ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459

Monthly Meetings [details]
November 2018 Call Audio
, 12/08 – San Diego

Emotional Support Group: (Los Angeles) 11/24, 12/22 [details]

Registration Laws for all 50 States

National

IN: Bill that prevents sex offenders from living near victims signed by governor

INDIANAPOLIS – A bill authored by State Sen. Mike Bohacek, R-Michiana Shores, that prevents sex offenders from living near victims was ceremonially signed into law Monday by Gov. Eric Holcomb.

Senate Enrolled Act 12 makes it unlawful for a sex offender to intentionally establish residence within one mile of their victim. Although this is current law for victims who are minors, SEA 12 extends the protection to all victims regardless of age. Full Article

Join the discussion

  1. Facts should matter

    “The home should be a safe place,” Bohacek said. “It should be a place where we can let our guard down, and feel safe without any threats or fears.”

    Oh, the irony of that sentiment seeing how that doesn’t apply us.

  2. AJ

    And so the cancer started in OK over BS hysteria has spread… Looks like this is going to be the new “it” RC law to pass.

    So let’s see, a RC cannot live near the victim or be arrested. Yet if the RC keeps track of the victim to avoid living too close, they risk cyberstalking…and being arrested. Never mind that the victim can up and move at any time. In short, where a RC is *allowed* to live is contingent on where someone else *chooses* to live. Ahhh, the land of the free…

    • AO

      This will be challenged and I don’t think it’ll be able to stand. I didn’t know my victim so I have no way of even tracking her if I wanted. What do they have in place for a person in my situation? Do you first have to submit some sort of petition to the local PD to verify your potential home is in compliance according to this law? Or do you get a place and 6 months later you receive an eviction notice from the PD, if not an arrest warrant?

  3. R M

    “…if they knowingly reside within a one-mile radius of their victim without permission of the sentencing court…”.

    How are they supposed to “knowingly” know where the victim lives? And what happens if they didn’t know?

    “In this case, the offender would be committing an invasion of privacy…”

    Invasion of privacy from a mile away? LOL, like everyone knows/sees/meets everyone in a mile radius of their home.

    “…93 percent of juvenile victims knew the perpetrator”.

    So why have a registry and all that comes with it?

    This law (people) is so ignorant.

    • JesusH

      “How are they supposed to “knowingly” know where the victim lives? And what happens if they didn’t know?”

      I think the answer is obvious. Every sex offender needs to petition the court for the address of their victim, in the interest of staying compliant with this law.

      See how they like those apples.

  4. Chris F

    Yet again…

    There shouldn’t be a single law written that pertains to protecting the public that is not a part of the original trial and determined by a judge during the sentencing portion of the trial. Period.

    It is the judiciary’s responsibility, as determined by laws created by the legislature themselves (18 U.S. Code § 3553 – Imposition of a sentence), to determine everything regarding the sentence:
    *****
    (a)Factors To Be Considered in Imposing a Sentence.—The court shall impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes set forth in paragraph (2) of this subsection. The court, in determining the particular sentence to be imposed, shall consider—
    (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant;
    (2) the need for the sentence imposed—
    (A) to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense;
    (B) to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct;
    (C) to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant; and
    (D) to provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner
    *****

    Legislatures’ are violating Separation of Powers from the very rules they wrote to ensure fair treatment of US citizens in giving us due process and protections from arbitrary government action.

    Somehow, a case somewhere needs to get to SCOTUS so they can finally stand up for the judiciary and quit allowing legislature to bypass it whenever the fear mongering politicians need to increase their vote counts. To do otherwise, means it is only a matter of time before every state, city, and even home owner associations and apartments are allowed to add restrictions to those ever convicted or that even plead guilty/no contest to any crime.

    For instance, imagine if a city made it illegal for anyone ever convicted or plead guilty to driving drunk to drive a car in their city? A driver that ever had that on their record would have to research every city they ever drive through, every time they drive through it just in case the law changed that day. It sounds crazy, but that is exactly what every sex offender has to do and “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander”.

    “First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a Socialist.” – Martin Niemöller (1892–1984)

    • AJ

      A driver that ever had that on their record would have to research every city they ever drive through, every time they drive through it just in case the law changed that day.
      —–
      Remember, SCOTUS (and other courts) has repeatedly upheld that police don’t have to know the laws. (https://www.themarshallproject.org/2015/08/03/how-the-supreme-court-made-it-legal-for-cops-to-pull-you-over-for-just-about-anything). My “favorite” quote comes from the Superior Court of California, Appellate Division, San Diego, in People v. Campuzano (237 Cal.App.4th Supp. 14 __ Cal.Rptr.3d __):
      *****
      We do not, and cannot, expect our police officers to be legal scholars. And as Justice Roberts stated in Heien, police officers may indeed confront situations in the field “as to which the application of a statute is unclear – however clear it may later become.” (Heien v. North Carolina, supra, 574 U.S. at p. ___ [135 S.Ct. at p. 539].)”
      *****
      Do not and cannot? Yes we should and can! How is it the Subject Matter Experts aren’t expected to be “legal scholars” but the average citizen (and RCs even more so) is!?!? And do citizens get the benefit of an unclear statute “in the field” that may later become clear? Nope, off to jail with no repercussions for the LEO being an idiot (or liar). Indeed, SCOTUS has made it so a LEO can lie through his/her teeth and claim “belief” or “understanding” and get off scott free. But a citizen with belief or understanding? Sorry, Charlie.

      Ahh, the land of the free.

  5. Tim Moore

    Another law making it more likely that abuse within the family will not be reported.

  6. FRegistryTerrorists

    People who support this “law” are nothing but criminals. They are not Americans. They are war criminals that deserve to be dealt with.

    Again, we see that the criminals very easily could have made their “law” apply to anyone who has ever committed any serious crime. But since the “law” actually has nothing at all to do with public safety or protecting children, they just ignore that part. I have a theory that they might exclude truly dangerous people because those people would hopefully murder them.

    We don’t need criminals like Mike Bohacek, Eric Holcomb, etc. in America.

  7. The Unforgiven

    I’d be curious, out of the fun of it all, to know how this would relate to sting operations. You can’t live by the set-up house, meeting place…or you can’t live by the officer who was posing as a minor? What about Catch a Predator? Now you can’t live by the Perverted Justice contact as well as the officer(s) who kept investigating?

  8. JohnDoeUtah

    So, what about Romeo and Juliet cases where they later get married? The need the court’s permission to be a family now?

Leave a Reply

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  • We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please answer this question to prove that you are not a robot *