Sex Offender Tracking.....

That new law says if a sex offender commits any new crime even a misdemeanor after 9/1/05 they must be out on the tracking device if on supervision even if the sex offense was many years ago. I still have not seen 1 of these cases yet at my office and you would think you would have by now - I wonder if some have slipped through the cracks and no one knows they had a sex offense many years ago....I also wonder how the county probation will handle these since they are supposed to be put on for new midemeanors also and that should be most of the cases that fall under this new rule. they probably will act like they werent aware until one does something and wasnt on the box for their 6 month probation.....

We've had a couple. As for the falling between the cracks- that's supposed to be the ASA's responsibilty, but you know how that goes, if one does mess up, the blame will somehow be diverted to that poor specialist who didn't check their crystal ball before going to work... and management will be there to make sure they go down. Did you see that the law changed again, so that even if the offender is reinstated or modified after a VOP, they are now to be placed on the monitor?

[Merlin]

All my VOPs that haven't gone to prison got the box. Last week in Court my guy pled to a 5-5 split with same terms and conditions...had to remind them to add the GPS...Also last week had a registered SO get placed on supervision on a drug charge with no GPS....did the letter to the circuit rigamaroll and he's back on the docket...yep ya gotta watch those conditions and try to catch them as early as possible. But, the court it definately kicking butt in circuit 13.

So unless the VOP is dismissed entirely they go on the box?

[Merlin]

So unless the VOP is dismissed entirely they go on the box?

Yep. Any new charge or VOP. If they don't get the box just remember to take action quick and JLA him if he has the qualifying statutes.

[Merlin]

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/ind ... TM&Title=- (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0948/SEC30.HTM&Title=-)>2005->Ch0948->Section%2030#0948.30

(3) Effective for a probationer or community controllee whose crime was committed on or after September 1, 2005, and who:

(a) Is placed on probation or community control for a violation of chapter 794, s. 800.04(4), (5), or (6), s. 827.071, or s. 847.0145 and the unlawful sexual activity involved a victim 15 years of age or younger and the offender is 18 years of age or older;

(b) Is designated a sexual predator pursuant to s. 775.21; or

(c) Has previously been convicted of a violation of chapter 794, s. 800.04(4), (5), or (6), s. 827.071, or s. 847.0145 and the unlawful sexual activity involved a victim 15 years of age or younger and the offender is 18 years of age or older,

the court must order, in addition to any other provision of this section, mandatory electronic monitoring as a condition of the probation or community control supervision.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0948/SEC30.HTM&Title=->2005->Ch0948->Section%2030#0948.30

(3) Effective for a probationer or community controllee whose crime was committed on or after September 1, 2005, and who:

(a) Is placed on probation or community control for a violation of chapter 794, s. 800.04(4), (5), or (6), s. 827.071, or s. 847.0145 and the unlawful sexual activity involved a victim 15 years of age or younger and the offender is 18 years of age or older;

(b) Is designated a sexual predator pursuant to s. 775.21; or

(c) Has previously been convicted of a violation of chapter 794, s. 800.04(4), (5), or (6), s. 827.071, or s. 847.0145 and the unlawful sexual activity involved a victim 15 years of age or younger and the offender is 18 years of age or older,

the court must order, in addition to any other provision of this section, mandatory electronic monitoring as a condition of the probation or community control supervision.

the old (c) crimes is what worries me being missed....

so you are saying that if a RSO that has a 10-20-30 year old sex charge is convicted of a misdemeanor that has nothing to do with a sex charge....like stealing food for the family he can't feed or house becasue of the registry and residence restrictions...he now has to wear a GPS for life....talk about stupid retroactive illegal laws.....would make me think that your average sex offender would be thinking about where to get a weapon and go take out a politician....and remember that there are over 600,000 on the registry...if you count the ones that arent' registered because they came before it...would be over 1,000,000 RSO not counting family....that's a lot of ticked off people....if even 10% decided to go out with a bang....and only 10% of them made it....that's 10,000 suicider's who would want to take one of the poeple who are harassing them and hounding then with them....that's a lot of dead politicians....i think even our govt know that if you want to kill somebody and don't mind dieing to do it...they are dead.

Hey Worried Citizen, are you a sex offender? You kinda sound like one. Where did you get 600,000 registered sex offenders?- there's not even that many in California, which has by far the most. As for suicides, that's just one less sex offender I have to worry about. I do agree that the ordinances are getting out of hand and the politicians' antics of chest pounding and weeping is getting a little old for those of us on the front line. I would have a little more sympathy for them if they weren't sex offenders who brought this on themselves. I do however, agree with levels for sex offenders, because I have a few that, in my opinion, aren't sex offenders- just stupid kids. I also have a few kids who scare the hell out of me because they ARE sex offenders and they are time bombs waiting to happen. My thought, if sex offenders pose such a tremendous threat to our society, then Mr./Ms. Politician, change the law, so that they go to prison for the rest of their lives. Problem solved! :roll: :?

I depends on the coding used when sentenced for the previous sex crime. For example, a 800.04 case is sentenced in 01/1995 to five years probation and terms successfully. The same offender commits a Possession of Cocaine in 11/2005. Today the offender goes to court and is sentenced today to 3 years probation. This offender DOES NOT qualify for JLA!

[Merlin]

I depends on the coding used when sentenced for the previous sex crime. For example, a 800.04 case is sentenced in 01/1995 to five years probation and terms successfully. The same offender commits a Possession of Cocaine in 11/2005. Today the offender goes to court and is sentenced today to 3 years probation. This offender DOES NOT qualify for JLA!

Yes indeed there are loopholes. Notice how there are specific paragraphs in the language? What were they thinking? What if a child molester from out of state catches a new charge here in Florida? Well, I suppose since he wasn't previously convicted of the specific Florida Statutes listed he won't get the mandatory GPS now will he? So as long as you happen to be lucky enough to have a registered sex offender convicted of a new crime whose previous offense meets the specific qualifying offenses then it's all good. Problem is, remember years ago we always coded L&L's as 3601? 3601 isn't a qualified, BUT, chances are it was coded wrong. Take a hard look at the prior coding just to be sure.

[Merlin]

I depends on the coding used when sentenced for the previous sex crime. For example, a 800.04 case is sentenced in 01/1995 to five years probation and terms successfully. The same offender commits a Possession of Cocaine in 11/2005. Today the offender goes to court and is sentenced today to 3 years probation. This offender DOES NOT qualify for JLA!


So are saying in your circuit that even though he has a qualifying prior with a new conviction you guys are not giving them the mandatory GPS condition? If so, based on what criteria? Where's the loophole with the 800.04 cases?

[Merlin]

Hey Worried Citizen, are you a sex offender? You kinda sound like one. Where did you get 600,000 registered sex offenders?- there's not even that many in California, which has by far the most. As for suicides, that's just one less sex offender I have to worry about. I do agree that the ordinances are getting out of hand and the politicians' antics of chest pounding and weeping is getting a little old for those of us on the front line. I would have a little more sympathy for them if they weren't sex offenders who brought this on themselves. I do however, agree with levels for sex offenders, because I have a few that, in my opinion, aren't sex offenders- just stupid kids. I also have a few kids who scare the hell out of me because they ARE sex offenders and they are time bombs waiting to happen. My thought, if sex offenders pose such a tremendous threat to our society, then Mr./Ms. Politician, change the law, so that they go to prison for the rest of their lives. Problem solved!

I don't feel sorry for the sex offenders in the least bit. I do feel bad about the state doing such a poor job managing sex offenders in the community.

Do you feel as though a risk level system in Florida would be a useful tool? For example, if we were able to properly identify the Romeo and Juliet cases then excluded them from some of the ridiculous proximity rules would we be better off? On the flipside, if we identified the ones that posed the greatest risk to the community and sentenced to them to life probation upon release would the community be any safer? Colorado does the lifetime probation.....last I looked at the reports it seems to be a success. Arizona has an awesome SO program as well. I'd like to see a real plan or program in place without all the infighting about SO rules and such. Let's make some decisions, tell them what the rules are and enforce them. The sabatoging is a dirty game and no one will win. You can bank on it.

Hey Worried Citizen, are you a sex offender? You kinda sound like one. Where did you get 600,000 registered sex offenders?- there's not even that many in California, which has by far the most. As for suicides, that's just one less sex offender I have to worry about. I do agree that the ordinances are getting out of hand and the politicians' antics of chest pounding and weeping is getting a little old for those of us on the front line. I would have a little more sympathy for them if they weren't sex offenders who brought this on themselves. I do however, agree with levels for sex offenders, because I have a few that, in my opinion, aren't sex offenders- just stupid kids. I also have a few kids who scare the hell out of me because they ARE sex offenders and they are time bombs waiting to happen. My thought, if sex offenders pose such a tremendous threat to our society, then Mr./Ms. Politician, change the law, so that they go to prison for the rest of their lives. Problem solved!

Do ALL sex offenders need to go to prison for the rest of their lives or commit suicide with the exception of the ones that are as you say "stupid kids"? What about the sex offenders who are already on the registry that were once upon a time a stupid kid and are now an adult? Didn't one of those prior stupid kids commit suicide last year when he was attacked by vigilantis handing out flyers? What about the stupid kid who grew up, got married, lived in Maine and was shot dead by a stupid kid from Canada? Looks like stupidity is all over the nation nowadays. We don't care how much collateral damage there is from stupidy, right? :roll:

am i a sex offender...doesn't matter one way or the other...a illegal law is still an illegal law...as for the 600,00 that's coming right from the horses mouths in Washington D.C...and out of that they claim 100,000 are missing.....only question is how many have been counted on the list in each state...they may have visited for 48hrs 10 years ago...just like florida where the registration is lifetime...you come to visit in 1996 and here it's 2006 and you still show up even though you are registered in indiana where you are also registered and on that list....so double counted...nobody really knows how many there are as no one has sat down and went through each list and remvoed dead, duplicates and whatever...but i am using the figures spouted by the media and politicians as for the crack "As for suicides, that's just one less sex offender I have to worry about" well me long before i killed myself i would kill the idiot making my life miserable...i think a lvl system would be great only proble would be how would it be setup and just who would run it....and how would you go back and apply it to the 10's of thousands who are no longer on any kind of probation or parole...but of course i forget we are in AMERICA you would just pass a law and say guess what you are all now classified lvl3 and have to report once a week or go to jail....and according to the chickens in the US Supreme Court it would all be legal since it's not punishment it's just information.....what a crock.

[mystikwarrior]

That new law says if a sex offender commits any new crime even a misdemeanor after 9/1/05 they must be out on the tracking device if on supervision even if the sex offense was many years ago.
No it doesn't, and don't let anybody tell you different. Read it again. The mandatory requirement applies only to new sex offenses after that date.
That's not to say the Court can't impose the condition, as monitoring has always been available as an option in determining special conditions. But there's a huge difference between 'can' and 'must'.
As Merlin pointed out, the larger issue is the out-of-state offender. Since the Legislature left out the typical "or similar offense in another jurisdiction" language those offenders are exempt from the mandatory requirement. But again, that doesn't prevent the Court from imposing it.

(3) Effective for a probationer or community controllee whose crime was committed on or after September 1, 2005, and who:

(a) Is placed on probation or community control for a violation of chapter 794, s. 800.04(4), (5), or (6), s. 827.071, or s. 847.0145 and the unlawful sexual activity involved a victim 15 years of age or younger and the offender is 18 years of age or older;

(b) Is designated a sexual predator pursuant to s. 775.21; or

(c) Has previously been convicted of a violation of chapter 794, s. 800.04(4), (5), or (6), s. 827.071, or s. 847.0145 and the unlawful sexual activity involved a victim 15 years of age or younger and the offender is 18 years of age or older,

the court must order, in addition to any other provision of this section, mandatory electronic monitoring as a condition of the probation or community control supervision.

After reading 948.30 again, it looks like ANYONE who is now placed on probation or CC who qualifies as a predator or has the qualifying prior convictions REGARDLESS of how long ago gets GPS'd. This includes VOPs. Florida does not care about putting GPS on a three time pervert who raped 6 children in New York then moves to Florida without registering or gets picked up on a felony DUI. We just want to punish the ones that were stupid enough to stay in Florida after their conviction. Hmmm, are we inviting pervs in or trying to chase our own out? I'm more confused than ever. :? In any event, shall we change the subject to preventing sex crimes?

That new law says if a sex offender commits any new crime even a misdemeanor after 9/1/05 they must be out on the tracking device if on supervision even if the sex offense was many years ago.
No it doesn't, and don't let anybody tell you different. Read it again. The mandatory requirement applies only to new sex offenses after that date.
That's not to say the Court can't impose the condition, as monitoring has always been available as an option in determining special conditions. But there's a huge difference between 'can' and 'must'.
As Merlin pointed out, the larger issue is the out-of-state offender. Since the Legislature left out the typical "or similar offense in another jurisdiction" language those offenders are exempt from the mandatory requirement. But again, that doesn't prevent the Court from imposing it.

well it does clearly state if you had a prior sex offense with 15 or younger you are to be on the box if you commit any new crime 9/1/05 or after if you get supervision even if it was shoplifting (M). Now the issue if out of Florida I think I remember them saying they couldnt legally impose it if the prior sex offense was out of state unless a new sex offense was commited in Florida.....

[Merlin]

well it does clearly state if you had a prior sex offense with 15 or younger you are to be on the box if you commit any new crime 9/1/05 or after if you get supervision even if it was shoplifting (M). Now the issue if out of Florida I think I remember them saying they couldnt legally impose it if the prior sex offense was out of state unless a new sex offense was commited in Florida.....

I believe they can legally give anyone the box if they put them on supervision. The issue is though is it mandatory for an out of state sex offender who gets placed on supervision for cocaine? No it is not mandatory since his sex offense isn't a qualifier. But, the court can still legally put him on CC with the box for any felony, right? But will they do it? What have you seen so far? Have you experienced any other loopholes?

well it does clearly state if you had a prior sex offense with 15 or younger you are to be on the box if you commit any new crime 9/1/05 or after if you get supervision even if it was shoplifting (M). Now the issue if out of Florida I think I remember them saying they couldnt legally impose it if the prior sex offense was out of state unless a new sex offense was commited in Florida.....

I believe they can legally give anyone the box if they put them on supervision. The issue is though is it mandatory for an out of state sex offender who gets placed on supervision for cocaine? No it is not mandatory since his sex offense isn't a qualifier. But, the court can still legally put him on CC with the box for any felony, right? But will they do it? What have you seen so far? Have you experienced any other loopholes?

I havent got one yet personally but I wonder if a county judge can say put an out of state prior on the box for a new misd. doubt they would but can they- I guess the judge can do what he wants.....? I doubt the county people are even identifying most of the florida mandatory box people....

al....and according to the chickens in the US Supreme Court it would all be legal since it's not punishment it's just information.....what a crock.

From where did you earn your law degree?

That new law says if a sex offender commits any new crime even a misdemeanor after 9/1/05 they must be out on the tracking device if on supervision even if the sex offense was many years ago. I still have not seen 1 of these cases yet at my office and you would think you would have by now - I wonder if some have slipped through the cracks and no one knows they had a sex offense many years ago....I also wonder how the county probation will handle these since they are supposed to be put on for new midemeanors also and that should be most of the cases that fall under this new rule. they probably will act like they werent aware until one does something and wasnt on the box for their 6 month probation.....
There are a few loop holes, and there are not a lot of SO who are not off supervision and then get rearrested for a non sex offense. There is stil some confusion as to who qualifies.

[Merlin]

PO 182 said,


There are a few loop holes, and there are not a lot of SO who are not off supervision and then get rearrested for a non sex offense. There is stil some confusion as to who qualifies.

In your opinion, if the language said something to the effect that anyone who is required to register as a sex offender or sex predator and is placed on supervision after said date must as a condition of supervion be monitored electronically or by GPS.........yada yada - would this be clearer?

Not to change the subject or make things more confusing, but I think all the sex offender conditions should apply to anyone on supervision who is required to register as a sex offender or pred. How about them failing to register cases? Don't ya just love letting them live with the kiddies? ERRRRRRRRR

[mystikwarrior]

After reading 948.30 again, it looks like ANYONE who is now placed on probation or CC who qualifies as a predator or has the qualifying prior convictions REGARDLESS of how long ago gets GPS'd.
If they have a new qualifying sex offense, yes.

well it does clearly state if you had a prior sex offense with 15 or younger you are to be on the box if you commit any new crime 9/1/05 or after if you get supervision even if it was shoplifting (M).
No doubt the DCA will have to decide this one. 948.30 is clearly a statute governing imposition of probation conditons for sexual offenses. Not misdemeanor shoplifting. The language describes the particular statutory violations that mandate GPS if the offense was perpetrated after 9-1-05. It goes on to say (in so many words) that if the sex offense is any other than the ones previously noted, GPS is mandatory if there is a prior violation of one of those previously-mentioned offenses.
The DCA would rule on statutory construction grounds that the offense after 9-1-05 must be a sex offense. Not shoplifting. Not a VOP for being behind on COS. Not a speeding ticket.

There is stil some confusion as to who qualifies.
That's apparent. So what do we do to change it? I'm here to talk about current laws and probation conditions and to hear from all of you what they need to say in order to make your job easier and the probationer's term easier for him or her to successfully complete. Vague laws and conditions that keep you and your cases going back to the judge every other month for a clarification don't do anybody any good.

In your opinion, if the language said something to the effect that anyone who is required to register as a sex offender or sex predator and is placed on supervision after said date must as a condition of supervion be monitored electronically or by GPS.........yada yada - would this be clearer?
It would be clearer, yes. But I think there needs to be some guidance on what qualifies. Taking a DUI offender and putting him on the box because of that sex offense from 20 years ago is stupid. Likewise taking a guy who just got supervision again for his 6th burlgary and NOT putting him on the box because he never so much as peed behind a tree is equally stupid.
I say that number one you eliminate the possibility of probation for a repeat offender. No matter what the offense. And leave the GPS up to the courts. Judicial discretion.

[Merlin]

Quote:
After reading 948.30 again, it looks like ANYONE who is now placed on probation or CC who qualifies as a predator or has the qualifying prior convictions REGARDLESS of how long ago gets GPS'd.

If they have a new qualifying sex offense, yes.

But that's not how it's being interpreted. Look at 948.30 again. If his previous crime is a qualifier the new crime doesn't have to be.

(3) Effective for a probationer or community controllee whose crime was committed on or after September 1, 2005, and who:

(a) Is placed on probation or community control for a violation of chapter 794, s. 800.04(4), (5), or (6), s. 827.071, or s. 847.0145 and the unlawful sexual activity involved a victim 15 years of age or younger and the offender is 18 years of age or older;

(b) Is designated a sexual predator pursuant to s. 775.21; or

(c) Has previously been convicted of a violation of chapter 794, s. 800.04(4), (5), or (6), s. 827.071, or s. 847.0145 and the unlawful sexual activity involved a victim 15 years of age or younger and the offender is 18 years of age or older,

the court must order, in addition to any other provision of this section, mandatory electronic monitoring as a condition of the probation or community control supervision.

Taking a DUI offender and putting him on the box because of that sex offense from 20 years ago is stupid.

Hmmm....interesting you would think someone like John Couey or Lawrence Singleton should not be on the box. Now that's what I would call stupid.

John Singleton and Couey on the box only means we could tell the cops where they were when the did their nasty deeds. How would that help? I am constantly amazed at how little people know about GPS- IT SOLVES NOTHING! It is pretty and high tech and gets the law and order people hard but it does NOT prevent crimes. If a child molester is on the street he can commit crimes if he is in prison crimes get commited against him.

John Singleton and Couey on the box only means we could tell the cops where they were when the did their nasty deeds. How would that help? I am constantly amazed at how little people know about GPS- IT SOLVES NOTHING! It is pretty and high tech and gets the law and order people hard but it does NOT prevent crimes. If a child molester is on the street he can commit crimes if he is in prison crimes get commited against him.

I think psychologically it puts some doubt into the mind of sex offenders about doing another crime but you are right if they are intent on doing it. GPS will not stop them.

has anybody thought about the fact that once we manage to get all the sex offenders on GSP that the registry will then become illegal? i mean once the state is tracking them 24/7 why should they have to register and keep it updated? since the state will automatically know where they are at all times?

has anybody thought about the fact that once we manage to get all the sex offenders on GSP that the registry will then become illegal? i mean once the state is tracking them 24/7 why should they have to register and keep it updated? since the state will automatically know where they are at all times?

The registry wont become illegal, because the public might think they are just house arrest people wearing that equipment and not very dangerous sex offenders who need to be identified to the public by photograph. The tracking equipment is for clues to find them if a crime is committed and to keep them away from parks etc., and also for putting that mental deterent in them to not commit a crime because they are being tracked. I am glad we have concerned citizens such as yourself to discuss the pros and cons of these issues so hopefully together we can solve many of these public safety issues our children face.

[mystikwarrior]

Hmmm....interesting you would think someone like John Couey or Lawrence Singleton should not be on the box. Now that's what I would call stupid.
Oh, but you hide behind the advantage of after the fact. Did you know Couey was going to do it? You're so smart. Why didn't you tell somebody?
So tell us oh wise one. Which one of Florida's many hundreds of thousands of convicted criminals is the next John Couey? Because we better go get them on the box.

Hmmm....interesting you would think someone like John Couey or Lawrence Singleton should not be on the box. Now that's what I would call stupid.
Oh, but you hide behind the advantage of after the fact. Did you know Couey was going to do it? You're so smart. Why didn't you tell somebody?
So tell us oh wise one. Which one of Florida's many hundreds of thousands of convicted criminals is the next John Couey? Because we better go get them on the box.

I say every sex offender should be put on the box for life and it may deter them from doing what Couey did. I guess they say legally right now we cant grandfather that in, but just track them during any new supervision.

[Merlin]

Hmmm....interesting you would think someone like John Couey or Lawrence Singleton should not be on the box. Now that's what I would call stupid.
Oh, but you hide behind the advantage of after the fact. Did you know Couey was going to do it? You're so smart. Why didn't you tell somebody?
So tell us oh wise one. Which one of Florida's many hundreds of thousands of convicted criminals is the next John Couey? Because we better go get them on the box.

I say every sex offender should be put on the box for life and it may deter them from doing what Couey did. I guess they say legally right now we cant grandfather that in, but just track them during any new supervision.

Well that's what we are already doing with the exceptions of the loopholes in 948.30 we've already identified. The only problem I have is that GPS alone is not the answer to reducing sexual abuse. Other sex offender conditions for ANY registered sex offender who commits a new crime should be ordered IMO. What about the sex offenders who never had treatment? What about pedophiles who are now living with children, aren't they at risk?

has anybody thought about the fact that once we manage to get all the sex offenders on GSP that the registry will then become illegal? i mean once the state is tracking them 24/7 why should they have to register and keep it updated? since the state will automatically know where they are at all times?

The registry wont become illegal, because the public might think they are just house arrest people wearing that equipment and not very dangerous sex offenders who need to be identified to the public by photograph. The tracking equipment is for clues to find them if a crime is committed and to keep them away from parks etc., and also for putting that mental deterent in them to not commit a crime because they are being tracked. I am glad we have concerned citizens such as yourself to discuss the pros and cons of these issues so hopefully together we can solve many of these public safety issues our children face.

ahh but how about that ever popular FTR crime that seems to be the new rage for getting sex offenders back under supervison? kind of redundent to charge him for not telling you where he is when you are supposed to know it yourself 24/7 don't you think?

[quote="worried citizen":33n6klxz]has anybody thought about the fact that once we manage to get all the sex offenders on GSP that the registry will then become illegal? i mean once the state is tracking them 24/7 why should they have to register and keep it updated? since the state will automatically know where they are at all times?

The registry wont become illegal, because the public might think they are just house arrest people wearing that equipment and not very dangerous sex offenders who need to be identified to the public by photograph. The tracking equipment is for clues to find them if a crime is committed and to keep them away from parks etc., and also for putting that mental deterent in them to not commit a crime because they are being tracked. I am glad we have concerned citizens such as yourself to discuss the pros and cons of these issues so hopefully together we can solve many of these public safety issues our children face.

ahh but how about that ever popular FTR crime that seems to be the new rage for getting sex offenders back under supervison? kind of redundent to charge him for not telling you where he is when you are supposed to know it yourself 24/7 don't you think?[/quote:33n6klxz]

No - only on the recent offenders do we usually know where they are at 24/7. Those you speak of worried citizen are usually not on supervision but are put on it for evading authorities by not registering as required. I am going to see if my circuit would consider doing a round table discussion with concerned citizens such as yourself to explain these issues more clearly to better inform the public about sex offenders. I just hope CO will let us do it.

Well worried citizen, if the offender is on gps, sometimes they do this thing we call "cut and run". Now I know what you're thinking, I should be there as soon as he/she cuts the strap. Normally , I would, but my teleport machine is on the fritz, so I have to drive my car to the house, if that is where they cut the strap. I am still waiting for the chip to be implanted into my brain so I can have a constant visual of their points on the map running in my head. When offenders absconds and we don't know their whereabouts, we request a BOLO and get that warrant active ASAP. Once the circuit's FTR time has passed, then we can amend the vop with the FTR charge. I do this for 2 reasons; 1. they did fail to register their address to where ever they landed after they took off and 2. the judges in my circuit usually buy the whole, " I was scared, it wasn't my fault and I didn't do anything wrong while I was gone" defense to their absconding, but they are starting to take the FTR charge a little more seriously.

i'm not so much worried about the "cut and runs" throw the book at them...but how about those little tehnical violations...saw one on the news not too long ago about a 62 year old sex offender in a wheelchair and on ozygen living in an apartment well the the landord felt bad when he went into the wheelchair so gave him a bigger apartment across the hall....and since is' a lttle hard to get out and around in a situation like that he didnt' notify police he moved across the hall from like apartment A to apartment B he was violated and given like 5 years? is this right? or a stupid waste of resources? as for you not being notifed immediatly sound like a hardware/sofware problem...notice should be been imediately transmitted to the closest police station able to respond as well as yourself.....

i'm not so much worried about the "cut and runs" throw the book at them...but how about those little tehnical violations...saw one on the news not too long ago about a 62 year old sex offender in a wheelchair and on ozygen living in an apartment well the the landord felt bad when he went into the wheelchair so gave him a bigger apartment across the hall....and since is' a lttle hard to get out and around in a situation like that he didnt' notify police he moved across the hall from like apartment A to apartment B he was violated and given like 5 years? is this right? or a stupid waste of resources? as for you not being notifed immediatly sound like a hardware/sofware problem...notice should be been imediately transmitted to the closest police station able to respond as well as yourself.....

the police dont get things forced on them like DOC does from our superiors - they dont have to VOP a person even though they have access to whether or not they were on probation - but we have to and usually they have already bonded out on their new charge - what sense does that make? Also the police would never accept something where their shorthanded office had to respond instantly to GPS at night even though the PO is 1 hour away from the residence - they would and do say they will respond only if called only by the Officer and we dont know if it is a real issue until we go out most times.

that sounds like a lack of forsight on the part of the police as sooner or later one will cut his tracker and hurt somebody and they would have been in place to stop it and will be fried when it comes out.....might be time for state to tell the police what they need to be doing in cases like this. since last time i looked they worked 24/7 and probation/parole didn't so somebody needs to be covering that time otherwise telling public that the offender is being monitored 24/7 is a lie.

[Merlin]

i'm not so much worried about the "cut and runs" throw the book at them...but how about those little tehnical violations...saw one on the news not too long ago about a 62 year old sex offender in a wheelchair and on ozygen living in an apartment well the the landord felt bad when he went into the wheelchair so gave him a bigger apartment across the hall....and since is' a lttle hard to get out and around in a situation like that he didnt' notify police he moved across the hall from like apartment A to apartment B he was violated and given like 5 years? is this right? or a stupid waste of resources? as for you not being notifed immediatly sound like a hardware/sofware problem...notice should be been imediately transmitted to the closest police station able to respond as well as yourself.....

5 years seems about standard based on what I've seen with cases. There's no excuse not to register. I'm glad they caught this sneaky guy. I just can't imagine why he or his landlord couldn't pick up the phone and discuss his circumstances with the local registration office if in fact he had a hardship situation. Sorry, got no use for cons that play games.

To worried citizen, I would like to assure you that, at least in my circuit, there is a PO on call 24/7. When the offender cuts and runs, the on-call officer is immediately notified and must respond, day or night, to ANY paged alerts. Unfortunately, the sex offenders live throughout the county and it may take a little time to get to the last known point. The local police will not help with this because chances are, if the offender cut and run, they are no longer there by the time any law enforcement shows up. That's why we issue a BOLO immediately. But thanks for giving me a new perspective on this whole buffer zone thing. If they are all forced to live in concentrated areas, it may shorten my response time in the event of a cut and run. :D

yru here chat'in :?: ru really a prev :?: or ru a po'd po :?:

offenders who are so or plead down charges on GPS?

offenders who are so or plead down charges on GPS?

No - unless the Judge orders it, if they are pled down to battery etc. but if they have a prior qualifier and were pled down for something 9/1/05 or after they would be on GPS.

Is a nightmare. it needs to be staffed 34/7 to be effective.