The severe restrictions I face while on supervision effectively serve as a ban on stable housing. The terms of this arrangement have left me technically homeless, forced to live in a motel.
…
The terms of this arrangement have left me homeless—at least technically. I currently live in a Super 8 motel. It is a nuisance, but also a comfort. I get the comfort of a mattress, a room of my own, and a hot shower. It’s better than the alternatives of living on the street, or being back in prison. But the nuisance lies in the arbitrary decision-making processes that serve to keep me trapped in this position.
I have an apartment, a car, and a job in the wings. My parole officer, however, has decided that I’m not allowed to live in my apartment, have access to my car, or work my job. In the face of these restrictions, I end up scraping up whatever money I can doing odd jobs, spending extraordinary amounts of time in coffee shops, and pilfering from my meager savings account to keep a roof over my head.
Very compelling story. I’d work anyway. I can’t imagine they’d revoke parole for working. I can see the judges face now. Your liberty doesn’t end where agents paranoia begins. Exercise your appeals option within DOC, they are found in statutes and DOC SOPs.
Very interesting story. It seems like they just want registered people homeless or in jail, even if it runs counter against the registries purpose of keeping children safe. I don’t know why you ran. You also should have mentioned that in the beginning of the story, because that explains a lot of the hostility from your PO. To her, you’re now more of a risk. Also, you mentioned homeless registrants being able to live in a park, while you can’t get housing near there. Remember, you’re under supervision, while they’re not. I don’t believe Oregon has any residence ordinances restricting where a registrant that isn’t under supervision can live. Another thing, you said is you never committed a child sex crime, so why should you have to abide by child safety rules. Well it might not make sense, but it’s always been that way. It’s nothing new. Adult offenses will also get you banned from parks and schools. However, those that committed offenses against adults also get breaks such as not having a mark on their passport or not having to register as long–even for cp offenses when the teen you viewed is closer to adult age. Even the stigma is much less for a person who committed an adult offense. The problem is adult “sex offenders” are lumped together with child offenders. Nevertheless, “sex offender” parole can be a daunting challenge.
I had the same type of issues in Oregon too, but in one way worse. I was charged with “Failure to Register” because I was homeless. The old form only allowed one registration address and I was told repeatedly to register the address where I was sleeping.
I managed to get a mailing address with a friend. This included the address on my D.L. as required by the D.M.V. Anyway, one day when I went to pick up my mail, I was charged with F.T.R. Strangely enough, I was released same day on my own recognizance.
I saw a similar case in another state and filed a demurral to the indictment since the law never stated whether to register at the mailing address or sleeping address. The judge just laughed and dismissed it.
The prosecutor told me that he would show the jury the address on my D.L., but he forgot to even do that. He did show that I had received mail there, but never showed or argued that I lived or even slept there. On the other hand, I brought in witnesses and evidence to show where I was sleeping. My parole officer also testified that I was told to register the address at where I slept.
Regardless of all of this, I was still found guilty and sentenced to 11 months jail. Plus the judge put down that I wasn’t eligible for work release. Bright side was apparently a lot of people were bragging about basically framing me and the warden heard about it. He sent me to the work release anyway, but simply put that I was doing my jail time there. So I was allowed to work, but didn’t have to pay half my earnings to the work release center like everyone else on “work release”.
Once I free, I noticed that the registration form changed. It now has separate living address and mailing address. I always wonder if that was a result of my judicial fight or just a coincidence.
Nothing unusual about POs acting like this. Another example of my theory that most POs are just a bunch of Failed cops or cop wannabes with a God complex.
I had a similar PO and found the best way to deal with her was to simply stand up against her and her insanity. Whenever she threatened to revoke over something stupid, I’d cross my wrists behind my back and say, “Let’s go.” Fortunately for me, she backed down every time and wasn’t my PO much longer.
While fear of revocation is definitely concerning, I’ve found one is better served to get past it to fight this kind of insanity. I don’t recommend it for everybody in all situations, but I would have no problem eating an FTR arrest to force the PO to explain to the court – on the record – how living at a motel next to a park is somehow perfectly safe but a house a few hundred feet away from the same park is not. Or the reasoning behind the bar on submitting addresses for approval for two months. Or any of the other absurd “because I said so” conditions applied poorly disguised as public safety measures.
Why is it a lot of these stories reek of “because we can” and has very little to nothing to do with actual public safety? Why are PO’s allowed to treat people like this? Why isn’t there a serious backlash of legal troubles for States that do this to people who have served their time and just want to be left alone? When is enough punishment enough? What are the guidelines for the Eighth Amendment? Has anyone ever even pursued this avenue? How many “restrictions” are considered for public safety and how far does it take to be considered cruel and unusual? How is “unusual” defined for purposes of the Amendment? Or is it just a free for all that can be abused to no end?
At some point punishment should end and rehabilitation begins before re-entering society. I’d rather have a stable person living nearby than an unstable one with nothing to lose. Good people do bad things and change, however the forever changing goal posts make change harder to achieve. Officers should want those on their caseload to be successful however most have ego driven. Those in positions of power say they believe in second changes, but all they care about is lining their pockets and continuing the status quo.
William, that’s the problem with those creeps in the Wisconsin DOC. They like to make rules up as they go along, even if those rules run counter to state and local ordinances. Your PO knew dam well there was no ordinance preventing you from living in your home, and even if there was, you most likely would have been grandfathered in. The Wisconsin DOC has never really been put in their place. Someone needs to put their foot in their as. A deep dose of successful lawsuits needs to hurt them bad.