NEW: (# Failure to Register Technicality
NEW: Failure to Register a Sex Offense???
CAUTION: SORNA EFFECTIVE even if state has not enacted it
Plea Bargains: Santabello v New York
Forced to Carry Gov't Message Issue: See HERE
Blog also contains "Unfavorable" and "Informational" decisions and relevant news articles. All can be useful in framing arguments for new court actions. (i.e., avoid pitfalls or inform courts.) Or refuting charges, check facts of cases v yours.
Leagle is our main court decision resource.
Find State decisions by the Federal Circuit a State is in.

CAUTION: Decisions are meant to be educational.
For "Personal Life Decisions" consult with a lawyer.

JB et al v New Jersey State Parole Board

Does this decision violate a person's right to NOT CARRY the government's message?

To Commenter: Burglary data and parole data is not part of this discussion, nor do I even mention anything similar.

11-26-2013 New Jersey:

JB et al v New Jersey State Parole Board

Appellants J.B., L.A., B.M., and W.M. are individuals who have been convicted of sexual offenses, have completed their respective prison terms, and are now being monitored by respondent New Jersey State Parole Board (the "Parole Board") as offenders who are subject to either parole supervision for life ("PSL") or its statutory predecessor, community supervision for life ("CSL"). N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.4. Represented by the same attorney, appellants challenge the constitutionality of certain terms of supervision the Parole Board has imposed upon them. Similar conditions have been imposed on other offenders subject to CSL or PSL, although appellants have not filed a class action.

The terms of supervision mainly being challenged in these related appeals1 are (1) the Parole Board's restrictions on appellants' access to social media or other comparable web sites on the Internet; and (2) the Parole Board's authority to compel them to submit to periodic polygraph examinations. One of the appellants, L.A. , also contests the Parole Board's imposition upon him of a Halloween curfew and an electronic monitoring condition.

For the reasons that follow, we reject appellants' facial challenges to the Internet access restrictions, subject to their right to bring future "as-applied" challenges should they avail themselves of the Parole Board's procedures for requesting specific permission for more expanded Internet access and are then denied such permission.

We do not decide at this time the merits of appellants' constitutional attack upon the polygraph requirements. Instead, we refer that subject matter to the trial court for supplemental proceedings, pursuant to Rule 2:5-5(b), for the development of an appropriate record, including scientific or other expert proofs, and for fact-finding. Such proofs and fact-finding shall focus upon the alleged therapeutic, rehabilitative, and risk management benefits of polygraph testing when it is conducted within the specific context of post-release oversight of sex offenders.

Lastly, we uphold the Parole Board's actions concerning the Halloween curfew, and dismiss as moot the claims concerning L.A.'s electronic monitoring, which has ended.

... ... ...

In sum, we hold the Internet restrictions to be constitutional on their face, and that they do not otherwise violate the law.
III., IV., V.
[At the direction of the court, the published version of this opinion omits Part III (which relates to the polygraph testing issue that has been referred for an evidentiary hearing), Part IV (which upholds the Halloween curfew), and Part V (which deems moot L.A.'s challenge to his previous electron
ic monitoring). See R.1:36-3.]
For the reasons noted, we (1) affirm the Parole Board's Internet restrictions, subject to potential as-applied challenges after exemptions are sought; (2) refer the polygraph issues for fact-finding; (3) uphold the Halloween curfew; and (4) dismiss as moot L.A.'s challenge to electronic monitoring.

Our jurisdiction is retained only as to the polygraph issues, pursuant to the supplementation procedures under Rule 2:5-5(b) that have been outlined in this opinion.

Articles on Topic

Sex-offender ID crucial on social media

12-9-2013 New Jersey:

On Nov. 26, a state Appellate Court (Decision Above) upheld limited access to the Internet for convicted sex offenders who are on parole, by allowing authorities to prohibit sex offenders from using online social networks such as Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter.

Although the New Jersey Appellate Court and Supreme Court acknowledge the relatively high recidivism rate of sex offenders, and there are state statute and parole board rules that address Internet access for certain sex offenders, many are still allowed to use the very same social networks that are being popularized by more and more of our children and teens.

More than ever, in this increasingly digitalized society, we must do everything to protect our children from predators who can use social media networks to easily and anonymously target unsuspecting victims.

Legislation I introduced in July 2012, would establish a statutory protection for families and children to know the sex offenders who are using social media websites.

Senate bill 2142 would require anyone required to register as a sex offender to also identify the criminal status on their online social network profiles.

Modeled after a recently enacted Louisiana law, this legislation requires sex offenders to also identify in their social network profiles the crimes for which they were convicted; the jurisdiction of convictions; a description of their physical appearances; their residential addresses and a link to their official sex offender listing on Internet registry. Sex offenders would also have to provide law enforcement with a list of e-mail addresses, screen names and other identities used for internet chats, messaging and social networking sites. Those caught violating the law face up to 18 months in jail and fines up to $10,000.

I understand that certain social media networks ask users to agree to terms and conditions, which may try to ban sex offenders from maintaining profiles. But can we trust that all people who have committed heinous sex acts against children will follow a website’s rule?

Clearly, the answer is “no.”

Between 2000 and 2006, there was a 21 percent increase in arrests of offenders who solicited youth online for sex, according to a 2009 study by the University of New Hampshire’s Crimes Against Children Research Center.

According to a 2003 U.S. Department of Justice report, sex offenders released from state prisons were four-times more likely to be rearrested for a sex crime. Within the first three years following their release from prison in 1994, 5.3 percent of released sex offenders were rearrested for a sex crime. The rate for released non-sex offenders was 1.3 percent. In considering all types of criminal offenses, this report states that 43 percent of the sex offenders were rearrested for committing a crime.
eAdvocate Note: (Full explanation here)
What Rep. Bateman doesn't tell you is, for every ONE crime committed by a released former sex offender, there were SIX committed by released non-sex offenders. SIX victims to ONE victim, yes, no victims is the goal but lawmakers look in the wrong direction with their laws. see the following (click on the pic):

Unfortunately, the risk of another sex offense doesn’t disappear with parole supervision. It’s time for this legislature to enact additional protections to better help authorities to prevent Internet sex crimes and to give families information they need to protect themselves in online communities. I urge the Senate Democrats to start this process by finally posting S2142 for a vote.

Rep. Christopher “Kip” Bateman
16th Legislative District

..Source.. by Home News Tribune Opinion

No comments: