Boston Sex Offender Law

Attorney Crouch Secures Protection For Level 2 Sex Offenders Seeking Reclassification

Andrew Crouch — Sun, 10 Dec 2017 22:47:35 +0000

In Doe No. 326573 v. Sex Offender Registry Board, 477 Mass. 361 (2017), the Supreme Judicial Court issued a crucial decision protecting the rights of sex offenders to seek reduction in their classification levels. Boston sex offender attorney Attorney Crouch represented the plaintiff in Doe No. 326573 and secured a key victory for due process and the rights of Massachusetts Level 2 sex offenders.

The court had previously stopped the Sex Offender Registry Board (SORB) “from publishing on the Internet the registry information of any individual who was finally classified as a level two sex offender on or before July 12, 2013, unless the individual is subsequently reclassified a level two or level three sex offender.” In Doe No. 326573, the SORB contended that, when it unsuccessfully seeks after July 12, 2013, to reclassify a level two sex offender as a level three sex offender, the individual is reclassified a level two sex offender it may therefore publish the individual’s registry information on the Internet.

Attorney Crouch argued and the court agreed that a sex offender is “reclassified” only where a hearing officer allows SORB’s motion to increase his or her classification based on new information indicating an increased risk of sexual recidivism, not where the hearing officer denies the SORB’s motion for reclassification and retains the earlier level two classification. The court wrote:

In essence, SORB’s argument is that, when it moves to reclassify a level two offender who was classified on or before July 12, 2013, it is “heads, we win, tails, you (the offender) lose.” If SORB prevails on its motion to reclassify the offender from level two to level three based on its new information, it may publish the offender’s registry information on its Web site on the Internet. If it fails to prevail on its motion, the offender will be reclassified a level two offender, and it may publish the offender’s registry information on its Web site on the Internet. We decline to adopt such a rule. The denial of SORB’s motion to reclassify level two offenders who were finally classified on or before July 12, 2013, cannot transform them “into something akin to level ‘two and one-half’ offenders.” Such a result would not respect our conclusion in Moe that retroactive application of the 2013 amendments requiring Internet publication of registry information for these level two offenders “would be unreasonable and inequitable, and therefore unconstitutional as a violation of due process.” Nor does it respect the gravity of Internet publication of an offender’s registry information, which magnifies the “risk of serious adverse consequences to that offender, including the risk that the sex offender will suffer discrimination in employment and housing, and will otherwise suffer from the stigma of being identified as a sex offender, which sometimes means the additional risk of being harassed or assaulted.”

At oral argument in the case, the SORB also agreed to stop its long-standing practice of putting Level 2 offenders who were classified before July 12, 2013, on the internet if their reclassification motions were denied. This was a key issue for many Massachusetts Level 2 sex offenders who were worried about negative consequences following a reclassification request. In its decision, the court struck down the SORB’s practice:

We also decline to adopt SORB’s argument that, where a level two offender who was classified on or before July 12, 2013, moves to be reclassified as a level one offender, the denial of his or her motion means that the offender has been subsequently reclassified a level two offender and his or her registry information may now be published on the SORB Web site. Under the regulations in effect when Doe No. 15890 moved to reduce his classification, his failure to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that his classification should be reduced based on new information does not transform his level two classification into “something akin” to a level two and one-half classification. It means simply that his motion for reclassification is denied. If it meant more, level two offenders who were classified on or before July 12, 2013, would be deterred from ever seeking to move to reduce their classification level, because the denial of that motion would result in publication of their registry information on the SORB Web site on the Internet.

Expanding the dissemination of information of Massachusetts Level 2 sex offenders would be devastating for many registered offenders. It would vastly expand the number of Massachusetts sex offenders whose home, work, and educational information is splashed across the Internet and will reduce the utility of the site run by the Sex Offender Registry Board, which presently only lists the highest risk Massachusetts Level 2 and 3 sex offenders.

If you are a Level 2 sex offender in Massachusetts and have questions regarding your Massachusetts sex offender classification or wants assistance in reviewing or seeking sex offender reclassification, you need a Boston sex offender attorney. Please contact Attorney Crouch at (617) 441-5111 or email him to set up a free, initial consultation. To request further information please contact us.

Supreme Judicial Court Strikes Down Residency Restrictions For Sex Offenders

Andrew Crouch — Sun, 10 Dec 2017 21:25:40 +0000

In Doe v. City of Lynn, 472 Mass. 521 (2015), Attorney Crouch filed an amicus brief on behalf of numerous advocacy groups, including the Jacob Wetterling Resource Center and the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, challenging a local ordinance in the City of Lynn that prohibited sex offenders from living in a vast majority of the city. In the case, the Supreme Judicial Court struck down the ordinance restricting the rights of sex offenders to live in the city. The court’s decision resulted in the statewide elimination of so-called residency restrictions, those which prohibit sex offenders from living within certain distances of schools and other locations. The court held that the ordinance would have a negative effect on the monitoring of sex offenders and would undermine the effectiveness of the law’s classification system. The court found that as a supervised and stable home situation has been recognized as a factor that minimizes a sex offender’s risk of reoffense, the disruption caused by the ordinance would be inconsistent with the Legislature’s goal of protecting the public. As the court aptly said in its decision,

As a final observation on the legislative choice to define the sex offender residency restriction narrowly, we note the grave societal and constitutional implications of the de jure residential segregation of sex offenders. Except for the incarceration of persons under the criminal law and the civil commitment of mentally ill or dangerous persons, the days are long since past when whole communities of persons, such as Native Americans and Japanese-Americans, may be lawfully banished from our midst. Also, because of the tension between a sex offender’s liberty interest, and the imperatives of public safety, the Legislature has demonstrated a concern for careful crafting of laws in a field fraught with constitutional peril. For this reason as well, the Legislature cannot have intended to permit local regulation of sex offender residency.

The case is an an important one for Massachusetts sex offenders. Residence and work restrictions remain challenging situations for Massachusetts Level 1 and 2 sex offenders who rely on the Sex Offender Registry Board, to properly classify individuals and differentiate them from Massachusetts Level 3 sex offenders.

If you are a Level 1 or 2 sex offender in Massachusetts and have questions regarding your Massachusetts sex offender classification or wants assistance in reviewing or seeking sex offender reclassification, you need a Boston sex offender attorney. Please contact Attorney Crouch at (617) 441-5111 or email him to set up a free, initial consultation. To request further information please contact us.

Massachusetts Sex Offender Registry Board Updates Its Regulations

Andrew Crouch — Fri, 26 Feb 2016 20:53:05 +0000

The Massachusetts Sex Offender Registry Board recently implemented a substantial revision to its long outdated regulations. This revision follows many years of direction and then criticism from the state’s highest courts, including the Supreme Judicial Court in numerous decisions. The new regulations reflect the recent Supreme Judicial Court’s decision in John Doe No. 380316 vs. Sex Offender Registry Board, 473 Mass. 297 (2015), in which the court struck down the Sex Offender Registry Board’s use of the preponderance of evidence standard in Massachusetts sex offender classification hearings. Attorney Crouch participated in the Doe No. 3803816 case, arguing for the clear and convincing evidence standard on behalf of the Committee for Public Counsel Services.

For those individuals seeking sex offender reclassification or classification in Massachusetts, it is important to be aware of these changes.

As a result of these extensive changes to the Massachusetts sex offender registration law by the Board, as well as by the legislature and the courts, it is important for sex offenders in Massachusetts to consult with a Massachusetts sex offender attorney about legal assistance with their classification and sex offender reclassification matters. If you are interested in speaking with a Massachusetts sex offender attorney please contact Attorney Crouch at (617) 441-5111 or email him to set up a free, initial consultation.

Massachusetts Changes Classification Standard For Sex Offenders

Andrew Crouch — Fri, 26 Feb 2016 20:47:33 +0000

In a major decision that is likely to fundamentally change the classification of sex offenders in Massachusetts, the Supreme Judicial Court recently struck down the Sex Offender Registry Board’s use of the preponderance of evidence standard in classification hearings. In John Doe No. 380316 vs. Sex Offender Registry Board, 473 Mass. 297 (2015), the court held that amendments to the sex offender registry law means that risk classifications have far greater consequences than before, such that due process now requires that offender’s risk level be proved by higher clear and convincing evidence standard.

Attorney Crouch participated in this case, filing an amicus brief on behalf of the Committee for Public Counsel Services.

Since 2013, Massachusetts has changed a number of laws related to the classification and reclassification of Massachusetts sex offenders, especially for Massachusetts Level 2 sex offenders.

For those individuals seeking sex offender reclassification or classification in Massachusetts, it is important to be aware of these changes.

As a result of these extensive changes to the Massachusetts sex offender registration law by both the legislature and the courts, it is important for sex offenders in Massachusetts to consult with a Massachusetts sex offender attorney about legal assistance with their classification and sex offender reclassification matters. If you are interested in speaking with a Massachusetts sex offender attorney please contact Attorney Crouch at (617) 441-5111 or email him to set up a free, initial consultation.

Recent Changes To Massachusetts Reclassification Of Sex Offenders

Andrew Crouch — Sat, 25 Jan 2014 20:40:36 +0000

Since 2013, the Massachusetts has changed a number of laws related to the classification and reclassification of Massachusetts sex offenders, especially for Massachusetts Level 2 sex offenders.

For those individuals seeking sex offender reclassification in Massachusetts, it is important to be aware of these changes. Where reclassification hearing were once decided entirely on paper by the entire Sex Offender Registry Board, each reclassification request will now result in a hearing to be held in front of three hearing examiners.

As Fox25 Boston and other news outlets have reported, Supreme Judicial Court Justice Ralph Gants ruled in July that pictures of moderate-risk Level 2 sex offenders can be posted on the state’s Sex Offender Registry Board website, as long as they were classified after the law went into effect on July 12.

The battle over publicizing information about Level 2 sex offenders online hit the Supreme Judicial Court Tuesday, where the state’s public defenders sought an injunction barring the state from putting the information on the Internet.

Names, pictures and crimes of high-risk Level 3 sex offenders in Massachusetts are already online, but it’s not so easy to find out about one of the more than 6,000 Level 2 offenders, those deemed a moderate risk to re-offend. That information can be obtained only by physically visiting a police station.

The law to publicize Level 2 offender information was part of the new budget, signed into law this month by Gov. Deval Patrick.

It’s not known how many Level 2 sex offenders have been classified since July 12 and when the Sex Offender Registry Board will put that information online.

Justice Gants referred the case to the full Supreme Judicial Court, which recently heard arguments on whether to place Massachusetts Level 2 sex offenders on the Internet and will decide the case in early 2014.

Of the possible outcomes, the court may decide to place all Level 2 sex offenders online or it may limit Internet dissemination to individuals receiving a classification or reclassification decision after July 12, 2013.

As a result of the legislature’s recent changes to Level 2 sex offenders in Massachusetts, it is important for Level 2 sex offenders in Massachusetts to consult with a Massachusetts sex offender attorney about the possibility of seeking sex offender reclassification.

In light of these changes, many Level 2 sex offenders are seeking reclassification, leading to a backlog of cases. If you are interested in seeking reclassification, please contact Attorney Crouch at (617) 441-5111 or email him to set up a free, initial consultation. To request further information please contact us.

Supreme Judicial Court Considers Whether To Place Level 2 Offenders On The Internet

Andrew Crouch — Sat, 25 Jan 2014 20:11:11 +0000

The Supreme Judicial Court recently heard the case of Michael Moe & others vs. Chair of the Sex Offender Registry Board, SJC-11520, in which the court will decide:

Whether a July, 2013 amendment to the Sex Offender Registry Law — which requires that sex offender registry information of level two sex offenders now be published on the Internet — was intended to apply, and can constitutionally be applied, to persons classified as level two offenders before the effective date of the amendment; and whether the publication on the Internet of level two offender information would violate Federal and State due process, ex post facto, and double jeopardy protections.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Tells Sex Offender Registry Board To Consider Gender As A Classification Factor

Andrew Crouch — Sat, 25 Jan 2014 19:12:19 +0000

The Associated Press reports that the Supreme Judicial Court overturned the classification of a former escort service manager as a low-level sex offender, finding that the state’s Sex Offender Registry Board should have considered research showing women are less likely than men to commit new sex offenses.

Boston sex offender attorney Andrew Crouch filed an amicus brief in the case on behalf of the Committee for Public Counsel Services and the Massachusetts Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

The AP reports that:

The woman, who wasn’t identified in the court’s ruling, pleaded guilty in 2006 to federal charges stemming from her management of an escort service from 2000 to 2002, including one count of transporting a minor to engage in prostitution and one count of sex trafficking of children. She served 17 months in prison while awaiting trial before pleading guilty.

In 2008, the woman requested funds to hire an expert witness, arguing that the board’s guidelines didn’t encompass scientific research on female sex offenders. Her request was rejected by the board.

A hearing officer eventually found that she should be classified as a level one sex offender, the lowest level of offender, considered the least likely to reoffend and the least dangerous.

She appealed that decision, but a Superior Court judge upheld the board’s ruling. The Supreme Judicial Court granted the woman’s request for direct review.

In its ruling Wednesday, the SJC agreed with the woman that the hearing examiner abused his discretion by denying her request for funds for an expert witness who could testify on the subject of how infrequently female sex offenders commit new crimes when compared with men.

“We conclude that it was arbitrary and capricious for (the board) to classify Doe’s risk of re-offense and degree of dangerousness without considering the substantial evidence presented at the hearing concerning the effect of gender on recidivism,” Justice Barbara Lenk wrote for the court.

The court sent the case back to the board.

The woman’s lawyer said the ruling means the board can now either grant the woman’s request for expert witness funds and a new hearing or relieve her of the requirement to register as a sex offender.

“Our position is that she should not have to register as a sex offender at all,” she said.

“She was arrested nearly three years after she had voluntarily ceased the criminal conduct at issue. She had already addressed her substance abuse problems and had already left the prostitution business,” she said.

In a statement, the board said it will comply with the court’s order.

The court also said the board is required to ensure that its guidelines are based on “the available literature.”

“We do not purport to suggest a frequency with which the guidelines must be updated, but caution that guidelines that fail to heed growing scientific consensus in an area may undercut the individualized nature of the hearing to which a sex offender is entitled, an important due process right,” Lenk wrote.

Appellate courts are increasingly rejecting the Board’s classification of Massachusetts sex offenders based on outdated criteria. Such details can be crucial for Massachusetts Level 1 and 2 sex offenders who rely on the Sex Offender Registry Board, to properly classify individuals and differentiate them from Massachusetts Level 3 sex offenders.

Massachusetts Legislature Passes Sex Offender Reforms For Level 2 Offenders

Andrew Crouch — Wed, 03 Jul 2013 15:19:30 +0000

Multiple news outlets are reporting the news that both the Massachusetts House and Senate have agreed to language substantially changing sex offender laws in Massachusetts. The changes will impact all registered offenders. The reports provide:

Sen. Katherine Clark, D-Melrose, Chair of the Joint Committee on the Judiciary, recently announced that the Massachusetts legislature has enacted important measures to protect children and our communities from sex offenders. The reforms, sponsored by Senator Clark, were included in the Commonwealth’s fiscal year 2014 budget, passed today by both the Senate and the House of Representatives.

“Today the legislature took action to protect our children, and I am proud that these important public safety measures will, with the Governor’s signature, become law,” Clark said. “These critical reforms will strengthen our laws, allow for the reclassification of sex offenders, and provide more information to parents, caregivers and the agencies we depend on to keep our kids and communities safe.”

This set of reforms will allow the Sex Offender Registry Board (SORB) to reclassify offenders if new information becomes available and will establish tools for better communication with law enforcement so that such information is accessible and necessary adjustments on an offender’s level of dangerousness can be made.

“I am particularly pleased that SORB will have the opportunity to reclassify offenders in light of new information,” said Rep. Paul Brodeur, D-Melrose. “These reforms will go a long way towards making the system as effective as possible.”

The most dangerous sex offenders will be required to register within two days of being released from custody. The law currently requires Level 2 and Level 3 sex offenders to annually register in person, but does not specify when they must first appear after being released from custody.

Also included are new information sharing procedures for the determination or reevaluation of a sex offender’s designation within the Sex Offender Registry Board and with other state agencies, as well as a commission to develop risk assessment protocols for sexual offenders.

“This legislation does several very important things to clarify and strengthen the sex offender registry laws resulting in better information being available to the public and the enhancement of child protection and public safety,” said Middlesex District Attorney Marian Ryan. “I am thankful to Senator Clark and the legislature for moving this important bill forward. As District Attorney, I am committed to doing all that I can to protect children, engage in prevention efforts, and punish those who abuse or exploit children. This bill will give us additional tools in that effort.”

The final budget, which includes these public safety provisions, now goes to Governor Deval Patrick for his consideration.

Level 2 offenders will also find their registration information placed on-line, as is presently done for Level 3 offenders. The Lowell Sun reports.

Attorney Crouch Secures Reversal Of Client’s Failure To Register Conviction

Andrew Crouch — Sun, 09 Jun 2013 23:33:26 +0000

In the recent case of Commonwealth v. Loring, 463 Mass. 1012 (2012), Attorney Crouch argued that a client’s conviction for failing to register as a sex offender should be reversed and the Supreme Judicial Court agreed, reversing his client’s conviction.

In Loring, the defendant was classified by the Sex Offender Registry Board as a level two sex offender. Defendant subsequently registered with the police department. When the defendant failed to register again a few months later during the month of his birth, he was charged with a single count of failing to register as a sex offender in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 6, 178F 1/2. Defendant pleaded guilty to the offense and Attorney Crouch later filed a motion to withdraw the guilty plea on his client’s behalf. His motion was denied by the trial court. Attorney Crouch appealed the case and the Supreme Judicial Court reversed, holding (1) although the defendant admitted during the plea hearing that he did not register in his birth month, the statute did not require him to do so; and (2) being under no obligation to register in his birth month, the defendant could not be convicted of the offense of failure to register.

If you have questions regarding your Massachusetts criminal appeal or Massachusetts sex offender registration case or to request further information, you need a Boston criminal appeals attorney. Please contact Attorney Crouch at (617) 441-5111 or email him to set up a free, initial consultation. To request further information please contact us.

Massachusetts Legislators Propose Allowing Limited Public Access To Level 1 Sex Offender Information

Andrew Crouch — Sun, 09 Jun 2013 22:21:28 +0000

Legislators from around the state are proposing new legislation in the wake of the arrest of a Level 1 offender on multiple charges of child molestation.

State lawmakers from both political parties are lining up behind a bill to allow limited public access to information on Level 1 sex offenders and give the state Sex Offender Registry Board new power to update risk levels assigned to such convicts.

The proposed changes are driven by the case of John Burbine, a Wakefield man and Level 1 sex offender who was charged late last year with sexually abusing more than a dozen children at his wife’s unlicensed daycare business.

“What happened recently at an unlicensed day care in Wakefield was horrific and caused us to ask ourselves if there is more the law can do to protect the most innocent among us,” said Marblehead state Rep. Lori Ehrlich.

A reform bill introduced by Sen. Katherine Clark, Senate chairwoman of the Joint Committee on the Judiciary, and Rep. Paul Brodeur, both D-Melrose, has garnered support from 27 bipartisan cosponsors, and leaders of both the House and Senate have said amending the state’s Sex Offender Registry is a top priority this legislative session.

Ehrlich, while not a cosponsor of the bill, has thoroughly reviewed its contents and supports it.

“The bill seeks to protect children by closing some loopholes in the law,” explained Ehrlich. “Specifically, it strengthens our system of oversight of convicted sex offenders and ensures that citizens, local law enforcement and relevant state agencies have the information they need to do all they can to keep our kids safe.”

She believes the bill, with its strong bipartisan support, would further help accomplish that goal because it has been crafted “effectively, fairly and responsibly.”

If the bill becomes law, people could ask police if a specific person is listed on the Sex Offender Registry and obtain information about Level 1 offenders’ classification and conviction. According to Clark, the changes would allow people to check before hiring a babysitter or caregiver to see if the applicant is a sex offender.

“The worst feeling in the world as a parent is that you can’t protect your children,” she said.

Right now, no information on Level 1 offenders, such as Burbine, is publicly available.

Clark wants to allow limited public access to information on Level 1 offenders, whom the Sex Offender Registry Board has deemed to present the lowest risk of reoffending under the state’s three-tiered classification system.

Currently, if a civilian were to suspect that someone was a Level 1 offender and inquired about that person to the Marblehead Police Department, police would not, under state law, be able to hand that information over, according to Marblehead Police Department Chief Robert Picariello

“The department follows the law, and the law only allows us to disseminate information on Level 2 and Level 3 sex offenders,” explained Picariello. “So we follow what the law says and guidelines set forth by the Sex Offender Registry Board.”

While not offering up an opinion on the bill, Picariello said, “The more information we can give people to make them feel safe, the better.”

Clark’s potential legislation would also establish the presumption that any sex offender convicted of a crime involving a child should be classified at least at Level 2, unless he or she can present evidence otherwise.

Her proposed bill would also address a court decision that stopped the Sex Offender Registry Board from reclassifying sex offenders based on new information. While the board had done this in the past, a 2012 court ruling, John Doe vs. Sex Offender Registry Board, established that state law does not give it the authority to do so.

Proposed legislation would explicitly spell out that the board does indeed have the power to reclassify.

“If we have information that the person is a greater threat or, for that matter, a lesser threat, then [the board] ought to be able to take into account,” Clark said. “Otherwise, we’ve frozen the system at a moment in time that may not be accurate.”

Parts of the bill seek to open up lines of communication among police, prosecutors and the Sex Offender Registry Board to share new information on offenders. Clark said she wants to give agencies responsible for child safety direct access to the Sex Offender Registry.

“I’m all for [lawmakers] looking at it and seeing if we can make people feel more safe, especially if this law would allow me and the department to make Marblehead safer,” said Picariello. “But, at this time, we comply with the [current] law.”

After a May 7 hearing on the proposed bill, Clark said the judiciary committee would likely take a few weeks to decide what action to recommend to the full Legislature.

Meanwhile, Ehrlich has already made up her mind on the bill, saying, “If it comes to the floor, I will be happy to vote for it.”

Expanding the dissemination of information of Massachusetts Level 1 and 2 sex offenders would be devastating for many registered offenders. It would vastly expand the number of Massachusetts sex offenders whose home, work, and educational information would be available on the Internet or to the public and will reduce the utility of the site run by the Sex Offender Registry Board, which presently only lists the highest risk Massachusetts Level 3 sex offenders.