ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (6/12 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings

Click here to sign up now for ACSOL’s Online EPIC Conference: Empowered People Inspiring Change Sept 17-18
Download a PDF of the schedule


IN: Homeless sex offender living on jail property Sheriff hopes to monitor, motivate future offenders with new plan

A unique plan hatched by the Boone County Sheriff’s Office has lead to five homeless registered sex offenders moving to permanent residences, and one to live in a tent on Boone County Jail property.

Last week, a resident saw online that a registered sex offender had used the Whitestown Meijer store address as his own. The man was living in a car in the grocery store parking lot. The issue came to the attention of the Boone County Sheriff’s Office, the only law enforcement agency in the county charged with keeping track of the 93 sex offenders who reside and work in Boone County.

The sheriff’s office staff looked into the issue and found a total of six sex offenders who were homeless – five who lived in their cars and one residing in a tent underneath the railroad overpass on State Road 32 in Lebanon.

The BCSO sent a message to or visited the six offenders, and told them that unless they could find permanent residence, their new address was now 1905 Indianapolis Avenue – the Boone County Jail. Full Article

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 do not solicit funds
  • If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  • All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  • 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.  
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

So the architects of the problem are blaming people for not being able to navigate the impossible maze while fully admitting its making things less safe for everyone, both for the RC’s and residents.

“He’s being shunned, and I shun him to a point as well, but the guy is still a human being, and we still have to treat him like a human being.”

What a contradictory statement! This is typical of ALL LE officers who think they’re “balancing the rights” of public safety and those made to register. Sorry, but there is no “war” to win because there is no established link between community notification and public safety.

It’s a pervasive myth that the public reserves the right to know where sex offenders live in the first place. The cops are not doing anything but picking up a paycheck while doing relatively nothing. They’re basically taking credit for the sun coming up. They falsely believe the registry is a deterrent that holds offenders responsibly and accountable – it doesn’t! Further, the registry allows the local police to take false credit for protecting children which I personally find obnoxious and laughable.

The homeless languishing in this story is living proof Megan’s law is a spectacular failure.

The registry promotes hate, resentment and animosity. Not public safety.

Isn’t shunning a “traditional form of punishment”? Hmmmm….

How in the heck is that not like parole??? It sounds damn near identical to parole!

*Stay outraged, Very, very well said. Take that to the masses of this great nation!!!!!
*Paul, Very, very well said. Take that to the Judges of this great nation!!!!!

Two things really disturb me about this article.

“If an offender is dangerous to a school, then he is dangerous to a preschool and a daycare” Nielsen said.

I agree with the logic. But it’s logic based on a faulty premise. This is typical rhetoric that is designed to misinform or twist the facts. Because the statement is actually true. The problem is no one will hear the first word “IF” in context. This is rhetoric that any good con-man or TV evangelist knows how to use all too well. You start with a faulty premise and then use a logical statement that seems to support it.

The fact is IF no one has deemed him to be a risk to a school then he is NOT a risk to a preschool. So it allows the person that hears the statement to draw on their own bias to form a judgement.

“To encourage the offender to find a permanent home, the BCSO is having him submit a written list of five places per week that he has looked into moving.”

This is the most disturbing of all.

As long as he is not on parole or probation Local LEO’s have no legal authority to require that he submit any plans to them for any reason. He is supposed to be a free citizen and allowed to conduct his life in any way he sees fit within the parameters of the law. They don’t even have a right to require he live on the jail property. Being homeless is not a crime. This would be a great case to prove that the SOR is like parole or probation if there were actually a law stipulating he had to do this.

But of course there is no law so it’s just another example of local LEO’s and their bullying tactics. Like an old movie. The sheriff takes you to the county line. Gives you a stiff warning and says. If you’s is ah coming back this way dont’cha come back through this here county.

This LEO does feed into fear mongering.

He’s already designated all registrants as dangerous. Why? Because the SCOTUS says so. 80% recidivism rates means the whole lot cannot be rehabilitated and must be a public threat.

Again, the statistics are far from the truth. The Halloween ban is a great parallel example that fear is overcoming facts.

I guess that they can require that if he is living on city/county property. Arguably, they are doing him a “favor” by allowing him to camp-out on jail property. But you’re right that the attitude is awful. Saying that “We sent that very clear message that you’re not going to live homeless in this county and be a registered sex offender,” I would have to ask if it is permissible to be a homeless NON-sex offender in their county. This is kind of an interesting and unusual story because the sheriff seems to have some low-level awareness of the challenges of being on the Registry but, unfortunately, has not taken his thinking further to challenge the Registry, itself and the myriad consequences it imposes on both Registrants and his department.

He, the sheriff can just go cutting easy OVERTIME.

Let us not confuse who owns the plantation with who works it. Just saying.

You know if there was actually a frightening and high 80% recidivism rate then I could understand everyones concern and subsequent fear. Even though I don’t agree with any type of registry, I can see it justified, not constitutional, but justified, so really a lot of the blame for this draconian scheme is directly related to the statement in McKune. Correcting this fallacy is the only way to combat this onslaught, and war against it’s own citizens, that the legislature is throwing at us, and the courts and public opinion largely support these laws simply because of the fact that these “demagogue” politicians push these falsehoods in the media and every chance they get. I am really anxious and curious on how these prickkkks are going to try to defend the registration scheme against my onslaught of facts and empirical evidence that I provided in my motion. This should be very interesting since I feel like we have created a masterpiece of a legal doc that should become mandatory reading in law schools around the country. The judge is either going to see it as a clusterfukk of an attempt in legalise or as the masterpiece for the canons for years to come.I have been reading through it and I still see flawless arguments.

We must not forget the false facts that criminal records are easily attainable public records, because they are not, and even court records or cases are extremely difficult to obtain without a need to know basis, or they are in published opinions. This fact cannot and will not go unchallenged in my case, I may even need to amend my complaint to include this argument if necessary, but I am definitely going to bring it up in court so that it will be a proper, and on the record, argument on appeal. As long as I don’t buckle under pressure and stay focused they don’t stand a chance of prevailing. The thing is that they are going to fight vehemently to keep this monstrosity afloat, this is one of the biggest, if not the biggest, errors by the legislature, and judicial branches of government ever. Just think how far reaching the tentacles go, and how many orgs and entities are dependent on this scheme, worldwide. If the courts are of any reasonable mind and uphold their oaths of office then they are going to shut this entire scheme down, regardless of how dependent all these entities are on it’s continuance and regardless of the monetary isdues involved. None of that matters, neither does any record or conduct that surround my conviction, because I know they are going to attempt to bias the court and record, by regurgitating what the DA or judges, or probation reports all said about me, none of that is relevant, and if they want to re-litigate, or have a re-sentencing hearing, then provide me due process for me to present extenuating and mitigating factors, and state on the record why the court considers a lifetime of punishments and supervision is either necessary, or justified in my case.

@mike r, responding to your statement: “We must not forget the false facts that criminal records are easily attainable public records, because they are not, and even court records or cases are extremely difficult to obtain without a need to know basis, or they are in published opinions.”

Maybe “easily attainable” is relative. My county makes summary information about criminal and civil court cases available for free over the internet to anonymous searchers. It’s not hard to find. In criminal cases it lists the offender’s identifying information, date of offense, arrest, charges, verdict, and disposition, and a few other things. You can search jail and bond records too.

Copies of original court documents from a case can be requested through the court records division, whatever is deemed public.

Agreed, it is relative as to what easily accessible means. You are absolutely correct that a lot of these records can be accessed pr obtained through a multitude of entities, but, it isn’t the same as just a click of a mouse and a zip code. In almost, if not all, these cases a person must have personal information regarding the individual, or case, that they are searching for, point one, point 2, this maybe accessible as you state where you are, but I have searched and researched extensively online and through phone calls and other inquires, my information is not easily attainable with my name, date of birth, local, ss card #, and numerous other identifying information. Even then you have to have a need to know basis and agree to and go through a plethora of disclosures, and provide all your personal information in order to access that information. It also does not include current name, photo, address, vehicle, schools, photos, all of which is private personal information that not even the DMV, social security department, gov. medical records, tax boards, IRS or Franchise tax board, non of these entities can disseminate my personal information without my written permission. Those are actually easily accessable public info if you know how to access them, or if you have a need to know basis, or if you give consent, which even when applying for a job or application for housing, you sign and agrre to background checks.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x