ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings: Nov 21, Dec 19 – Details / Recordings

Emotional Support Group Meetings 2020 (Phone only)

National

NV: Sex offenders challenge Nevada supervision law

More than a dozen sex offenders are challenging the Nevada Parole Board’s authority to impose conditions on their lifetime supervision. The offenders, identified only as Does 1-16, filed a federal lawsuit Tuesday against several state and local officials, including Nevada Attorney General Adam Laxalt.

According to the lawsuit, the Parole Board has relied on an unconstitutional Nevada law to place movement and residency restrictions on convicted sex offenders who are under its supervision. In some cases, those restrictions have prevented the plaintiffs from attending religious services or associating with certain people in certain areas.

“The state of Nevada should not be allowed to violate the Constitution,” attorney Robert Draskovich said. “It doesn’t matter whether a person has been convicted of an offense that the public may hate. No one is above the law, and it should be followed.”

Draskovich and two other Las Vegas attorneys, Gary Modafferi and Allen Lichtenstein, are representing the plaintiffs in the case. Full Article

Join the discussion

  1. HOOKSCAR

    Another one Janice. It is time we get a class action against the federal government stating why SORNA is unconstitutional. Anyone else think so?

  2. Double A

    I hope these registrants are successful.

    I second HOOKSCAR’s suggestion. We should start a kick starter account so registrants and their family and friends could help with the costs of litigation. It’s time to stop playing defense. Our civil rights are being violated on a daily basis. It would be awesome if we were able to stop what seems to be a never ending assault on registrants. Politicians see us as an easy target. We need to change that and let them know they can’t put us down for their benefit.

    • steve

      At the very least lifetime registration should be challenged especially since it seems the legislature has no intent to create a tiered one. With all the new additional studies (Hanson: after 16 years risk is negligible) and the additional requirements that are nothing like”applying for a membership to Costco” it seems that is ripe for a fight.

  3. mike r

    Lifetime parole wow I couldn’t even imagine that kind of he ll I would end up killing someone of myself that’s crazy

  4. TheGodlessOne

    As of July 28th, 2016, the additional conditions of Lifetime Supervision imposed by the Parole Board not enumerated in NRS 213.1243 have ended thanks to the Nevada Supreme Case McNeill v State, 132 Nev. Advance Opinion 54 (PDF download: http://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/document/view.do?csNameID=34896&csIID=34896&deLinkID=561339&sireDocumentNumber=16-23421). For anyone unfamiliar with Nevada’s Lifetime Supervision, it is given in an addition to any sentence to prison or probation, and begins when those sentences are completed. It is not parole, and it is not probation (Palmer v State http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nv-supreme-court/1167877.html, which also relabeled the law from a civil law to a punitive law). Such additional conditions included: a curfew, SO therapy paid for out-of-pocket, no porn, no alcohol, no being in a place that serves alcohol unless bartending, submit to search of person and residence, no association with ex-felons, no movie theaters, require approval for a PO box, do as your PO orders. Various UNWRITTEN conditions could be created by POs, such as full disclosure to new employers, call to say when working for temporary agencies/work, imposed curfew for Halloween (unless working) whether those have a curfew or not. With the verdict in McNeill, all of these conditions are null and void — only those in the statute are now enforceable, which include no contact with victims, and require approval to move to a new residence, and possibly the requirement for an interstate compact for those wishing to move out-of-state. This verdict will probably strengthen Draskovich’s suit with an “I told you so” air to it, even if many/most of his claims are not moot.

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 will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  • 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 *

.