Apparently, Oregon is trying. The story goes thusly: Oregon sent a cease and desist letter to Justia and Public.Resource.Org. They claimed a copyright in the “arrangement and subject matter compilation of Oregon statutory law…” Thus, Oregon is asking these sites to take down the Oregon statutes they make available for free.

Most of the correspondence is available for view here. As Justia and P.R.O point out in this letter, the Oregon website is horribly W3C non-compliant (there are over 503,000 HTML errors!), is not “section 508” compliant, doesn’t use CSS (!!!) and even has a robots.txt file that blocks search engines!

How is that “accessible to the public”? The site lacks functionality and may not be accessible by all browsers and all operating systems.

So, what if a State decides to either charge for access to its statutes or makes it publicly available on a crappy website where not all can view the pages. Do we have a legitimate notice problem? I know we are all presumed to know the law, but if the State is charging for access to the actual text of the Statutes, or makes them difficult to access, what are the chances of successfully defending a prosecution on due process grounds?

Also, what the hell is wrong with Oregon? Why, in this day and age, would you be so stubborn and so stupid? What is really the point of “protecting” the Code? I don’t understand what they’re trying to accomplish, other than look foolish.

Anyway, anyone see a potential notice problem here?

H/T: HaveOpinionWillTravel

I’m sorry, I have to say it. She’s freakin’ scary now. I think she’s lost it and I can almost picture her sitting in a darkened room, illuminated by frequent lightning, hair standing up, rubbing her hands together, eyes pointing in separate directions, cackling, laughing maniacally as she imagines these proposals.

The Governor, as part of her budget and state of the state speech yesterday, proposed these changes to the criminal justice system. Are you ready?

I will be submitting legislation to require a mandatory minimum sentence for Burglary in the Second Degree and to change Burglary in the First Degree to include burglary of an occupied dwelling, day or night.

I wonder if she reads the current statutes before making these proposals: “By Jove! I’ve got a brilliant idea! Let’s outlaw one man killing another!”

I would also like to put in place a three-strikes law for those convicted of three violent felony offenses.

And to satisfy those who thought mistakenly there was an “out” in the original proposal, I am removing the possibility of a case review after 30 years. Now it’s three strikes for violent felony convictions and you’re truly out.

There you go. “Original” three-strikes. Completely ineffective and counter productive. I’m also particularly tickled by the “to satisfy those…” comment. American Idol Governor, indeed.

I am also proposing legislation to significantly toughen our laws dealing with sex offenders.

All too often we hear or read about a predator attempting to entice a child online or about a sex offender failing to register as required.

One simple fix I am proposing is to bar offenders from legally changing their names to escape police attention or to avoid registration.

Again with this recidivism nonsense and this shows real ignorance on the topic. Yeah, we hear about MySpace predators because every single time it happens, there’s a media frenzy. Yet, 90-ish % of “predators” will be within the family. They don’t need myspace.

This name changing this is also odd. Why can’t they be allowed to change their name, as long as they register? To change your name, you have to get an order from Court, no? So if you’re on the sex offender registry, it should be pretty easy for someone to figure that out and make the change in the registry.

But I want to go further. I want to require offenders to report in person to police and to provide the name and address of their employers and the license plate number and description of their cars.

And they will also have a special imprint on their driver’s licenses.

Further than need be… This is scarlet letter territory we’re entering into here. Why should the sex offender have to provide the name of his employer? Do we want to further outcast these people? Look at my post from the other day, about the sex offender who can’t be located because he’s been kicked around like a football, or the sex offenders living under the bridge in Miami, one of whom has decided to disappear. Yeah, that’s public safety.

And in the name of public protection, I am calling for another significant change: I want all persons arrested for an A or B felony the most serious of criminal charges to provide DNA samples immediately upon arraignment.Those convicted of lesser felonies and certain misdemeanors must provide a DNA sample at conviction.

These samples will be processed to see if there are any matches related to unsolved crimes.

Incredibly, the law on the books only requires DNA samples to be taken at the end of the inmate’s sentence.

This is where one eye starts spinning uncontrollably, some cats enter the picture and fade to black.

This is just frightening. Absolutely frightening. Presumption of innocence? Them’s just fancy terms. Don’t mean nothing. You’re arrested so you’re guilty. Give up your damn DNA. Heck, I got a better idea. Why wait for people to be arrested. Let’s just have the police go to everyone’s homes. We can all stand in our yards in a line and the police can walk by, taking our DNA. You know, because innocent people don’t exist. Diogenes was right. There isn’t an honest man.

By the way, the statute calls for DNA to be collected after conviction. DOC can choose to collect that sample upon initial entry and they don’t always collect it prior to release.

She’s absolutely lost it and has no idea what to do and what not to do. Pandering is scary enough. This delusional law-making is scarier.

More from CTLP, CT News Junkie.

Disclaimer: This is my opinion. I don’t really think she looks like that in her home. That was my poor attempt at satire. Also, I don’t know what the public defender’s office’s official position would be. This is just mine.

A few days ago, I noticed a story in the Boston Globe about residents in a New Hampshire town who rejoiced after successfully getting a sex offender to leave their community. It was of particular interest to me because that sex offender was from Connecticut and the story said he would be returning here.

So it came as no surprise when I saw this report today. It says that he is on the move - perhaps with a one-way ticket to prison.

This is really stupid and I think the “biggest waste of law enforcement funds this week” nominee. The offender, Douglas Simmons, was in compliance with registration requirements while he lived in CT. Then he decided to move to NH. So what does he do? He notifies the police in New Hampshire when he gets there. Not good enough, say the police. He has to inform police in Connecticut as well, that he is moving out of state.

This seems pointless to me. Either he is living in the state and in compliance or not living in the state and therefore shouldn’t have to comply. Some law enforcement agency knew of his whereabouts at the mandated interval. What difference does it make that it was New Hampshire law enforcement?  The NH police contacted CT to say “hey, one of your guys moved here”. Apparently, they’re not to be trusted.

The statute has has violated is C.G.S 54-252, which provides in relevant part:

If any person who is subject to registration under this section changes such person’s address, such person shall, without undue delay, notify the Commissioner of Public Safety in writing of the new address and, if the new address is in another state, such person shall also register with an appropriate agency in that state, provided that state has a registration requirement for such offenders.

I want to know what undue delay means and what the delay was in this case. Either way, the prosecutor handling this case should really look at this and see whether this needs to be prosecuted. I don’t think it does.

Now, his current whereabouts are unknown, because, you know, he was kicked out of his last town. Do you blame him? This is a guy who committed a pretty ugly offense. He served 22 years in jail for it (day for day, it seems). Then he gets out and has to register for life. Which he does dutifully. Then he decides to move. So thinking logically, he notifies the town he moves into. They freak out and kick him out. He leaves and moves back to his home state. Now he’s wanted by the police and will have to go back to jail for some bs violation. I’d be tempted to give the State the finger at that point. Wouldn’t you?

Now that stricter home invasion laws have been enacted, Governor Rell indicated at a press conference today that she will be considering whether to lift the parole ban this weekend. This will certainly be good news for a correctional system that is barely hanging on by a thread and is bursting at the seams (hah! TWO in a row!).

At a ceremony Friday, in which Mrs. Rell signed into law the new criminal justice reforms passed earlier this week by the legislature, she said she needs to make sure a few more things are in place before she lifts the ban. However, “I hope to have that decision over the weekend,” she said.

Cathy Osten, a lieutenant and president of CSEA/SEIU Local 2001’s correctional supervisors, said Friday morning that all the state’s correctional facilities are overcrowded. She said she’s been with the department more than 18 years and it’s been overcrowded almost half of that time. She said the current population increase is a result of the governor’s ban on parole.

Ironically, her new bill might get its first test on the first day! The wife of the Assistant Deputy House Speaker walked in on two robbers in her home today (Morons). Will it matter what time she actually signed the bill into law?

Gov. Rell also indicated that she would try and raise a three-strikes bill again, because the people of CT want it or some such nonsense. Except that the most recent QU poll showed that they don’t. I guess she’s the American Idol Governor only when it suits her ideas.

Forgotten in this Cheshire mess is the sentencing commission that started work in May, which was charged with looking at how to change the state’s sentencing laws for the better. Ah, back in May, when Komisarjevsky was still on GPS monitoring and the Petit women were alive.

Glad to hear that someone thought to ask them of their other business. Cheshire has overshadowed the fact that CT has draconian drug laws and there is a racial disparity in sentencing and even charging.

[New Haven Public Defender Tom] Ullmann and several other members suggested the task force may be missing a chance to make long-term changes in the justice system.

Others said the group will continue to discuss issues such as mandatory minimum drug sentences and racial disparity in sentencing even as it deals with parole system gaps exposed by the Cheshire case.

Some of the juicy things on their agenda:

The task force divided into four subcommittees that would discuss alternatives to incarceration, sentencing structure, the racial imbalance in prisons and how to classify some drug offenses and other crimes that carry a broad range of possible sentences.

These are all excellent areas of investigation and reform. Thankfully last year the legislature eliminated the disparity between crack and powder cocaine sentencing (I think…I may be imagining it).

Prison overcrowding is an immense problem and all of these avenues will help to reduce it and hopefully, get to the source of the problem for most drug offenders: addiction.

I wish there was some way to study racial disparities in charging, but it seems too daunting a task.

Of all the groups commenting on Cheshire, this task force has been oddly silent. Not all members agree:

Some members say the task force should lend its voice to the Cheshire debate so the state does not make any rash changes.

“I think it’s incumbent upon us to respond,” said Andrew Clark, a group member and the administrator of the Institute for the Study of Crime & Justice at Central Connecticut State University. “We have to ask tough questions and come up with real solutions.”

But there has been, at least for some members, a shift in focus.

The sentencing task force changed its focus at the same time. It studied tougher burglary laws and looked at the impact a tougher “three strikes and you’re out” law would have on prison overcrowding.

“It’s almost like members are bending over backward to join the throng of punitive measures,” said Jon Schoenhorn, a task force member and president of the Connecticut Criminal Defense Lawyers Association. “It violates the entire purpose of why this task force was created.”

“Three strikes laws” + prison overcrowding: Not gettin’ better any time soon.

Grits writes today of the counterproductive nature of policies that bar felons from gaining employment upon release. He points to this press release by the CEO of a security camera surveillance company lamenting the foolishness of such policies. I agree with both of them, but I don’t think any shift in policy will happen any time soon. Rehabilitation and re-integration into society have long been abandoned as goals of the correctional institutions and  the penal system in this country (and many others).

Think about it. What is the last thing you want a just released inmate to be doing? Nothing. That’s right. You don’t want him to be sitting around on street corners wondering where the next meal is going to come from or where he’s going to sleep. That is not a good formula for re-integration. More often than not, he will resort to the only thing he knows: How to make quick money. More often than not, that will not involve legitimate means. Crime will continue to occur.

If we are to make our streets safer and to reduce the burden on taxpayers, then we need to focus on re-entry programs and in assisting recently released inmates obtain lawful employment. The money we spend on these programs will be quickly offset by the savings from reduced incarceration costs, law enforcement costs and will only help local economies.

So what is standing in the way? Are we that invested in the idea that “criminals” are “monsters” and “evil” and cannot be salvaged? Are we that invested in our moral highground that we cannot see beyond our own nose?

No one is better off with these policies. Which is why I was extremely glad when Connecticut introduced a proposal to provide gate pay to inmates earlier this year. We need more steps like these to ensure that when inmates are released, they aren’t forced back into a life of crime.

The Windypundit (sorry Mark, but I like calling you that!) writes here about what he considers to be evil suspicious reasons for legislation.

Another example of a free punishment is suspending someone’s driver’s license. To the person who loses their driving privileges, it’s a disruptive life change, but to the government that does it to them, it’s just a database entry and a form letter. So any time politicians want to “get tough” on drunk drivers or parking ticket scofflaws they just tack on a license suspension or increase one that’s already there, because they pay no cost for doing so.

It’s not that there aren’t good reasons for taking away the licenses of drunk drivers and keeping violent felons from owning guns. However, as long as doing so doesn’t cost anything, there’s going to be a temptation to punish too much, just because we can.

It’s a good time to remind my CT readers about the awful DUI bill the legislature passed this past session. Miranda gave us the highlights:

Get ready for the next wave of [insert victim's name]’s Law. Officials in the Upper Bucks borough of PA will urge legislators to pass “Robin’s Law” which is the same as Megan’s Law, except for domestic violence offenders. Yeah. You read that right. Domestic Violence.

To do what? To protect “other people”. Huh? Are we now legislating good dating habits?

Introduced in the state House on May 31, the bill would create a Megan’s Law-style database. Instead of sexual predators though, the picture, address and crime of domestic violence convicts will be posted online for anyone to see, according to a preliminary draft of the bill.If approved, the database would be the direct outgrowth of the Quakertown murder-suicide of June 15, 2004. That day Robin Shaffer was shot to death by her estranged husband, Jeffrey Ogle, at her Quakertown apartment. Ogle then led police on a day-long manhunt that ended when he killed himself beside the train tracks in the borough.

Heidi Markow, Shaffer’s sister, came up with the idea for a domestic violence registry, seeing it as a way to forge something positive from her sister’s death.

Domestic abuse, by definition, refers to those who abuse domestic partners. Y’know, those who are in relationships with other people. How is this a “risk to the community” group?

Also, what is the need for these offenders to register their address? If the goal is to help other women “avoid potentially disastrous relationships by checking, with the click of a mouse, if the new man they’re dating has a history of domestic abuse”, then shouldn’t a name be enough? Why should they have to register?

Oh boy.

Sometimes I feel like the Aflac duck.

(HT: C&C)

Two New Jersey legislative proposals in the past few days caught my eye: one good, one bad. In the plus column is New Jersey’s bill to abolish the death penalty, which was voted out of the Judiciary Committee (8-2) and now heads to the full Assembly for a vote.

If also passed by the Assembly and signed by Gov. Jon Corzine, who opposes capital punishment, it would make New Jersey the first state to legislatively abolish capital punishment since 1976. That was the year the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the first revised death penalty laws after striking them down nationwide four years earlier.

“That would be historic,” said Richard Dieter, director of the Death Penalty Information Center in Washington, D.C.

The bill’s sponsor, Sen. Raymond Lesniak (D-Union), said passing it would “give New Jersey an opportunity to lead the nation by recognizing the death penalty has no reason to exist.”

“The death penalty cannot be fixed,” Lesniak said. “The time has come to abolish it.”

Full audio of the judiciary committee hearing is available here. Click on listen and then skip to around 51 minutes in.

HT: CDW

On the other hand, Lyndhurst, NJ has this asinine proposal:

Lyndhurst is gathering feedback on a proposal to require background and fingerprint checks of all ice-cream truck and other food-on-wheels vendors as a way to protect children. ‘Most of the people who come to an ice-cream truck are kids,’ says Mayor Richard DiLascio. ‘A parent might not always be around.’ Volunteer coaches and teachers must already submit to such checks.

This is nothing but fear mongering. As Mark Bennett rightly points out, only 7% of all reported sexual assaults against minors are carried out by strangers. He also has an interesting proposal to reduce child sexual assault.

Yes, that is a “Jersey Ice Cream ” ice cream truck in the picture.

Adding to the list of bills coming out of the Judiciary Committee last week is a baaaaaad DUI bill.

S.B. 1348

Among the many and extremely harsh changes:

1. Legal limit for those operating a CDL is .04; legal limit for those under 21 is .02

2. Evidence of BAC is admissible now, even if police failed to (a) “comply strictly” with the requirements of the statute, as long as the state can establish good cause, which includes showing that “the alleged failure does not materially affect the validity of such results”; and/or (b) provide our clients with a reasonable opportunity to contact an attorney before consenting or refusing to perform the requested test.

3. When prosecuted under subsection (1), evidence of BAC is now admissible all the time, not only when the defendant requests it. In other words, if my client blew a .06, thereby precluding a prosecution under subsection (2), the state can introduce the test in support of its case under subsection (1).

4. Fines and penalties are increased.

5. To be considered as a multiple offender, the state can look back over your entire driving record, not just the last 10 years. For example, if you were convicted for DUI at 21 and get convicted again at 50, you will be a second offender, where you used to be considered a first offender.

6. The new mandatory minimum for second offender is 180 days (previously 120). For third offender and beyond, it is two years (previously 1 year).

7. And, perhaps my favorite part, for third offense and beyond, the state will order forfeiture of the vehicle you were driving at the time of the offense, as long as you were the legal title holder of the vehicle. The state will then sell the vehicle at auction to fund the Criminal Injuries Compensation Fund. Please note that your car may also be forfeited if your license is suspended for DUI (even ABSENT any conviction) under certain circumstances. Further note, if convicted of Manslaughter in the second degree with a motor vehicle or Assault in the second degree, the state can order forfeiture of the vehicle involved even if the operator did not have legal title to it. For forfeiture to apply, the operator need only have “lawful possession” of the vehicle. Be wary of lending your car out!

8. Finally, there are MANY changes affecting DMV procedures and operator’s license retention. But perhaps the most significant are the changes to the hearing process. At a hearing, our clients used to be able to challenge whether the officer had probable cause to arrest them for DUI. If successful, they kept their licenses. Now, the hearing officers need not determine whether there was probable cause to arrest, but only whether (1) the person was arrested; (2) the person refused to take or registered a BAC above the legal limit; and (3) the person was operating a motor vehicle. The hearing is not only strictly limited to those issues, but also must be “based on” documentary evidence submitted by the arresting officer. Moreover, the statute now requires our clients to pay the fees of any witnesses summoned to appear at these hearings. Oh, one other thing - there is no longer any appeal from the suspension decision. In the end, our clients enjoy significantly less protection and opportunity to fight the suspension of their licenses, and a license may be lawfully suspended as a result of an arrest for DUI, even absent probable cause for the arrest. If I am pulled over, hauled out of my car with no explanation, immediately placed under arrest for DUI and refuse to take a breath test without first speaking to an attorney, my license will be suspended, and I cannot do anything to stop it. The police report need not justify the stop or the officer’s reasons for believing I was under the influence.

P.S. Not sure it’s worthy of noting but because I have friends who ask me all the time: If this bill becomes law, while it will still not be illegal to have an open container of alcohol in your vehicle, it will constitute a rebuttable presumption that the operator was drinking it at the time of operation, which IS illegal.