KS: Victims advocate lawmakers to force convicted peeping suspects onto sex offender registry

Source: kshb.com 2/7/22

KANSAS CITY, KS. — On Tuesday, the Kansas State Senate is set to hear a sex offender law in Topeka.

Kansas Senate Bill 385 would require people convicted of certain breach of privacy offenses, like peeping, to register as a sex offender.

This is something victims and advocates have been fight for after several peeping cases here in the Kansas City area.

Former Johnson County prosecutor Jason Covington has been working on these type of cases for years.

“No place was safe. It could be a retail establishment,” Covington said. “We saw people victimized in the gas station, in the bathroom, in their own home, in hotel rooms. You name it, it was happening there.”

Covington added that oftentimes a guilty verdict didn’t result in the justice victims wanted.

“I had several cases where we went to trial and we won,” he said. “The person was convicted but, we still had to go through this whole process to see if we could get them on the registry, which is separate and apart from the criminal findings.”

Senator Kellie Warren is sponsoring SB385, which is set to be heard by the judiciary committee on Tuesday at 10:30 a.m.

Read the 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
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

Here is a great opportunity for Missouri residents to make calls and send letters opposing adding yet more people on the registry

I thought people were complaining how the registry has reached outrageous numbers and is barely manageable. So, adding more offenses will reduce the number of people on the registry how? The registry is unconstitutional anyways, but adding more and more and more has almost become an unhealthy obsession.

One: how would the registry in this case help anyone when the crime is literally the opposite of enticing victims? The entire crime is revolved around remaining hidden.

Two: there’s sure is a whole lot of chatter about the registry being a key part of justice. Which is odd since its not supposed to be punishment.

The registry is already bloated with non-violent/non-contact offenses. Sure, lets add another. Might as well. That will REALLY save the day. What a bunch of geniuses these victims advocates are..

So the victims wanted to punish the guilty is what they’re saying by using a non-punishing tool? Informing society of already public info is one thing but when they caveat it as the article does, it’s plain as the Kansas landscape, it’s punishing people.