabatoging or "tricking" sex offenders into violating their probation. Do you tell them in advance that the proposed address might be in violation of the local ordinance or do you shut up and wait for him to go to jail then laugh your butt off because he was too stupid to trust a certified officer's judgement? Just curious.

Are we tricking them with travel permits too? What a great way to get them all locked up. Do you think one day someone will catch on?

Which circuit has PO's filing a VOP for violating a sex offender ordinace of 2500'? Region 2 RD out out a memo not to violate for ordinance violations.

I have a very real concern in my neighborhood, since (approx. year ) 1999 a few different sex offenders have and currently resided in a home located by three different schools in our neighborhood. Why is this even possible considering the crimes against children under the ages of 16 & 12 that each had commited not to mention were charged with. Is there no law against this?

Which circuit has PO's filing a VOP for violating a sex offender ordinace of 2500'? Region 2 RD sent out a memo not to violate for ordinance violations.

I have a very real concern in my neighborhood, since (approx. year ) 1999 a few different sex offenders have and currently resided in a home located by three different schools in our neighborhood. Why is this even possible considering the crimes against children under the ages of 16 & 12 that each had commited not to mention were charged with. Is there no law against this?


Must be court ordered.

Could this house be like harmony house is to abused women? Do you mean court ordered as in the courts placed them there or approved of the residence which happens to be less than 50 feet away from a school.

For the offenders that I'm supervising, yes, I tell them that although it is not against F.S., it is against the city ordinance, and may result in a VOP. I'm not stupid, it's already hard enough to go into court on some of these VOPs re: homeless sex offenders, so I'm not purposely going to set the offenders up. With the PLC, we were told that as long as the residence doesn't violate the 1000' rule, we are to approve it regardless of any ordinances. Like I said before, in this instance, I let the classification officer know that the address is in violation of the city ordinance, but not the 1000' rule. I was trying to find out if anyone else was having the same problems with various city ordinances vs directives from central office or region or where ever they come from. As for travel permits, the curfew has eliminated many travel requests and as long as I can verify the travel plans and purpose and the request is reasonable, I will submit it for approval. I'm just like everybody who supervises sex offenders- just trying to find some common sense in the middle of the chaos.

In my circuit, all the cities, towns and villages have their own buffer zones, ranging from 1500-2500 feet. As a matter of fact, our unincorportated area of the county is going to 2500 feet. And we are supposed to keep up with the many changes. We were told that if their residence doesn't violate the F.S. 1000' rule, then we can approve the move regardless of the city ordinance. Then, when the city "whoever" shows up at their door and tells them to move, their failure to comply within the timeframe given will ultimately result in an ordinance violation and then a VOP. I voiced my opinion on this one and was told that was how it is. This includes PLC. So, now I may "approve" an address with the attachment that it is in violation of the city ordinance and the offender will be arrested. Is anyone else having the same issue or even the same direction form above?

So what I hear you saying is that your circuit is purposely sabatoging or "tricking" sex offenders into violating their probation. Do you tell them in advance that the proposed address might be in violation of the local ordinance or do you shut up and wait for him to go to jail then laugh your butt off because he was too stupid to trust a certified officer's judgement? Just curious.

Are we tricking them with travel permits too? What a great way to get them all locked up. Do you think one day someone will catch on?



seems to me that if i was the judge in a case like this where the individual is actually under control of department of probation/parole and they approved a residence that violated any law federal/state/local or whatever...then it wouldn't be the probationer that would be going to jail but the PO...and his/her boss for contempt at the very least.

Geez. What an overwhelming response :shock:
That's good, actually.

Supervision of any caseload is manageable, until they hit the news.
I'll go along with that. And I imagine you have a 'no media contact' rule that prevents you from setting the record straight when a reporter publishes the wrong info?

sex offenders are much more of a headache especially dealing with some of their attitudes......
I have to agree with worried here. Some of the attitude problems are brought on by the ever-changing rules, local LEA harrassment in the form of 1AM 'address verifications' and just the overall pain of being an offender in Florida.

Although I must admit I'm a little confused about the lack of housing in the community and DOC's hands off approach to assisting offenders transition into the community.
Kind of lends credence to the idea that DOC supervision is merely a holding pattern, somewhere to stick a guy until you can get him into prison. If DOC was serious about rehabilitation it would ahve its own transitional housing facilities all over the state. Locals don't like it? Tough. State trumps local. The biggest flaw is in releasing offenders to counties other than their county of conviction. Send the offender back where he came from. If that community doesn't like it, too bad.

Eventually these guys will max out. Then what?
Well then they'll be on the registry and the public will be protected. That's waht it's for, right?

I am hoping we pass one even though they might get overturned a few years down the road because of the castoffs....
Well, a forward-thinking locality would file suit against the ones enacting these ordinances and pushing the offenders out. That seems to be a better approach than to decide to just join the crowd and stick your head in the sand as well.

Have you ever seen any recent studies done that prove proximity laws help reduce the probability of reoffenses?
Nope. But who needs studies? Don't confuse the issue with facts. That would screw everything up :roll:

The problematic language in 948.30 was clarified last year.
Actually it didn't. For one thing, just like the JLA, this new interpretation doesn't apply to those already on supervision. Only the new ones. But the Legislature dropped the ball when it didn't define 'contact'. Does DOC have an internal document that actually defines what is and is not considered 'contact' for the purposes of this law?

I have a very real concern in my neighborhood, since (approx. year ) 1999 a few different sex offenders have and currently resided in a home located by three different schools in our neighborhood.
All those sex offenders in the last 7 years and that close to three different schools? My God the number of abductions and molestations in your neigborhood must have gone ballistic. Come on, tell us. How many? 20? 50? 300? :shock:

so I'm not purposely going to set the offenders up
That's good to hear. But will you go to bat for the offender if your supervisor or the District Office insists that you violate an offender even though they told you last month not to?

As for travel permits, the curfew has eliminated many travel requests
Interesting thought. If a particular location would be considered a 'residence' per the registration laws, wouldn't that same location be a 'residence' per the requirement that the offender be at his residence during the set hours?

You know what I think is really sad? If we all as a state put just as much energy and resources into restorative justive as we do with new SO laws, GPS, 2,500 foot rules, twice a year registration and so forth we'd be far better off. Where's the forgiveness, the empathy, the victim's concerns and how much collateral damage are we causing with all the power struggles with the rules, as if any of them actually prevented the first crime anyways? :roll:

I am new to this forum and I thought the discussions about sex offenders are interesting. I am a victim of sexual abuse. My father molested me when I was 13. He went to prison for 5 years and he’s now on probation. He’s not allowed to live with us or contact us. My therapist wants us to work on reunification together, but obviously that is not possible because his PO can’t let him contact us. If I am willing to work on forgiveness then why can’t society? Why does he have so many probation rules, which have nothing to do with us getting on with our lives? Do the Judges ever let us victims find closure with our perpetrators? Does anyone even care? I know his PO doesn’t. I can’t even get her to return my phone calls.

[Darth Duck]

My first thought is that this is an offender not the victim. Maybe I am too suspicious.

My first thought is that this is an offender not the victim. Maybe I am too suspicious.

I think you may be right reading their message......

[Merlin]

Quote:
The problematic language in 948.30 was clarified last year.

Actually it didn't. For one thing, just like the JLA, this new interpretation doesn't apply to those already on supervision. Only the new ones. But the Legislature dropped the ball when it didn't define 'contact'. Does DOC have an internal document that actually defines what is and is not considered 'contact' for the purposes of this law?

The old rules included language such as "supervised contact with a responsible adult" with PO and or Courts approval and the like. There's no reason whatsoever for a PO to approve contact supervised or unsupervised unless of course they determine the responsible adult is in fact "responsible". What is responsible? Well, let's see....maybe we should use the guidelines in 948, ya think?

Curious as to why you would need the legislature to define contact.....which part of "no contact" is problematic for you?

You know what I think is really sad? If we all as a state put just as much energy and resources into restorative justive as we do with new SO laws, GPS, 2,500 foot rules, twice a year registration and so forth we'd be far better off. Where's the forgiveness, the empathy, the victim's concerns and how much collateral damage are we causing with all the power struggles with the rules, as if any of them actually prevented the first crime anyways? :roll:

I think the legislatures intent and DOC's right now is to get as many of them in jail as they can with the thinking they should have got 25 years then instead of a lot of probation. And in the current environment it would be suicidal for a legislator to do otherwise and DOC just wants their hands clean if one does reoffend - the fewer the less chance of DOC being in the news....

[Merlin]

I think the legislatures intent and DOC's right now is to get as many of them in jail as they can with the thinking they should have got 25 years then instead of a lot of probation. And in the current environment it would be suicidal for a legislator to do otherwise and DOC just wants their hands clean if one does reoffend - the fewer the less chance of DOC being in the news....

Unfortunately you are right on the money. I think stiffer penalties are a good thing. There's no question we have too many dangerous offenders walking around. But, it really does get exhausting sometimes treating every single offender like they might pull a John Couey. Surely, you've seen some offenders get back on the right track. I know I have.

If the victim was under the age of 18, a prohibition, until successful completion of a sex offender treatment program, on unsupervised contact with a child under the age of 18, unless authorized by the sentencing court without another adult present who is responsible for the child's welfare, has been advised of the crime, and is approved by the sentencing court.

You don't find this confusing?

[Merlin]

You don't find this confusing?

Yes it is VERY confusing. This is why it's important to clarify for the offender. "No contact". After he graduates treatment do you follow the procedures in 948.30 or do you have another method to determine who is responsible? How do your sex offender therapists handle this?

[Merlin]

No1 Important said


I'm just like everybody who supervises sex offenders- just trying to find some common sense in the middle of the chaos.

I'm with ya buddy. You sound like a very conscientious officer. Keep up the good work. The more we educate people including the offenders the better we could understand and comply with the rules. When you get them all figured out though they'll change....such is life.

I have to ask though, what sense does it make approving a PLC when you know in advance the offender might get arrested and VOP'd? I know this is not YOUR policy, but what does management say about this? Have you thought about what changes in legislation might be necessary to alleviate this problematic situation? What do other POs in your area do?

I am new to this forum and I thought the discussions about sex offenders are interesting. I am a victim of sexual abuse. My father molested me when I was 13. He went to prison for 5 years and he’s now on probation. He’s not allowed to live with us or contact us. My therapist wants us to work on reunification together, but obviously that is not possible because his PO can’t let him contact us. If I am willing to work on forgiveness then why can’t society? Why does he have so many probation rules, which have nothing to do with us getting on with our lives? Do the Judges ever let us victims find closure with our perpetrators? Does anyone even care? I know his PO doesn’t. I can’t even get her to return my phone calls.

[Merlin]

The officers where I work don't seem to be over joyed with the idea of allowing sex offenders to have any type of contact with minors including the victim.

Can't the victim's over 18 YO write to the sentencing Judge asking for a modification of sentence? I think the PO can too, it's probably best to write to the PO first then up the chain if necessary.

Thanks Merlin, I appreciate that. I deny PLCs, because luckily most are near a bus stop. I like the way the parole commission outlines the whole residential thing for sex offenders...I wish they would have adopted some of the wording in 948. As for the travel permits and "residence", I consider their approved residence just that, and they need to be home at that approved residence by curfew. Now if they want to move, or "travel" somewhere that will have them out past their court ordered, not po imposed curfew, then I would need to investigate or have someone in that circuit appove the temp. residence. Right or wrong, that's how my circuit does it. To answer the question of the person who asked if I would stand behind the offender if I didn't agree with my superiors- not over something like traveling or residence. Do I plead my case, sure, but ultimately, this is my job and I haven't supervised an offender yet worth risking it. I think alot of the writers have proved my point, every circuit, county and even offices have different takes on policy and I'm just curious about the differences and maybe I'll learn a new of way of looking or doing something.

[Merlin]

No1 Important


I wish they would have adopted some of the wording in 948.

Talk to me brother. Show me the wording that works best. We need to know what works and what doesn't and so do the legislators.....you have no clue how hard it is to rewrite 948 and get it right...trust me on this one.

Are you a big fan of bus stop rules? How about the wording in 947 where we defer to probation? Is that a crock or what? So my point is that even if the wording is better in 947, but he's out on a split, we defer.....out the door goes all the words we like....see my point? We have to get 948 just right and forget about the emphasis on 947 since we blow them off anyway with the "defer" language. Makes sense?

[Merlin]

No1 Important said,


I'm just curious about the differences and maybe I'll learn a new of way of looking or doing something.

I like your attitude No1. I bet you enjoy your job as I do...always looking for answers and solving problems...Lord knows we'll never be bored. :D

[mystikwarrior]

which part of "no contact" is problematic for you?
Simple.
Suppose I told you that you were specifically prohibited from ever flabagerating. Could you do it? Of course not. You don't even know what it is. Hence the need for a definition.
Does 'contact' require being in the physical presence of the minor?
Is mere physical presence not enough and there must also be a physical 'touching'?
Is receiving a communication from a minor 'contact', or does it only become contact if the offender responds?
If a ten year-old knocks on the door selling cookies is that contact? Or is it contact only if he buys some? What if he speaks to her to say 'beat it, punk'?
If an offender calls his brother's house and his nephew answers the phone was that 'contact'? Or is it only contact if he asks the nephew if his Dad is home?
So. What is 'contact'?

Surely, you've seen some offenders get back on the right track. I know I have.
Sure about that? Or perhaps as one poster here insisted, they just got sneakier?
I had an argument with a North Carolina reporter recently about the 10-year registration term ending soon for many in that state. They're of course all in an uproar about it. Nobody is asking just how these guys and gals made it ten years without re-offending if they're so incurable and can't help themselves. The reporter claimed that they either haven't been caught or they've managed to suppress their urges long enough to get off the registry and will rape a kid within a week after having their name purged. I'm sure you and the others can see the total stupidity of that rationale.

If the victim was under the age of 18, a prohibition, until successful completion of a sex offender treatment program, on unsupervised contact with a child under the age of 18
That's the pre-JLA condition isn't it? Or does it still say that? In this case it is clear. Complete treatment and there is no 'no-contact' condition any more. Period.

[Merlin]

Mystic said,



Or does it still say that? In this case it is clear. Complete treatment and there is no 'no-contact' condition any more. Period.

Just curious if you know of any POs who supervise sex offenders who still think like that? I thought those days were long gone.

How many Merlins are posting? If only one, then Merlin stop answering your own post, and thanking yourself. It's rather annoying.

[Merlin]

booya said,


How many Merlins are posting? If only one, then Merlin stop answering your own post, and thanking yourself. It's rather annoying.

If the names Merlin and Mystic sound too much alike I'd be more than happy to change my name to limit the confusion. Consider it done. As far as thanking myself, the last thank you I read was by a poster named no1 important. I'm not sure how that might have confused you, but nevertheless, consider me reborn. :D

If the victim was under the age of 18, a prohibition, until successful completion of a sex offender treatment program, on unsupervised contact with a child under the age of 18, unless authorized by the sentencing court without another adult present who is responsible for the child's welfare, has been advised of the crime, and is approved by the sentencing court.

You don't find this confusing?

Prior to January 1, 2006, Florida Statute mandated the following sanction of any person convicted of certain sex crimes under 948.03 and 948.30 “If the victim was under the age of 18, a prohibition, until successful completion of a sex offender treatment program, on unsupervised contact with a child under the age of 18, unless authorized by the sentencing court without another adult present who is responsible for the child's welfare, has been advised of the crime, and is approved by the sentencing court.”

2nd DCA opinion of May 9, 2003 (Albert Wesner v. State of Florida), the Court concluded that the trial court’s interpretation departed from the essential requirements of law.

In Wesner, the offender requested the trial court modify probation to allow contact with his six-year-old son and grandchildren. At a hearing to modify probation, the only evidence presented was testimony by a psychologist in support of Wesner’s request. The psychologist noted Wesner completed eight months of his four-year treatment program, and he testified that he was very comfortable with Wesner having unsupervised visitation with family members. The trial court denied the motion.

The Appellate Court wrote, “We read the language… as prohibiting unsupervised contact with children under eighteen until after completion of the sex offender treatment program unless, prior to completion of the program, the trail court authorizes such unsupervised contact. By concluding that it did not have the discretion to modify Wesner’s probation to allow him to have unsupervised contact with his grandchildren until completion of the sex offender treatment program, the trail court departed from the essential requirement of law.”

Daniel Woods v. State of Florida: The offender received a split sentence (10 years prison followed by 5 years probation for Lewd & Lascivious Act and Sexual Battery. A condition of Woods probation, he was not to have contact with children under seventeen until after completion of a sex offender program. After the program was completed, his unsupervised contact with children was subject to the permission of his probation officer.

The 2nd DCA concluded the condition prohibiting Woods from having any contact with children has been held too broad; it may result in an unintentional violation (Rowles v. State, 682 So. 2d 1184 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Graham v. State, 658 So. 2d 642 (Fla 5th DCA 1995). The Appellate Court ruled the condition should be modified to prohibit “intentional, unsupervised contact with children under the age of seventeen where no adult is present until Woods has successfully completed an outpatient sex offender program.” See Rowles; Graham. Moreover, the condition limiting contact with children under the age of sixteen without parental consent should also be modified to prohibit “intentional” contact with children under the age of sixteen.

[/quote]Does DOC have an internal document that actually defines what is and is not considered 'contact' for the purposes of this law?[/quote]

State v. Hagan 387 So. 2d 943, 945 (Fla 1980):

“In the absence of statutory definition, resort may be had to case law or related statutory provisions which define the term and where a statute does not specifically define words of common usage, such words are construed in their plan and ordinary sense.”

Unsupervised is defined as: not supervised or under constant observation.
Supervised is defined as: under observation or under the direction of a superintendent or overseer.

Does DOC have an internal document that actually defines what is and is not considered 'contact' for the purposes of this law?[/quote]

State v. Hagan 387 So. 2d 943, 945 (Fla 1980):

“In the absence of statutory definition, resort may be had to case law or related statutory provisions which define the term and where a statute does not specifically define words of common usage, such words are construed in their plan and ordinary sense.”

Unsupervised is defined as: not supervised or under constant observation.
Supervised is defined as: under observation or under the direction of a superintendent or overseer.[/quote]

If in doubt Violate I think is the official definition according to DOC..... :)

No1 Important


I wish they would have adopted some of the wording in 948.

Talk to me brother. Show me the wording that works best. We need to know what works and what doesn't and so do the legislators.....you have no clue how hard it is to rewrite 948 and get it right...trust me on this one.

Yes, I know who you are. No offense, but before you and your friends write the law, perhaps you should consult case law!

Does DOC have an internal document that actually defines what is and is not considered 'contact' for the purposes of this law?

State v. Hagan 387 So. 2d 943, 945 (Fla 1980):

“In the absence of statutory definition, resort may be had to case law or related statutory provisions which define the term and where a statute does not specifically define words of common usage, such words are construed in their plan and ordinary sense.”

Unsupervised is defined as: not supervised or under constant observation.
Supervised is defined as: under observation or under the direction of a superintendent or overseer.[/quote]

If in doubt Violate I think is the official definition according to DOC..... :)[/quote]

Case law is very clear!

If in doubt Violate I think is the official definition according to DOC.....

That's my understanding. Let the Judge sort it out. Our job is to get the offender in front of the Judge so the Court can interpret the law.

If in doubt Violate I think is the official definition according to DOC.....

That's my understanding. Let the Judge sort it out. Our job is to get the offender in front of the Judge so the Court can interpret the law.

Why waste the time of the court when the decision has been made by the Supreme Court of Florida?

Why waste the time of the court when the decision has been made by the Supreme Court of Florida?

And which decision are you refering to? Are we defining contact with minors still?

Just curious if you know of any POs who supervise sex offenders who still think like that? I thought those days were long gone.
Think like what? That probation conditions are simply suggestions and the PO makes the rules? The statute is clear. The DCA rulings are likewise clear. If a PO violates an offender under that condition after treatment has been completed that PO is wasting his time, the court's time, the offender's time. And a lot of money. Perhaps the Legislature could find a few more dollars for DOC if it didn't have to fund the courts to pay for so many BS violation hearings that result in the offender being put back on the street?

State v. Hagan 387 So. 2d 943, 945 (Fla 1980):....
Thank you ??? for defining supervised and unsupervised. Too bad the question was to define 'contact'.

If in doubt Violate I think is the official definition according to DOC.....
That goes a long way towards explaining to your cases what 'contact' is and is not considered a willful and intentional attempt at a violation. :roll:

Yes, I know who you are. No offense, but before you and your friends write the law, perhaps you should consult case law!
I think what Merlin is referring to is the difficulty in proposing new legislation to amend the existing statutes so they are clear, concise and effective. Existing caselaw is irrelevant when it comes to new laws. But you are correct that caselaw has a place in such an effort. Because caselaw provides an insight into how the courts apply statutory construction and determine if laws are too broad or vague.

Our job is to get the offender in front of the Judge so the Court can interpret the law.
I suppose next you'll say they don't pay you enough to actually USE your brain, right?

I still haven't seen any PO here tell me exactly what is considered 'contact'. What gives?

[quote]Just curious if you know of any POs who supervise sex offenders who still think like that? I thought those days were long gone.
Think like what? That probation conditions are simply suggestions and the PO makes the rules? The statute is clear. The DCA rulings are likewise clear. If a PO violates an offender under that condition after treatment has been completed that PO is wasting his time, the court's time, the offender's time. And a lot of money. Perhaps the Legislature could find a few more dollars for DOC if it didn't have to fund the courts to pay for so many BS violation hearings that result in the offender being put back on the street?

State v. Hagan 387 So. 2d 943, 945 (Fla 1980):....
Thank you ??? for defining supervised and unsupervised. Too bad the question was to define 'contact'.

If in doubt Violate I think is the official definition according to DOC.....
That goes a long way towards explaining to your cases what 'contact' is and is not considered a willful and intentional attempt at a violation. :roll:

Yes, I know who you are. No offense, but before you and your friends write the law, perhaps you should consult case law!
I think what Merlin is referring to is the difficulty in proposing new legislation to amend the existing statutes so they are clear, concise and effective. Existing caselaw is irrelevant when it comes to new laws. But you are correct that caselaw has a place in such an effort. Because caselaw provides an insight into how the courts apply statutory construction and determine if laws are too broad or vague.

Our job is to get the offender in front of the Judge so the Court can interpret the law.
I suppose next you'll say they don't pay you enough to actually USE your brain, right?

I still haven't seen any PO here tell me exactly what is considered 'contact'. What gives?[/quote:3ontjtgx]

Contact is where you put yourself in a position to be around that person by your actions. We dont fall for that I didnt know he was going to be there when you go somewhere knowing that is a possibility. :)

WOW, this is what I'm talking about...people discussing things that effect us all. To whoever wrote that I should I should know the law before I try to change it- I'm not trying to change anything and I'm not an an attorney nor do I pretend to be one. What I can do is read and ask questions. I apply what resources and knowledge that I have to the best of my ability- I'm not always right, and I tell my offenders when I need clarifications and then I find who should have the answer(sup, state, leo, etc) and if it all else fails, the judge. As for contact, I tell my sex offenders that anyone that appears to be under 18 is like a ghost to them...can't see them or hear them if they approach (because it's always "what if they approach me?") Right or wrong, that's how I interpret no contact and so far, the offenders seem to understand what I mean. Whether Central office wants to admit it or not, most circuits have their own "internal " policies and it will never be streamlined because I can't remember the last time someone from central even paid a visit to my neck of the woods.

WOW, this is what I'm talking about...people discussing things that effect us all. To whoever wrote that I should I should know the law before I try to change it- I'm not trying to change anything and I'm not an an attorney nor do I pretend to be one. What I can do is read and ask questions. I apply what resources and knowledge that I have to the best of my ability- I'm not always right, and I tell my offenders when I need clarifications and then I find who should have the answer(sup, state, leo, etc) and if it all else fails, the judge. As for contact, I tell my sex offenders that anyone that appears to be under 18 is like a ghost to them...can't see them or hear them if they approach (because it's always "what if they approach me?") Right or wrong, that's how I interpret no contact and so far, the offenders seem to understand what I mean. Whether Central office wants to admit it or not, most circuits have their own "internal " policies and it will never be streamlined because I can't remember the last time someone from central even paid a visit to my neck of the woods.

If DOC can somehow tie a condition not being followed no matter how absurd the tie is you are in the wrong with your interpretation if the SO offends again that is the bottom line...

Benavides v. State, 679 So.2d 1195 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1996):

Sex offender was placed on probation with conditions which Prickett v. State, 30 Fla. L. Weekly D707 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005):

Error to revoke probation for violation of condition prohibiting defendant from having unsupervised contact with minors on basis of defendant speaking to a woman under the age of eighteen while she was working as a cashier in a grocery store.

Ackerman v. State, 28 Fla. L. Weekly D290 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003):

Error to revoke probation based on violation of condition unilaterally imposed by probation officer that defendant have no “contact with playgrounds or other places where children congregate.”

Several “child contact” instructions set forth by trial court in probation order were thorough and did not prohibit mere physical presence near day care center or playground.

Discussion: The defendant’s truck got stuck on the property of a hospital. There happened to be a pre-kindergarten center on hospital grounds approximately one hundred feet from where he got stuck. The defendant argued that he was just trying to pay a bill at the hospital when he got stuck.

Perez v. State, 805 So.2d 76 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002):

Error to revoke probation for violation of condition prohibiting contact with minor, a condition set forth in section 948.03(5), where conditions contained in that statute were neither orally imposed nor included in written order of probation.

Sentence imposed without the sexual offender probation conditions contained in statute is not illegal.

Probation could not be revoked for violation of condition unilaterally imposed by probation supervisor under the general condition requiring compliance with a probation supervisor’s instruction.

Discussion: The assistant state attorney needs to ensure that the judge sentences sexual offenders properly. The standard condition of sex offender probation must be either orally pronounced by the judge or contained in the written sentencing order. It is a due process violation if this is not done. In this case, the judge orally announced, “All the general conditions will be imposed,” but the appellate court said that was not sufficient.

Bonner v. State, 786 So.2d 1197 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001):

Revocation of defendant’s community control for violation of special condition by having contact with children under 18 years without adult supervision was improper where probation officer, who knew that defendant lived in same home with children under 18 years, heard children running inside when he knocked on door, children were in defendant’s mother’s bedroom when defendant answered the door, and mother was asleep.

Discussion: For some strange reason, the defendant was allowed to live in his mother’s home where several children also lived. Since he was on community control, he was not allowed to leave the home. His probation officer told him that if he entered a room where children were present, and adult had to be present. The probation officer felt that the fact the mother was asleep was a reason to violate. The court disagreed.


Wilson v. State, 781 So.2d 1185 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001):

Where defendant had initially entered no contest pleas to sexual offenses involving minor, and charges involving another minor had been nolle prossed, defendant did not violate condition prohibiting him from having contact with the “victim” when he visited the mother of the minor who was involved in the charges which were nolle prossed.

Schultz v. State, 793 So.2d 986 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001):

Trial court instructed to clarify two conditions of probation which require the defendant to have no association with minors and forbidding him from living with any adult who has minor offspring, whether or not the adult is the custodial parent of the children.

Britt v. State, 775 So.2d 415 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001):

Condition prohibiting defendant from doing “volunteer work, employment, or community activity at any school, daycare center, park playground, or other place where children regularly congregate” and condition prohibiting defendant from living within 1000 feet of school, daycare center, park, playground, or other places where children regularly congregate are mandatory for individuals, like defendant, who are convicted of sexual battery upon minor or other similar offenses.

Conditions are not unconstitutionally vague because of the use of phrase “or other place where children regularly congregate.”

State v. Amaro, 25 Fla. L. Weekly D1570 (Fla. 5th DCA June 30, 2000):

Evidence sufficient to support finding that defendant violated condition requiring that he have no contact with children under age sixteen unless supervised by an adult approved by judge or community control officer.

Wishes of child victim’s grandmother that defendant not go to jail insufficient reason for downward departure sentence.

Discussion: This a brief opinion without much legal analysis.

Arias v. State, 751 So.2d 184 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2000):

Probation properly revoked for violation of condition prohibiting defendant from associating in any way with victim of lewd assault on minor, where defendant called victim’s residence and left message for victim through victim’s sister.

Matthews v. State, 736 So.2d 72 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999):

Probationer, who has accepted the conditions of his or her probation, is not permitted to challenge one of the conditions of probation after probation has been revoked for a violation of that condition; receding from Mathis v. State, 683 So.2d 634 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).

Evidence supported conclusion that probationer willfully violated probation condition prohibiting unsupervised contact with a child under the age of 16; the probation officer witnessed defendant openly communicating with the children without a supervising adult and allowing one child to enter her home and sit next to her.

Trial court had jurisdiction to revoke probation, even though written probation order was entered after defendant violated the terms of her probation; probation was part of negotiated written plea agreement signed by defendant and recited in detail at the sentencing hearing, and probationer did not contest probation.

Manon v. State, 740 So.2d 1253 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1999):

Probation properly revoked on basis of defendant’s act of engaging children in conversation in store while other adults were present in violation of special condition of probation which provides that: “the defendant shall have no unsupervised contact with minors unless explicit permission is granted in writing by his program counselor.”

Condition was not overbroad and vague because of the possibility of inadvertent or unintentional violation.

Glee v. State, 731 So.2d 759 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999):

Evidence that probationer was alone with his girlfriend's three daughters and that probation officer had read every condition of probation to probationer was sufficient to support finding that probationer willfully violated condition prohibiting him from engaging in unsupervised contact with any children.

Discussion: The defendant was convicted of child abuse and the terms of his probation specified “No contact with children less than eighteen years unless supervised by an adult who knows of these charges and its disposition.” The probation officer made an unannounced visit to his home and found the defendant’s girlfriend’s three children alone in the house with him. The defendant claimed he thought the probation order only applied to his own children. The trial court rejected this argument and sentenced him to 12 years.

Woods v. State, 711 So.2d 1182 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998):

Condition of probation prohibiting defendant from any contact with children is too broad, as it may result in unintentional violation, and should be modified to prohibit intentional contact.

Soto v. State, 727 So.2d 1044 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999):

Trial court erred in revoking probation where condition of probation prohibited defendant from having contact with child under age of sixteen, and defendant moved from approved residence with his brother upon learning that children lived in residence.

Murray v. State, 708 So.2d 1033 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998):

Special condition of probation prohibiting child abuse defendant from having custody of any children during period of probation is valid special condition.

Wagland v. State, 705 So.2d 1016 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998):

Where evidence demonstrated that defendant’s own children were dropped off unexpectedly at defendant’s residence by children’s nighttime caretaker and that defendant and his fiancee had been told by former probation officer that defendant was still allowed to have supervised contact with his children, defendant’s contact with his children was not willful violation of probation.

Duer v. State, 701 So.2d 1273 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997):

Condition requiring defendant convicted of indecent assault to not have contact with any child under eighteen years of age either personally, by telephone, in writing or by message delivered by others is over-broad and improper. On remand trial court ordered to refashion condition in order to minimize inadvertent violation.

Weston v. State, 694 So.2d 850 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997):

Probation properly revoked for violation of condition prohibiting defendant from having unsupervised contact with his son who was victim of lewd assault. Error to revoke probation for violation of condition prohibiting defendant from reuniting with his family because condition was overly vague.

Inman v. State, 684 So.2d 899 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1996):

Community control improperly revoked for violation of condition prohibiting contact with children under age eighteen where evidence failed to establish that violation was willful and substantial. Undisputed evidence established that defendant’s former wife brought defendant’s sons to his home unannounced at the sons’ insistence and left the children there with defendant and his fiancée, although defendant informed her that children’s visit would violate conditions of community control.

McCumber v. State, 682 So.2d 1214 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996):

Defendant did not violate condition of probation prohibiting him from having contact with any female child under age of eighteen without approved adult present and without prior approval of probation officer or condition prohibiting him from initiating or having association with his daughter when he talked to his daughter after receiving a telephone call from his estranged wife with his daughter on a third line. It was an abuse of discretion to revoke probation on basis of violation which was neither willful nor substantial.

Rowles v. State, 682 So.2d 1184 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996):

Condition of probation prohibiting defendant from having contact with female child under age sixteen unless child’s parent or legal guardian is present is worded in such a manner that condition could be inadvertently violated. Remanded with instructions that trial court refashion condition in order to minimized any inadvertent violation. Suggests court add word “intentional” into order.

included participation in a mentally disordered sex offender program, no contact with minor children, and written permission from his counselor in order to live with minor children or become involved with a woman who has minor children living with her. Shortly after beginning counseling, defendant began seeing a woman with children. He told his counselor about the situation and never tried to hide the situation from anyone. The issue was eventually presented to the court and the defendant’s probation was revoked and he received 25 years prison. The appellate court ruled that the violation was not substantial and reversed the revocation. The court ruled that failure to obtain written permission from his counselor was a mere formality based on the facts of the case.

Drab v. State, 679 So.2d 28 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996):

Condition requiring defendant to remain out of home and prohibiting unsupervised contact with children did not unambiguously give defendant notice that the could not visit his children in the home at time when his wife was present. Evidence established that defendant, his therapist, and defendant’s wife all understood condition meant he could not reside in home with children, but was permitted to visit children in home so long as wife was present. Error to find that defendant visiting children in home with wife present constituted willful and substantial violation of probation.

I think defining contact with minors supervised or unsupervised can be as easy or as difficult as we want to make it. For example, a manipulative offender may ask you for a definition of contact and you could list 99 examples of what you would consider contact then rest assured he'd find that one situation you never mentioned and try to get away with it. Without question there are a lot of grey areas, particularly with the internet, cell phones, etc...

Having read all the related posts I do have a better understanding, however the one reply specific to my concern seemed to imply what I stated to be un-true. This is the very reason real victims do not always come forward. Just because we have not reached the quoted 20, 50, 300 abductions and or molestations does not mean it is not happening...

My son was a victim under 12...But no one in the house I reference my concern was involved. I schooled my son to avoid them because of what they may try to do given the opportunity.

I know of an 13 year old taken a half block from her home by an 18 yaer old force to spend the night and perform sexual favors, his parents were present in the house but he abuse them too! Yes I got involved...Updated she just had a baby from some unknown person

I know of a 13 yaer old made to perform oral sex on a 17 year old boy in front others... the 13 year old boy (he never told but the others talked about it) later took a 5 year old on a roof top and made her perform oral sex on him! Because some adult witness his actions he was arrested

I even know of a male adult who is suppose to protect the innocent trying to be a 17 year old first sexual encounter, but after I learned of it I found that he was no longer employed with the Pd.

I am trying to keep my household as safe as possible under the law. I thought I could get some factual feed back not a knee jerk reaction from a jack ass. BUT do not by any means take mt word for it, do a little investigating for yourself. all the dirt is not under the rug!!

I am sure eve

My son was a victim under 12...But no one in the house I reference my concern was involved. I schooled my son to avoid them because of what they may try to do given the opportunity.


I am deeply saddened by the abuse inflicted upon your son and the pain it's caused him and your family. Having not participated in this thread and getting somewhat confused about who said what, I am not familiar with the details of your experiences here on this forum. Victim issues are a top priority and your safety is important. I would be more than willing to continue dialogue in this forum in regards to your concerns. If you feel the need to go private, please feel free to sign on and I'll PM you.

Warm Regards,
Pam

[mystikwarrior]

Contact is where you put yourself in a position to be around that person by your actions. We dont fall for that I didnt know he was going to be there when you go somewhere knowing that is a possibility.
OK. That's a start. I agree that many times an offender may know in advance that a minor will be at a particular location, especially friends and relatives. What about public places? Work? The grocery store?

[mystikwarrior]

As for contact, I tell my sex offenders that anyone that appears to be under 18 is like a ghost to them...can't see them or hear them if they approach (because it's always "what if they approach me?") Right or wrong, that's how I interpret no contact and so far, the offenders seem to understand what I mean.
Unfortunately if I take too long in responding, this forum logs me out and submits my posts as "Guest". So some posts are mine.
Your approach seems to be sensible, and is what I have been told by others. If approached, ignore them. But what about other situations? Ordering dinner at a restaurant from a 17 year-old waitress? Is that 'contact'?

[mystikwarrior]

Benavides v. State, 679 So.2d 1195 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1996):

SNIPO

Condition requiring defendant to remain out of home and prohibiting unsupervised contact with children did not unambiguously give defendant notice that the could not visit his children in the home at time when his wife was present. Evidence established that defendant, his therapist, and defendant’s wife all understood condition meant he could not reside in home with children, but was permitted to visit children in home so long as wife was present. Error to find that defendant visiting children in home with wife present constituted willful and substantial violation of probation.
An excellent series of citations. Sadly, most of the cases were common-sense and the VOP never should have been issued. This shows what happens when a PO "thinks like that" instead of simply obeying the written word of the law.

[mystikwarrior]

For example, a manipulative offender
Odds are such an offender is going to violate no matter how hard or easy you make it. I'm not too worried about the offender who is spending his days looking for loopholes. He'll get busted one way or the other. My concern is for the offenders who are trying their best to fully comply and get through the probation ordeal, yet are subject to the extremely vague interpretations of a vindictive PO taking full advantage of 'zero-tolerance'.

Without question there are a lot of grey areas, particularly with the internet, cell phones, etc...
Yes, there are. And we all know that grey areas are what DOC likes. Gives ample chance to lock the offender up even if they aren't doing anything 'wrong'.

[mystikwarrior]

My son was a victim under 12...
Sorry to hear that. And the other victimizations you spoke of.
Thing is, you failed to tell how many were by registered sex offenders living in your neighborhood near those schools. Because that's the issue you raised. Not unreported offenses by family members, cops, fellow students, etc.

Contact is where you put yourself in a position to be around that person by your actions. We dont fall for that I didnt know he was going to be there when you go somewhere knowing that is a possibility.
OK. That's a start. I agree that many times an offender may know in advance that a minor will be at a particular location, especially friends and relatives. What about public places? Work? The grocery store?

If you are at a public place and they walk in or you walk in and see them you leave right away.....

Hello Pam,

Thank you for your concern and your offer however I was not seeking sympathy (But THANK YOU, who knows I may need to take you up on your offer) as the incident with my son happened several years ago.

People sit around looking at things happening then act like they are looking the other way or like they don't know it is wrong or inappropriate behavior just so long as it does not involve them. I call 1-800-abuse, I call 911, I advise people to tell the police, I give rides to the police station. I do not try to solve other people problems just my family but I do not look the other way.

I was attempting to get some understanding from the professionals because they know more than me.

Thank you all for allowing me this opportunity.

Hello Louis D. Brandeis,

Thank you for your response.

The youngman who molested my son was not registered at the time however since we followed through with our charge he is registered now! He previously fell through the cracks it was documented in his record that my son was not his first. He is the only one registered at this time as far as the other victims I mention.

My question was about the house in my neighborhood, where all three youngmen were registered sex offenders had and/or live at, I wanted to know if it was legal for registered sex offenders to live approx fifty feet from a school.........

Sorry to get everyone off track with my personal history and gossip

I think if their supervision is over and their is no city ordinance restricting where they live they can legally live right next to a school - I am not sur about the newer cases but this is true I know with people sentenced in the mid 90's or before I think....

The News fails to bring this up usually when they state that 1000 foot rule....

Sex offenders whose crime (as outlined by Florida Statute) was cimmitted on or after October 1, 2004, are prohibitted from living within 1000 feet of a school, park, playground or day care center, even after their term of supervision has expired. The law does not apply to sex offenders occuring prior to the effective date.

Sex offenders whose crime (as outlined by Florida Statute) was cimmitted on or after October 1, 2004, are prohibitted from living within 1000 feet of a school, park, playground or day care center, even after their term of supervision has expired. The law does not apply to sex offenders occuring prior to the effective date.

so any sex offender whose crime is before 10/1/2004 can live right next to a park or playground if no city ordinance and even in that case if already there prior to passage- that will be almost all of them eventually due to the lunsford act because all the new ones will be in prison for 25+ if not reduced to a non-sex conviction....

? said,


Hello Pam,

Thank you for your concern and your offer however I was not seeking sympathy (But THANK YOU, who knows I may need to take you up on your offer) as the incident with my son happened several years ago.

People sit around looking at things happening then act like they are looking the other way or like they don't know it is wrong or inappropriate behavior just so long as it does not involve them. I call 1-800-abuse, I call 911, I advise people to tell the police, I give rides to the police station. I do not try to solve other people problems just my family but I do not look the other way.

I was attempting to get some understanding from the professionals because they know more than me.

Thank you all for allowing me this opportunity.

Dear ?,

To be absolutely sure what the rules you may want to call the supervising Probation Officer or the Sheriff's Office Predator Unit if you haven't already.

If you look on the FDLE website

http://www3.fdle.state.fl.us/sexual_pre ... sopu=true& (http://www3.fdle.state.fl.us/sexual_predators/search.asp?sopu=true&)

you can search either by the name of the offender (if you know it) or do an advanced neighborhood search by the address to find the specific names and pull up each flyer. Under the “status” column if you see “supervision” or “community control” he is on active supervision with the Department of Corrections. Check our directory to find your local DOC Office.

http://www.dc.state.fl.us/facilities/comcor/index.html

If his status is "released" then you should contact your local sheriff's office. You may want to ask them if they have a sex offender unit. The Sheriff’s office will also be able to tell you if there is a local ordinance in effect that may apply to your situation.

Keep us posted on the details. Thanks for inquiring.

Warm Regards,
Pam

FYI - Whenever you call a DOC office please have his DOC# handy if at all possible. Thanks :D

Sex offenders whose crime (as outlined by Florida Statute) was cimmitted on or after October 1, 2004, are prohibitted from living within 1000 feet of a school, park, playground or day care center, even after their term of supervision has expired. The law does not apply to sex offenders occuring prior to the effective date.

so any sex offender whose crime is before 10/1/2004 can live right next to a park or playground if no city ordinance and even in that case if already there prior to passage- that will be almost all of them eventually due to the lunsford act because all the new ones will be in prison for 25+ if not reduced to a non-sex conviction....


If they are living by a school and on active supervision, then more than likely they aren't prohibited from doing so. It depends on whether or not the judge imposed the condition. For example, I have an sex offender who lives near a school, but his offense occurred in the 80's. As the conditions of supervision currently imposed on sex offenders were not in effect when he was sentenced, he does not have to abide by the 1000' condition. I also supervise a number of sex offenders whose offenses occurred in the late 90's, but the judge did not impose the conditions in this written order of probation. Although, the conditions do not have to be orally pronounced, the conditions must be on the written order of supervision. These cases were taken back before the judge upon there release from prison but the judge wouldn't / couldn't impose the conditions because he did not have the legal ability to do so.

and they live there .

If monthly the SO officers visit their cases at SO tx group, or do they need to go to the houses twice?

If monthly the SO officers visit their cases at SO tx group, or do they need to go to the houses twice?

1 OP
1 TX (if in tx)
2 field personals
... are the minimum contact standards

min stardards will be meet, but you have to go to the group, not just check out the attendance sheet.

the offender whose case was pled to battery? the offender who had a sexual relationship with his girlfriend when he was 18 and she was 16 (... and is now married to her) in 1981? the offender whose case was reduced to child abuse from Lewd Act on Child in 1995, and who is now on probation for sale of cocaine? ... or, are you speaking about registered sex offenders?

speaking of sex offenders. is a sex offender a sex offender when no sex offender conditions were order by the court (and before you say the court "doesn't have to order the conditions because they're automatic." don't because you'll make a fool of yourself)?

manuel says is it.

i WILL DO WHATEVER THE BOSS SAYS TO DO . I OF COURSE WILL CN IT AS SUPERVISOR CLUELESS SAYS TO DO THIS.

i WILL DO WHATEVER THE BOSS SAYS TO DO . I OF COURSE WILL CN IT AS SUPERVISOR CLUELESS SAYS TO DO THIS. :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: