Archive for the 'Criminal Law' CategoryPage 2 of 6

No Sex Offenders with Candy on Halloween

Trick or treat, give me something good to eat.

Unless you’re a sex offender, in which case you’re going to jail.

There’s a law in New Jersey that forbids sex offenders from giving out candy on Halloween. That means Lester down the street won’t giving out chocolate yum-yums this year.

Don’t think this law is only going to affect a small number of people. Did you know there are 2,200 sexual crime offenders registered in the state of New Jersey?

It makes you think though, how many of these sex offenders used candy to lure children? Did any of them poison food or candy and then give it to them? Did they somehow put some sort of date rape drug in candy or food?

It seems the main goal is to prevent the contact between children and sex crime offenders. It’s a very reasonable concern. Most parents are already wary of their children coming into close contact with strangers, now add the fact that these strangers are convicted sex offenders and that concern raises to another level. People nowadays are scared to let their children out alone and if they know a convicted sex offender is out there then they’re even more scared.

Do sex crime offenders commit their crimes again? If they’ve paid their dues to society shouldn’t they have the same rights as everyone else?

Let’s get some facts. The term for repeat offenders is recidivism and the rate of repeating the crime is recidivism rate. The problem with getting accurate numbers here is that the rate for actual reporting sex crimes is very low. Victims of sex crimes are twice as likely to tell friends and family than they are to go to authorities, like the police. And then we look at the actual sex offenders. A study performed lie detector tests (polygraph) on sex offenders in prison who had committed their crimes on less than two known victims. The researchers discovered that these offenders actually averaged 110 victims and 318 offenses. So there is a major problem with under-reporting sex crime offenses.

How are they going to keep tabs on these sex crime offenders to make sure they aren’t giving out candy?

There will be at least sixty parole officers and members of the 12 district officers patrolling and checking on the offenders. Sixty officers versus 2,200 sex offenders? Hmm, seems like there’s a number disparity here. But with police departments already stretched so thin, it’s a tough situation for police departments. Officers have to be patrolling other areas where public safety may be at risk also.

Classic Public Service Announcement Video:

FBI Threatens Man’s Family With Torture To Get Confession

From Boing Boing:

Long story short: Man is staying in hotel in NYC during the 9/11/2001 attacks. Hotel empties after attacks and device is found in man’s hotel room closet that allows communication with airline pilots. Man is Egyptian national, and FBI questions him. Man denies owning device.

FBI agent threatens that man’s family will be tortured in Egypt.

Man confesses, ultimately spending a month in jail before airline pilot shows up at hotel asking for radio left in man’s room back. Whoops! Lawsuits ensue.

From Steve Bergstein’s Psychosounds blog, where I found this:

“Higazy then realized he had a choice: he could continue denying the radio was his and his family suffers ungodly torture in Egypt or he confesses and his family is spared. Of course, by confessing, Higazy’s life is worth garbage at that point, but … well, that’s why coerced confessions are outlawed in the United States.”

Good thing the FBI doesn’t do this any more. Right?

We never would have known any of this as the US Court of Appeals in Manhattan redacted the description of the torture threats in its decision, but someone posted an unredacted decision on the web for a brief time. And a PDF of that is what’s making the rounds now.

Here’s the link to a story on the situation from the ABA Journal.

In it, the court claims it redacted the information about the torture threats to protect Higazy and his family. The story doesn’t say what they’re being protected from.

You Can Get a DUI Even If You’re Not Driving

An appellate court ruled that a conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol can be imposed on someone who isn’t driving but is behind the wheel.

Say what?

Well, David Montalvo, 36, was sleeping in his GMC pickup truck in the parking lot of a Market Place Deli, apparently sleeping off the effects of his drinking from the night before. A police officer from the Hamburg Police Department knocked on his pickup truck window at 5am in the morning. When Montalvo awoke, the officer instructed him to take a Breathalyzer test due to suspicion of drinking, but Montalvo refused to take the test.

Montalvo was arrested and entered a forced conditional guilty plea. His lawyer, Evan M. Levow, argued that the officer had no reasonable grounds to suspect a criminal activity on a guy sleeping in his truck. One key piece that may have affected the situation is that his car was running, although it was parked. The temperature was 25 degrees Fahrenheit so he apparently had the heater running.

The appellate court disagreed with Montalvo and Levow.

“From the perspective of the officer on the scene, I don’t find at all that what he was doing was unreasonable. In fact, I find it would have been unreasonable to have stopped his inquiries at any point short of what he did,” said Superior Court Judge Thomas Critchley Jr. “The officer wanted to make sure the driver was ‘okay,’ nothing was wrong with the businesses and that the truck was operating properly. We are convinced that under the facts as observed by Officer Aaronson defendant was lawfully subject to limited inquiry based upon an objectively reasonable exercise of the officer’s community caretaking function.”

Now the sleeping motorist has a DUI on his record, a “driver responsibility” tax of $3000, miscellaneous fines and fees of around $1000 and legal bills to take care of.

Doesn’t seem right to me. Wasn’t he doing the right thing sleeping off his drunkenness in a parking lot?

I can see both sides of it.

On one hand, the police officer has a duty to keep drunk drivers off the street. How can he be assured that half an hour later he’d wake up and still being intoxicated drive around and smash into something or someone?

On the other hand, it’s much better to have a drunk driver sleeping it off in a parking lot than trying to get home drunk. Do you think maybe this ruling may cause more people to drive home drunk because they’ll be scared a cop will give them a DUI for stopping somewhere to sober up? It’s a tough situation for sure.

Legal Filing: A-1303-06T5 STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. DAVID MONTALVO
(SUSSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)