CO: Weld officials discuss constitutional questions surrounding sex offender registry

From the outside, Robert’s life looks stable. He’s a private contractor who works in equipment financing. He has a home and a dog in Littleton. He dates regularly. In his spare time, he mountain bikes competitively and travels — most recently, he went to Iceland.

But he believes his life is fragile. So fragile, in fact, Robert is not his real name; he was so concerned about widespread publicity he only agreed to speak with The Tribune on condition of anonymity.

Not long ago, he made a shorter trip, this time to visit his brother in Oregon. While he was gone, a police officer came by his home, looking for him. When he couldn’t find Robert, the officer began to question his neighbor aggressively about where Robert was, what he was doing and when he would be back. Robert was, the officer reminded the neighbor, a registered sex offender. Full Article

Related posts

Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...


  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. 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.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. 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. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  19. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
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.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

“She pointed out drunk drivers have a recidivism rate of about 60 percent, yet no public registry exists for them.”

And drunk drivers kill dozens (if not hundreds) of children each year. Just sayin’

“police told him they could come by every day if they wanted to”

The compliance cops told me this this last time they were at my house as well.
It is ironic that they default to this statement when their presence at your front door is challenged.

I`m fairly certain a judge would find that to be an excessive physical intrusion that amounts to a Fourth Amendment search, and they need a warrant for that.

“The registry only includes sex offenders who have been convicted of a felony, so those with misdemeanor convictions — such as urinating in public or indecent exposure — are not included.”

Ummm. What??? I beg to differ!

While he was gone, a police officer came by his home, looking for him. When he couldn’t find Robert, the officer began to question his neighbor aggressively about where Robert was, what he was doing and when he would be back.
Good thing it was just a compliance check, and no indication of suspicion on the officer’s part. Let’s see, questioning others about activities of another citizen. Hmm, sure sounds like an investigation. What reasonable suspicion did the officer have? Oh my goodness, the person wasn’t home when they wanted him to be! Nope, no burdens here, SCOTUS.
“Anytime you’re looking at a crime in an area, you go back to the people who committed that (same) crime in the past,” Reams said.
He forgot to add, “and when we do this for people on the registry, we typically come up empty, because 92% of all sex offenses are done by first-time offenders.” He also forgot to add, “and even if this use of the registry were useful, it has no connection to broadcasting it to the world via the Internet.”
The only difference with the sex offender registry is it proactively alerts people. The information is free and when sexually violent predators move into a community, police departments hold public meetings to notify residents.
Whoops, there goes that whole “the public must seek it out” notion from Smith.
Greeley police detective Mark Stumpf, the man tasked with monitoring Greeley’s 345 sex offenders, said most of the sex offenders he deals with don’t reoffend sexually. But it’s worth remembering he’s only dealing with sex offenders who are in compliance with the law by registering in the first place, which means they probably don’t want to reoffend to begin with.
But let’s harass them anyway.
Day after day, in so many ways, the States are showing their true intention with these laws. They can put their magical “intent” statements in the laws all they want; as always actions speak louder than words.

Here we see the same tried and predictable “arguments” from the local authorities attempting to defend something that’s already on the wrong side of history future-tense. “It’s for public safety, vulnerable citizens, we have to keep tabs on these people, it’s just a matter of time before they re-offend, parents have a right to know where these people live, it’s being proactive, it aides and assists law enforcement..”

Ad Infinitum.. Blah blah blah..

I can see how all these local cops with their “sex offender units” can devlop a false sense of pride with their savior complexes and altruistic notions, but at the end of the day, they’re not fighting the good fight they think they are.. hell, they’re not even minimizing risk! All they’re doing is pissing a LOT of people off.

The registry allows the local police to take false credit for protecting children and the community. Of course they will defend Megan’s Law tooth and nail until the very end because they want to protect their cushy, security theater jobs instead of doing REAL police work while dodging bullets on the streets with the rest of their ilk.

(“Sexual offenses are invasive, can be violent and can cause victims lifelong trauma. Depression, substance abuse, suicide, PTSD and an array of other psychological disorders have all been linked to sexual victimization. That’s different, Garner said, from, say, auto thefts.”) I guess robberies, shootings, stabbings, non sexual assaults, getting hit and severely injured by a drunk driver, being taken hostage at knifepoint or gunpoint, etc are basically harmless.

(“In part it’s because so many children are victims of sex crimes, and parents need to protect their children,” she said. “It’s about protection of people who are vulnerable.”) Wait a minute, I thought statistics have proven the majority of sex crimes are committed by parents or someone else the child knows and trusts, not strangers.

( “Anytime you’re looking at a crime in an area, you go back to the people who committed that (same) crime in the past,” Reams said.) Since people forced to register like a Jew in Nazi Germany have a 1% or less rate of recommitting a sex crime this sounds very dubious at best; or it’s just some more of that made up crap these people like to present as truth.

(“A person’s criminal history isn’t a hard thing to track down, either, Rourke said. The Colorado Bureau of Investigation keeps records of many types of crimes and the people who committed them. The only difference with the sex offender registry is it proactively alerts people. The information is free and when sexually violent predators”) Woa!!! stop right there. I thought most “violent predators” are basically buried in jail. The LE people interviewed in this article are way off base according to the fact’s produced by empirical studies. I don’t think I’ll read anymore of this inflammatory sensational propaganda.

PIGS came out about a month ago (SDSO San Diego Sheriff’s Office) I told the guy yea im here and what you are doing is called HARASSMENT im not on PAROLE, he rattled of some bullsh*t about it is in the law they can come out blah blah blah…. I said NOPE it isnt in the 290 code (CA) he didnt have anything further to say…

Question for anyone:

At the FENCE at the ROAD Level i do have a sign that says NO TRESPASSING PRIVATE PROPERTY… even knowing it is a UN-GATED Driveway can they legally come PAST that sign ?

Once inside the dirt driveway they went to two neighbor’s houses, one called me, I came out to a secondary PADLOCKED GATE that also has a priv prop/np trespass sign and talked to the retards… they surely didnt pass that one, even funnier the cop asks… Did you see me on your camera ? I said YEP and I got a call, and after me telling them of their harassment they left.

Is it legal to send them a certified letter saying they CAN NOT Come to my gate or in my drive as it is POSTED ? any thoughts anyone ? thanks !