Oh, look, now Virginia has their own 666 bill! I see a trend here

When I reported on Wisconsin's SB 666, I said that ALL sex offender bills should have a similar designation. Coincidentally, it seems the state with the slogan that implies they are the state for losers also have a 666 bill. Maybe this RSO laws are 666 is finally catching on. (Okay, so the House version is HB1190, but c'mon, SB 666 just stays with you.)

So what is Virginia's SB 666? Apparently, it will ban registered citizens from buying those obnoxious "specialty license plates" that benefit children's programs. I personally can't see why a registered citizen would bother buying one, especially one that benefits a children's charity. I wouldn't buy a Lauren Book license place, for example, much less subject a car to having such a tacky piece of pressed metal. But, different strokes for different folks.

It seems another activist has already done a very detailed analysis on this stupid bill. Check out the following link

http://restoringintegritytovirginiaregistry.blogspot.com/2016/02/legislative-predator-hysteria-continues.html

Finally, a SO-related bill gets the proper number it deserves-- WI's newest paedonymic bill is AB 666

Another year, another paedonymic law ("Alicia's Law) comes out of the woodwork to erode the rights of the accused even more. At least this bill gets the number all bills like this one deserve-- the MARK OF THE BEAST.

666

So anyways, this bill will allow the AG's office to issue "administrative subpoenas" against you under the guise of searching for internet predators under a lower standard of "reasonable cause."

From WisconsinWatchdog.org

http://watchdog.org/254433/constitutional-law-online/

‘Alicia’s Law’ raises serious constitutional concerns

By M.D. Kittle  /   January 19, 2016  /   News  / 

MADISON, Wis. — Alicia Kozakiewicz’s story is horrifying, heartbreaking.

A 13-year-old girl lured from her Pittsburgh home by an online predator, who kidnapped her, then raped and photographed her for four days. That is, until law enforcement was able to track the perpetrator online, crash into his home and rescue Kozakiewicz.

But the model legislation that bears her name and has been on a fast-track to passage in the Legislature raises some deep constitutional questions about how far cops and prosecutors can go in the name of protecting children from Internet criminals.

Critics of the unfortunately numbered Assembly Bill 666 fear the legislation as written would bypass judicial oversight to give law enforcement an extraordinarily powerful search and seizure tool.

“Alicia’s Law,” pushed by Wisconsin Attorney General Brad Schimel and co-authored by state Rep. Joel Kleefisch, R-Oconomowoc, and Sen. Van Wanggaard, R-Racine, would authorize the attorney general “or his or her designee” the power to issue an administrative subpoena. The new authority, Schimel and the bill’s advocates insist, would help the state Department of Justice’s Internet Crimes Against Children task force more quickly and nimbly go after predators and other online criminals in “real time.”

As the law was originally written, an Internet service provider would be compelled to “produce documents or records helpful to an investigation of an Internet crime against a child.”

And administrative subpoenas would be issued without any judicial oversight, based on the wider standard of “reasonable cause,” not probable cause.

The Wisconsin State Public Defender’s Office has raised concerns about the potentially far-reaching nature of the subpoena power, asserting at a hearing last week before the Assembly Committee on Criminal Justice & Public Safety that, “no matter the worthiness of the goal,” such investigative tools would expand the “government’s ability to obtain information on people, who, at that moment, are still presumed innocent by law.”

The bill does include an amendment that removes language compelling ISPs to hand over a customer’s “records, information and documentary evidence,” but discretion on when to issue the subpoena remains in the hands of the Attorney General’s office.

That power doesn’t sit well with state Rep. Fred Kessler, D-Milwaukee. Kessler, a member of the Criminal Justice Committee, said he could not understand why Internet crime investigators need to bypass the current and effective judicial oversight-based procedure.

“Why do we need an administrative subpoena when we can just walk down the hall to the duty judge and swear a witness and have an actually constitutionally protected search warrant issued?” Kessler asked Schimel at the Jan. 13 hearing.

The attorney general said what investigators seek are subpoenas, not warrants, and they would be used to track the computer addresses of those suspected of engaging in Internet crimes.

“It takes days before we have a subpoena signed and shipped to Internet service providers,” Schimel said.

The most powerful testimony came from the model legislation’s namesake, Alicia Kozakiewicz.

Now 27, Kozakiewicz described how a teen who came from a protective, supportive family met a “friend” online who turned out to be a predator.

“I was that terrified little girl who was lured from my home, taken across state lines, chained by my neck, forced into a disgusting basement dungeon and tortured, raped and photographed by a sadistic pedophile for four days and nights,” she told the committee. “I was that little 90-pound girl who cried for my mommy and daddy, who prayed for somebody, anybody to come find and save me from this hell.”

Kozakiewicz said she turned out to be that “lucky girl” because a child rescue team was able to track the predator’s online whereabouts.

“There was no other way to find me. No trail, no footprints in the snow,” she said.

But while Kozakiewicz’s case may illustrate the need for rapid law enforcement action, does such power come at the cost of civil rights?

In 2014, Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes discontinued the office’s use of administrative subpoenas because of the potential for abuse, the Salt Lake Tribune reported. His investigators, in most cases, have to get clearance from a judge.

“The wholesale writing yourself a note to go after that stuff without any check is too dangerous and the potential for abuse becomes too dangerous,” Reyes told the publication. “I think we can still win, but winning the right way is more important.”

He said the only time an administrative subpoena may be in order is an “emergency situation, like an Amber Alert with a predator whose information we absolutely had to access.”

Schimel said the number of referrals to Wisconsin’s DOJ from the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children has jumped from 266 in 2005 to 1,300 in 2015. Meanwhile, the resources to fight online predators hasn’t kept up, the attorney general said.

“Many child sex offenders go undetected because they cloak themselves in the anonymity of the Internet. Alicia’s law would give law enforcement and prosecutors tools to catch predators more quickly without compromising constitutional rights,” he said.

But Schimel and other supporters of the bill attempt to make their case by arguing Internet addresses and other online information don’t belong to the individual, but to the ISPs. That’s kind of like saying a homeowner who has a mortgage on her house has to open up the contents of her home to the bank anytime it wishes.

The bill also raises some questions of basic fairness.

To pay for the increased costs to administer the initiative, anyone convicted of a misdemeanor — any misdemeanor — would be assessed a $20 surcharge. Those convicted of a felony would be assessed a $40 surcharge.

A 2012 report by the Legislative Audit Bureau found the addition of surcharges and increasing court costs and fines decreased the likelihood the state would collect the full bill.

“More recent examination of this example of the law of diminishing returns has confirmed that as the monetary penalties levied as part of a sentence increase, the amount collected decreases,” the Public Defender’s Office wrote in testimony before the Criminal Justice Committee. “Surcharge revenue is proven to be an unstable funding source for important programs such as crime victim services or court operations at the county level.”

Another amendment would assess surcharges only on those convicted of Internet and child-related crimes.

Some also have expressed concern about the speed of “Alicia’s Law” moving through the Assembly. The bill was submitted for co-sponsorship Jan. 4, introduced Jan. 11, and two days later the Criminal Justice Committee held a hearing.

A vote on the bill could have come up for Assembly debate as early as Tuesday, but it was not on the calendar as of Tuesday morning.

Adam Plotkin, legislative liaison for the Public Defender’s Office, said it has been hard to get answers on the rapidity of the legislation. Kleefisch last week said he would like to pass the bill and have the governor sign it into law quickly because it “will save people like Alecia.”

The Public Defender’s Office has not taken a public position on the bill, only testifying in an information capacity.

But Plotkin said caution on the part of lawmakers is highly recommended.

“We thank the bill’s authors for addressing some of our concerns (through the amendments),” Plotkin said. “We want to make sure the Legislature is aware of those constitutional issues.”

He added that the goal of the bill is worthwhile, but “people need to make sure constitutional rights aren’t eroded over time.”

Among other stupid things in Florida's HB 1179, this bill could require visiting registrants to pay up to $300

You can always count on the land of 'Duh to find new and stupider ways to mess with registered citizens annually. So this year, they're already pushing the latest round of BS. Lets look at HB 1179

HB 1179: Criminal Offenders

GENERAL BILL by Raulerson

Criminal Offenders; Provides additional mandatory term of incarceration for specified offenses committed by sexual offenders & predators; authorizes sheriffs to assess fees for registering & reregistering specified types of offenders subject to registration requirements; specifies maximum fees; provides requirements for use of fees; provides for relocation of registrants; provides enhanced criminal penalties for repeat violations of provisions prohibiting forcing another into prostitution; requires persons convicted of specified prostitution related offenses to register as sexual offenders; prohibits failure to pay required fees; provides additional conditions for sex offender probation & community control for certain offenders & controllees who commit qualifying offenses after specified date; provides that such conditions do not need to be pronounced orally at time of sentencing; provides that such conditions may be applied to other relevant offenders; requires supervision by DOC officers who have specified training & limited caseloads.

There are a few things here that makes this bill Shiitake-Worthy. 

First, the bill creates a confusing fee scale. "The sheriff of each county may charge criminal registration fees for sexual predators, sexual offenders, career offenders, and convicted felons for the initial registration, reregistration, and registration updates with that sheriff. Annual fees during a registration year, excluding the initial registration fee of a nonresident of this state, may not exceed $200 per sexual predator, $100 per sexual offender, $50 per career offender, or $25 per felony offender." But get this, "When an offender from another jurisdiction who meets the criteria under this section and is not a resident of this state registers for the first time, a $300 initial registration fee shall be assessed and collected by the sheriff." So, if you visit FloriDUH long enough to have to register (the state says 5 days but I've heard registration periods as short as 12 hours in some places), you might be expected to pay up to $300 just for visiting the land of 'Duh!

I'd like to add the probation conditions added to this bill are outlandish, such as polygraphs, prohibitions against having a PO box (why?), and most importantly, the court does not even have to notify the defendant of these guidelines. That is ridiculous. 

But that $300 fee for visiting FloriDUH stands out. That is definitely worthy of a Shiitake Award. 

Feel free to read this shit for yourself:

https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2016/1179

Virginia wants to remind us Virginia is indeed for losers as they add over 5000 names to the registry overnight!

It is 2016, and just like last year, the New Year began with a nomination right off the bat (it should have been up yesterday, but I was having a Football binge). If you live in Virginia and your conviction was between 1980 and 1994, your life was just made worse.
http://www.dailyprogress.com/starexponent/approximately-names-added-to-virginia-sex-offender-registry/article_74e33d82-b09b-11e5-aad7-7773eb9c218d.html

Approximately 5,604 names added to Virginia Sex Offender Registry

Posted: Friday, January 1, 2016 10:22 am
STAR-EXPONENT STAFF
The Virgina State Police recently added approximately 5,604 names to the Virginia Sex Offender and Crimes Against Minors Registry.
The so-called "Supplement" to the list includes information on individuals not previously listed who were convicted of certain sexual offenses on or after July 1, 1980, and before July 1, 1994, according to a state police news release.
The public can view the names at ********
Creating the additional list complies with “Robby’s Rule,” legislation passed in 2015 by the Virginia General Assembly. State legislators also amended an existing law, Code Section 9.1-918 Misuse of registry or supplement information; penalty, to include the additional names.
The Virginia State Police Sex Offender Investigative Unit and Criminal Justice Information Services Division (CJIS) spent the past six months researching and verifying names and personal information required by law to be included on the Supplement, according to the news release. State law requires the name of each convicted offender to include their “year of birth, date of the conviction, the jurisdiction in which the conviction occurred, the person's age on the date of the conviction, the offense of which he was convicted, and the Code of Virginia section of the conviction.”
The Supplement differs from the full Sex Offender Registry, established in 1994, as it does not provide convicted offenders’ photographs nor are those listed “subject to the registration requirements" of other previously listed convicted sex offenders.
State law permits those listed on the Supplement to “petition the circuit court in which he was convicted or the circuit court where he then resides for removal of his name and conviction information from the Supplement if the offense he was convicted of would qualify for removal from the Registry under Code Section 9.1-910, according to the state police.