ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (3/20 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings


MO: Bill aims to track sex offenders when moving

A new bill making its way through the Missouri House is seeking to track some of the state’s most dangerous sex offenders when moving between counties.

Sponsored by Missouri Rep. Randy Pietzman of Troy, Missouri, House Bill No. 2653 would require offenders who have been convicted of first-degree child molestation to wear an electronic monitoring device.

“I come from a district that is kind of plagued with sex offenders,” Pietzman said. “I was looking for some kind of an avenue to bring attention to it.” 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 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.  
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Richard, the bill’s author is also saying “when they go to court, the penalty is gonna be to wear a monitor for two years.” So he’s obviously imagining ankle monitors to be a form of punishment which, of course, we all know is true. No matter how much these officials blatantly refer to these “civil remedies” as punishment, it never seems to redound to our benefit, even when the architects of those civil remedies publicly cast them as punishment, such as Chris Smith’s lobbying for IML.

I don’t think it is obvious that this criminal legislator is imagining ankle monitors to be a form of punishment. That lie of “civil” does make sense to me – i.e. you are supposed to tell us where you are and if you don’t, we’ll attach a tracker to you. But who knows what the scumbag thinks? They are scumbags after all. Reminds me of well over a decade ago when the criminal regime where I lived created residency “restrictions”. I honestly could not believe it could happen in Amerika. It was beyond shocking to me. I told all of… Read more »

“The hope is that by tracking their movement and adding additional penalties, the bill will deter those from fleeing.” —– These chuckleheads NEVER learn, do they? This has been beat down more than once as a 4th Amdt. violation. THIS is the frustration with how things go for us legally. The next doofus is always coming along, walking in the same footsteps of the previous one. Reminds me of something a comedian once said, “you can’t make anything idiot-proof because nature keeps making better idiots.” Bingo. As for the fleeing part, there’s a quick answer: drop the whole charade of… Read more »

This is just another clown legislator looking to make a name for himself. Absconding and failure to report/update is already an offense; MRS 589.425. Does he have actual evidence that moving registrants don’t register in their new residences or just a handful of anecdotes and “just suppose…”? Does this guy seriously think he’s closing a loophole? He wants ID before the move. Like what, a driver’s license? How then is the registrant expected to effect the move? The bill is predicated on the state auditor’s claim that Missouri lost track of 1200 registrants (without mentioning the source for that contention),… Read more »

“He wants ID before the move.” —– How does he propose closing the next loophole where I go in to get a duplicate license, having 😉 “lost” mine? I then turn in the duplicate and…wow, I managed to find the original during the move! Or taken another way, what’s to stop from getting a dupe ID and then anyway doing the exact thing this guy claims is going on? Making me present a readily replicable document does absolutely nothing, moron legislator. And to think I used to lament that legislatures were full of lawyers. Now I’m starting to wish they… Read more »

Sounds like he wants an ID (DL?) for moving, which means they cannot drive to move w/o an ID (DL?), like one wants an ID for towels at the gym or skates at the rink.

BTW, Troy, MO has 63 registrants out of 12,015 (city data and us census sources). A whopping 1/190. A plague alright, just like locus in Revelations.

This will likely pass and also survive challenges since it is narrowly tailored to those that failed to register again after a move and only for 2 years. It is useless and a waste of time though. I see a better challenge in the fact their place of employment is marked on a map. Quashing a person’s right to work should get a higher level of scrutiny and in spite of connecticut dps v doe 2003 should trigger due process. Procedural due process does not require a fundamental right like substantive does, and this could even rise to the level… Read more »

An update on this bill. It has passed the Missouri House and is now sent to the Senate. It has also changed some, two amendments have been made. Here is the link to the bill text:

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x