Sex Offender Registries, Sex Offenders Search, News, Info and Discussion

Top Posters Since October 2003
dp1	4000+
orolan	4000+
Navigatr1	2500+
Silvert...	2500+
1dadof5	2500+
Valerie	2000+
steve	1500+
victori...	1000+
myoung	1000+
rabbitr...	750+
HPierce	750+
poetsdr...	750+
Renunci...	750+
lj	750+
fallenone	500+
DoTheCr...	500+
marta	500+
momhelp...	500+
prozac	500+
rebel51	500+
PVulcan	250+
anti	250+
rodsmith	250+
LockEmUp	250+
Quest	250+
artie	250+
KK	250+
LostTime	250+
TGoodman	250+
amberleaf	250+
deadmom...	250+
brennus	100+
scarlett	100+
mousein...	100+
thepar	100+
assumpt...	100+
lildrafire	100+
JakeLF	100+
MrTruth	100+
june5	100+

Newest Users
Registered within the last 72 hours.
1curious
cbg0708
CHEERIOSKEEPER
concernednewparent
dboy
Debby
HDDG
love032588
matavin
rexchinnappa

Forum: In the News

Thread (Discussion): [Palm Beach Post] Post sex offender data online to clarify individual risk

Switch to Flat View

In order to post a message to a new thread or reply to existing messages you must be logged in. If you'd like to post messages please login or register as a new user.

Message 159073 (In Reply to Message 158953)
Ann

Posted by dp1 on Aug 18, 2005 05:32 AM | Also by dp1

Gender: Female, Age Bracket: N/A, State: Florida, Country: United States

I believe part of the problem is that the arresting document only stated L&L Battery.

I believe the problem is that the PO used the wrong offense code. The statute for Internet electronic solicitation to commit lewd & lacivious battery is 847.0135(3) which is offense code 1151. If offense code 1151 was input his charge on the DOC website would read "Lewdness INTRNET/F.S.794,800,827". When they updated the applicable statute 800.04(4) they used offense code 3621 which is the L&L Battery offense. That may have been correct at the time assuming the orders of probation were not accurate. Now that the Court corrected his orders with the Internet charge all they have to do is go in there and change 3621 to 1151on each sentence for all counts. It should read correctly after that. Does this sound accurate according to his Court papers?

The PO may not be aware that the offense code drives the offense description in the computer. Ann I wish I was in your county. I can't update this for you. But, at least you know it's a simple fix. (at least I hope so - it's not easy to troubleshoot without getting into the system and playing around with it).

After the DOC computer is squirt away the local Sheriff's office should have no problems reregistering your son with the correct qualifying offenses if the PO doesn't volunteer to pick up the phone and call the FDLE help desk to fix it.

I hope this helps.

See an abbreviation or acronym, but don't know what it stands for? Consult the Glossary.

Switch to Flat View

Message 158953

Posted by ann018 on Aug 17, 2005 02:08 AM | Also by ann018

Gender: Female, Age Bracket: N/A, State: Florida, Country: United States

Hi Orolan,

His amended order reads as follows for community control and probation:

Charge 1 –	Internet electronic solicitation to commit lewd & lacivious battery

Charge 2 – Transmission child porn by electronic device or equipment

I believe part of the problem is that the arresting document only stated L&L Battery.

As I stated in my earlier post there was only a conversation with another adult (detective) about a 14-year old and one email sent with 2 pictures. It was somewhat complicated by the fact there were also 2 counties in FL involved - the one where the detective was and the one where my son lives.

I have sent dp1 a private message with the same information and his doc number. His information (second transmission charge has not been removed from their site either) and it still states "L/L BATTERY V 12-15 YO".

He has shown his PO the amended documents (signed 4/25/05 by the judge; his final sentencing hearing was 1/26/05). However, to my son's knowledge his PO did not complete or submit any new paperwork  to the FDLE.

I have often wondered how many other SO's information may be incorrect and they are not aware. Especially if they can no longer have access to a computer or have someone that can run an "employer" background check. I have been in HR for many years and know the processes and have told my son from day one he will always have to be up front and honest when interviewing, which he has. However, if he tells them up front and then they run a background check that states fondling, etc. he doesn't have a rats chance in he--.

I'm hopeful that dp1 will be able to help.

Thread

158598, admin, Aug 13, 2005 02:54 PM [Introduction]
      158762, dp1, Aug 15, 2005 05:12 AM
      158786, Navigatr1, Aug 15, 2005 03:02 PM
            158815, orolan, Aug 15, 2005 04:58 PM
                  158865, ann018, Aug 16, 2005 05:37 AM [Information needs to be correct!]
                        158914, orolan, Aug 16, 2005 04:12 PM
                              158953, ann018, Aug 17, 2005 02:08 AM
                                    158986, dp1, Aug 17, 2005 02:16 PM [Ann]
                                    159073, dp1, Aug 18, 2005 05:32 AM [Ann]
                                          159998, dp1, Aug 28, 2005 11:19 PM [Great News]
                        158925, dp1, Aug 16, 2005 04:25 PM

Forum Home | Top of Thread

Tell a Friend about this page.

Sex Offender Registries, Sex Offenders Search, News, Info and Discussion

Forum: In the NewsThread (Discussion): [Palm Beach Post] Post sex offender data online to clarify individual risk

Message 159073 (In Reply to Message 158953)Ann

Message 158953

Thread

Forum: In the News

Thread (Discussion): [Palm Beach Post] Post sex offender data online to clarify individual risk

Message 159073 (In Reply to Message 158953)
Ann