ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (7/10 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


NY: Appeals Court hearing oral arguments online Oct 13 on continued detention of former sex offenders after release


These appeals were filed by level three sex offenders to challenge their indefinite detention in prison or prison-based residential treatment facilities (RTFs) after their prison terms expired or they were granted parole.

All three offenders were subject to post-release supervision (PRS) and were held past their release dates by the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) when they were unable to find housing that complied with the Sexual Assault Reform Act (SARA), which bars certain sex offenders from residing within 1,000 feet of any school grounds (Executive Law § 259-c[14]). DOCCS relied on Correction Law § 73(10), which authorizes it “to use any residential treatment facility as a residence for persons who are on community supervision.”

Download a PDF of the court’s summary

Watch the oral hearings that begin October 13 at 11 am Pacific, 2 pm Eastern online at

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.
    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
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

There was an old USSC case that held that detention after a sentence was served wasn’t constitutional simply because they called it “treatment.” Will look for it later (at SOSEN, I think), but I imagine any court that heard arguments on this situation somehow found it didn’t apply to registrants.

I believe the case you have in mind is Tapia v. United States, 564 U.S. 319 (2011).

It seems to me that this happening screams “Banishment!”

Will look later, but I think the case I was referring to was decided in the 70s or 80s. And this situation doesn’t scream “banishment” – it screams “life sentence” after a sentence has been served.

Im in the final process of creating a Prosee Pitition challenging Megans law, the tiered n Static 99 test under the Daubert standard. In the Northern California Federal Courts.related to pre offenders . I will send a copy to Miss Bulluci

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x