Other Sex Offender News: State and National
Our Commenting Policy ---///--- Our Blog Tips
Court says UNCONSTITUTIONAL:Missouri
Voting Rights: Approved ---- Denied -///- Voting Problems
Facility Law Libraries --/-- Phone Restrictions
Showing posts with label NewYork-ls. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NewYork-ls. Show all posts

After sentence, hooked up to lie detector


9-29-15 New York:

Lawsuit: Polygraphs shouldn't be used on sex offenders

For at least a year now, lawsuits challenging various aspects of New York's eight-year-old civil commitment law have been working their way through the courts.

Under the statute, sex offenders remain locked up in psychiatric hospitals even after their prison terms are complete. Many have gone to court questioning the diagnoses under which they are confined; other suits contend that these individuals aren't getting the treatment they should have under the law.

In a new twist, one lawsuit includes a complaint that offenders are having their Fifth Amendment rights violated by being compelled to submit to polygraphs — more commonly known as lie detector tests — to see if they are thinking about reoffending if paroled or to learn what they may be thinking about while still confined.

"You get a list of conditions. One of them is to submit to a lie detector test,'' said Charles Gerena, a sex offender who was released on parole but sent back to civil confinement at the Central New York Psychiatric Center in Oneida County.
(see Gerena v Pezdek. Gerena who won this case based on improper search of his residence)

Sex offenders want former Gov. Pataki to pay for illegal confinement program


6-7-15 New York:

Syracuse, NY -- A federal appeals court is considering whether former Gov. George Pataki should be held responsible for an illegal sex offender confinement program that was disbanded in 2006.

Pataki was sued in 2013 for the botched program, the Sexually Violent Predator Initiative, which was rushed into existence after a Westchester County woman was stabbed to death by a paroled sex offender.

State mental health officials were pressured by Pataki into finding a way to confine sex offenders without state Legislature approval, according to a court recap of the events.

Pataki's program was ruled unconstitutional within a year. But a Legislature-approved alternative replaced it, allowing the state to keep dangerous sex offenders locked up indefinitely. That program, known as civil confinement, remains to this day with more than 300 men being held indefinitely in state mental hospitals.

The lawsuit against Pataki did not produce punishment, with a jury awarding only $1 to the sex offenders confined under the illegal program.

Serial Oswego County sex offender attacks indefinite confinement law


11-17-2014 New York:

In 2001, an Oswego County man was convicted of sexually abusing children. Floyd Yelle's history included the sexual assault of a 23-year-old woman eight years earlier and the harassment of a teenage babysitter.

But that was only the beginning. Yelle had been accused of preying on others: the babysitter's twin sister, the 8- and 15-year-old daughters of ex-girlfriends and an 8-year-old friend of the family.

He was sentenced to serve in prison from Jan. 16, 2001 to Dec. 22, 2005. Yet, he remains in confinement today.

Yelle is one of nearly 300 sex offenders who remain confined indefinitely after serving their prison time. It's part of a little-known state law that keeps the worst sex offenders off the streets, as long as they are getting psychiatric treatment in a mental hospital.

Before the state can confine a sex offender, he has a right to a trial. And that's where Yelle's appeal came in.

Jury Clears Pataki Over Post-Prison Detention of Sex Offenders


See also: Sex offenders awarded $1 in liability suit over N.Y. illegal 'civil commitments'

7-31-2013 New York:

A federal jury in Manhattan found on Wednesday that former Gov. George E. Pataki was not liable for violating the rights of six men who claimed that they were wrongly confined in state psychiatric hospitals after completing prison sentences for sexually violent crimes.

The six plaintiffs were confined under a 2005 initiative of the Pataki administration, in which state psychiatrists reviewed the cases of inmates as they completed their sentences to determine whether they should be confined to psychiatric hospitals.

The program was ended in 2006 after the New York State Court of Appeals said such prisoners were entitled to greater protections, including notice and a court-supervised commitment process.

The judge, Jed S. Rakoff of United States District Court, had already held that the program violated the plaintiffs’ rights to due process, but the jury still had to decide the extent to which Mr. Pataki and his three co-defendants were involved in creating or carrying out the policy that was then applied to the plaintiffs. The judge had also ruled that Mr. Pataki and the other officials did not have immunity from being sued.

The jury also cleared two of the three other defendants of liability: Glenn S. Goord, the former correctional services commissioner, and Eileen Consilvio, the former executive director of the Manhattan Psychiatric Center, where the plaintiffs were held. The third defendant, Sharon Carpinello, the former commissioner of the State Office of Mental Health, was found to be liable, although the jury awarded negligible damages.

During the trial, Mr. Pataki testified that he had asked his staff to put the initiative into effect after he failed repeatedly to win legislative approval for such a policy.

He said that among the reasons he pushed for the initiative were two incidents: the fatal 2005 stabbing by a convicted sex offender of a woman in a parking garage next to the Galleria mall in White Plains, and an experience he and his family members had years earlier, when they were accosted while hiking in a state park by a man he later learned was a sex offender.

“It just made me personally aware not just of the horrors of these crimes, but the immediacy of the possibility,” Mr. Pataki testified.

The plaintiffs were seeking compensatory and punitive damages. ..Source.. by BENJAMIN WEISER

NY jury hears closings in Pataki sex offender suit


7-29-2013 New York:

Jurors were asked to decide Monday whether former Gov. George Pataki's decision to divert violent sex offenders into mental institutions after their prison terms ended was an abuse of power or a well-intended effort to protect the public.

The program initiated in 2005 was a "sham" attempt to "bypass the Constitution," plaintiffs' attorney Reza Rezvani said in closing arguments at a civil trial in federal court in Manhattan. "You know that the Constitution applies to everybody. ... No one is saying don't lock up the bad guys. But you do it right and you're fair."

Pataki's attorney, Abbe Lowell, told the jury of one man and seven women that what's most shocking about the lawsuit brought by six convicted sex offenders who were eventually freed is "what the plaintiffs did, not what the defendants did."

The plaintiffs "were mentally ill and dangerous and should have been committed," Lowell added as Pataki listened nearby from the defense table.

The case stems from Pataki's effort to use existing laws to direct prison officials to have the worst sex offenders evaluated for involuntary civil commitment once released from prison. The practice was halted in 2006 after a state court found that the 12 men who were committed should have been entitled to hearings before it happened. Some remained in psychiatric institutions for years afterward.

The summations Monday followed nearly three weeks of testimony, including that of plaintiffs who served lengthy prison sentences for sex assaults on minors. One, Louis Massei, testified that once committed to psychiatric care, he and the other convicts were never given any treatment.

"We were separated from the other patients," Massei said. "We were treated like 'the experiment.'"

Pataki testified he used his executive authority only to order evaluations of sex offenders before they were freed, not to rob them of liberty. Defense lawyers noted that of the nearly 800 inmates examined, fewer than 200 were committed to mental institutions.

The jury must decide whether the defendants intentionally deprived the plaintiffs of constitutional rights and, if so, determine potential damages. Deliberations were expected to begin as early as Monday afternoon. ..Source.. by Wall Street Journal

NY ex-governor testifies at sex-offender trial


7-23-2013 New York:

Defending himself Tuesday against a lawsuit, former New York Gov. George Pataki described a creepy stranger who joined a family hike nearly two decades ago as a major catalyst in his crusade to institutionalize violent sexual predators.

Pataki told about the episode in Hudson Highlands State Park near his Peekskill birthplace as he explained to a federal jury in Manhattan why he became interested in ridding the streets of violent sex offenders soon after he became governor in 1995.

The 68-year-old Pataki is a defendant in a civil lawsuit filed by six convicted sex offenders who said their constitutional rights were violated when a Pataki-initiated program in 2005 caused them to be transferred indefinitely to psychiatric centers when their prison terms ended. A state court ruled a year later that the program was illegal, but the men remained institutionalized for years.

The three-term Republican governor said he was hiking with his wife, a son and several neighborhood children in 1995 or 1996 when he noticed a stranger was constantly near them and would "walk right out and stand next to the kids."

He telephoned state police troopers on security detail nearby and they learned he had been convicted of sexual crimes in the Rochester area.

"My family was fine. I had troopers, but I couldn't help but think of a mother on a walk in the park with a child, or a child at a playground, and it just made me personally aware not just of the horrors of these crimes, but the immediacy of the possibility," Pataki said.

Pataki said he tried unsuccessfully for years to get the state legislature to pass a law that would let violent sexual predators be evaluated for possible involuntary institutionalization at the end of their prison terms. He said a Democratic assemblyman and a prosecutor were among those in 2005 who suggested it could be done under existing law.

He said he was determined to develop the program after a newly paroled rapist killed a woman in 2005 in a suburban mall parking lot and then told investigators that he was angry he had to register as a sex offender and was not getting mental health treatment from Westchester County that he thought he deserved.

Repeatedly, Pataki testified he began the program that put more than 100 convicted prisoners into psychiatric institutions only after he was advised existing law allowed it.

U.S. District Judge Jed S. Rakoff told jurors the initiative was unconstitutional and they must determine whether the defendants acted with intent to deprive the plaintiffs of constitutional rights.

Before Pataki told about his family's hike, attorneys for the plaintiffs objected.

"I think this is, to be frank, the price you pay by asking for punitive damages," Rakoff said. "It opens up a very broad scope of relevance."

Pataki, himself a lawyer, insisted he knew little specifics of the program when he announced in October 2005 that every sexually violent predator in state custody would be evaluated for involuntary civil commitment once prison sentences were finished.

The practice was halted in late 2006 after the state court ruling.

About 20 states now allow certain sex offenders to be detained at psychiatric facilities after their sentences are served if they have a mental disorder that would make them more likely to offend again.

Pataki said he wanted to rid society of the effects of "particularly heinous crimes" because rape and molestation tend to plague victims throughout life and because he was advised that sexually violent criminals have a high rate of recidivism.

"Anybody's hopes or dreams can vanish in a minute in an act of violence," he said. ..Source.. by Arizona Daily Star

Ex-NY governor’s testimony set in trial where sex offenders say their rights were violated


7-23-2013 New York:

Former New York Gov. George Pataki is expected to testify about how more than 100 sex offenders came to be involuntarily institutionalized eight years ago when they finished prison sentences.

Tuesday’s testimony comes in a civil trial in Manhattan federal court after six convicted sex offenders sued Pataki and the state. Pataki announced in an October 2005 press release that every sexually violent predator in state custody would be evaluated for involuntary civil commitment once a prison sentence was finished.

A year later, the program was discontinued after a state court ruled the state was wrongly confining convicted sex offenders in psychiatric facilities. Pataki lawyer Abbe Lowell has urged jurors to award the plaintiffs nothing, saying his client acted honorably to protect the public. ..Source.. by Washington Post

Civil suit claims Pataki abused power


7-11-2013 New York:

An animated former New York Gov. George Pataki shook his head repeatedly as he was accused at a civil trial Tuesday of abusing his power eight years ago by ordering prisoners moved to psychiatric facilities without hearings.

Pataki made clear through his expressions during opening statements that he strongly disagrees with lawyers for six men who claimed in a lawsuit that their rights were violated by Pataki and other officials, including prison authorities and the head of a Manhattan psychiatric center. Pataki nodded his head as his lawyer insisted that he acted honorably.

The lawsuit seeking tens of millions of dollars in damages was filed after Pataki announced in October 2005 that every sexually violent predator would be evaluated for involuntary civil commitment once that person was released from prison. He did so after a recently-paroled sex offender killed a woman in June 2005 in a White Plains shopping mall parking lot.

The program was discontinued in November 2006 after a state court ruled that the state was wrongly confining convicted sex offenders in psychiatric facilities.

Attorney Ameer Benno said some plaintiffs were taken from prison to psychiatric facilities just before they were to be freed, including a man one day from completing a 25-year prison sentence.

"Before our government takes our liberty, ... we have a right to be heard," he told jurors. "It's called due process."

He accused Pataki of abusing his power to order the evaluations of soon-to-be-released prisoners because he failed for seven years to get the state Legislature to act on the issue.

"Frustrated by the inaction of the Legislature, he took matters into his own hands," Benno said. "That's a tremendous amount of power to have in one's hands, especially when someone's liberty was to be taken away."

Benno said the defendants possessed positions of authority, titles and power.

"Each and every one of them could have said no. Instead they said go," Benno said. "They still don't accept responsibility for what they did and that's why we're here."

Barbara Hathaway, a lawyer for the state, said the inmates ended up where they belonged and no harm occurred.

"This case is about protecting the public and getting these plaintiffs the treatment they needed," she said. "This is truly a case of no harm, no foul."

Abbe Lowell, Pataki's lawyer, said New York's three-term governor from 1995 through 2006 was merely trying to deliver on a priority to protect public safety at a time when New York State was the sixth most violent state in the country.

He said Pataki knew nothing of the individuals who filed the lawsuit.

"You shouldn't even give them a dollar," he said.

Prior to the start of openings, U.S. District Judge Jed S. Rakoff said the jury must decide whether the defendants can be held liable for an initiative that was not legal.

"No one can argue that the initiative complied with law," he said. "It did not."

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals earlier this year ruled that Pataki and other defendants were not entitled to immunity in the case.

It said a reasonable official would have known that the process by which men were committed did not satisfy basic constitutional requirements.

As part of the program, three separate medical professionals evaluated each person before they were involuntarily committed, with fewer than 20 percent of those evaluated being ultimately committed.

Treatments sometimes included the use of a "penile plethysmograph" that gauged the responses of each person's genitals to sexually explicit pictures displayed to determine his sexual arousal patterns.

Pataki will testify later in the trial. ..Source.. by LARRY NEUMEISTER

NY court denies officials immunity in prison case


2-15-2013 New York:

NEW YORK (AP) — A federal appeals court refused to grant immunity to former Gov. George Pataki and others Thursday from a lawsuit claiming officials acted unconstitutionally by ordering prisoners transferred to psychiatric facilities without hearings.

A three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan said a reasonable official would have known that the process by which men were committed did not satisfy basic constitutional requirements.

It said Pataki took action after a recently-paroled sex offender killed a woman in June 2005 in the parking lot of the Galleria Mall in White Plains. He announced in an October 2005 press release that every sexually violent predator in state custody would be evaluated for involuntary civil commitment once that person was released from prison.

The program was discontinued after a state court in November 2006 ruled that the state was wrongly confining convicted sex offenders in psychiatric facilities.

"We think there can be no serious doubt that the liberty interests implicated here are of a high order," the 2nd Circuit Court said. "Not only were the plaintiffs' physical freedoms curtailed, but they were also subject to specialized mental health treatment."

The ruling came in a case brought on behalf of six men transferred to institutions after the expiration of sentences for sexually-based criminal offenses. The civil case now returns to the lower court for trial.

Jeffrey Rothman, who represents the men, said more than 100 former inmates were affected by the program before it was changed. He said he had not yet read the decision and was not prepared to comment on it.

A spokeswoman for the state attorney general's office declined to comment.

As part of the program, three separate medical professionals evaluated each person before they were involuntarily committed, with fewer than 20 percent of those evaluated being ultimately committed, the court said.

Those treatments sometimes included the use of a "penile plethysmograph" that gauged the responses of each person's genitals to sexually explicit pictures displayed to determine his sexual arousal patterns, the court said.

"One can imagine that to be something less than a dignity inspiring experience," the appeals panel wrote.

"Although it may be dangerous to overstate the importance of the fact that the initiative was quickly put into place in a politically charged environment, it is difficult to ignore," Circuit Judge Robert Sack wrote for the panel. "Because of the infancy of the initiative and the lack of training or formal procedures, coupled with significant political pressure, the risk of error seems to us to have been enhanced." ..Source.. by LARRY NEUMEISTER

Lawsuit over sex offender commitment can proceed, 2nd Circuit rules


2-15-2013 New York:

NEW YORK, Feb 14 (Reuters) - Sex offenders involuntarily committed to psychiatric institutions following their criminal sentences can move forward with a 2008 civil rights lawsuit against New York officials, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Thursday.

It held that former New York governor George Pataki and state mental health officials and corrections officers were not entitled to qualified immunity from the lawsuit.

A reasonable official "would have known that the process by which the plaintiffs were being committed did not satisfy basic constitutional requirements," U.S. Circuit Judge Robert Sack wrote.

The decision affirmed a 2010 ruling from U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff in Manhattan.

A spokeswoman for the New York attorney general's office declined to comment.
Court Opinion:

This appeal requires us to decide whether the civil commitment of the plaintiffs following the expiration of their sentences for sexually based criminal offenses constituted violations of their procedural due process rights redressable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and, if so, whether the defendants are nonetheless entitled on the record before the district court to summary judgment dismissing the procedural due process claims on the grounds of qualified immunity.

The plaintiffs' commitments were effected not through the state's normal civil commitment procedures, but by means of an executive-branch effort aimed at preventing the release of some "sexually violent predators" ("SVPs"). The Governor of New York State at the time, Governor George E. Pataki, directed the State's Office of Mental Health ("OMH") and Department of Correctional Services ("DOCS") to develop a plan whereby he could take executive action to implement an initiative (the "SVP Initiative" or the "Initiative") that would result in the involuntary commitment of selected SVPs to state psychiatric facilities after the expiration of their criminal sentences. The plaintiffs, who were committed pursuant to this initiative, assert a variety of claims against Governor Pataki and officials of OMH and DOCS.

In this appeal, the defendants assert that the district court erred when it denied their motion for summary judgment on the plaintiffs' procedural due process claims, concluding that the defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. The plaintiffs' claims for denial of procedural due process are premised on the allegation that they were committed pursuant to the SVP Initiative without the benefit of notice or an opportunity for a hearing prior to their commitment.

We agree with the district court that there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the plaintiffs' procedural due process claims and therefore defeat the motion for summary judgment. We also conclude that at the time of the Initiative, the constitutional principle that, absent some emergency or other exigent circumstance, an individual cannot be involuntarily committed to a psychiatric institution without notice and a predeprivation hearing was firmly established. Because the law pertaining to the involuntary civil commitment of prisoners was firmly established, the district court properly determined that the defendants should not enjoy qualified immunity. ..To read the rest of the opinion: CLICK...
The lawsuit was filed in 2008 by a group of sex offenders who claimed they had been committed to psychiatric institutions without notice or a hearing after they had served their criminal sentences.

In addition to Pataki, the defendants were officials from the state Office of Mental Health and the Department of Correctional Services.

The commitments stemmed from the Sexually Violent Predator Initiative launched by Pataki in 2005. It called for sexually violent predators to be evaluated for involuntary civil commitment before being released from prison, the ruling said.

The lawsuit alleged that confinement without a hearing or notice violated plaintiffs' rights to procedural due process.

The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing there was no legal prohibition against brief periods of prehearing confinement, provided that an opportunity for a hearing was offered in a timely manner. According to the ruling, they also claimed qualified immunity.

On that basis, in 2010, Rakoff denied the motion on the procedural due-process claim. He also concluded that the plaintiffs' civil confinement "did not remotely comport with constitutional requirements."

The defendants appealed, and the 2nd Circuit on Thursday affirmed the district court.

"(A) prisoner - even one convicted of an atrocious crime - maintains a liberty interest in the conditions relating to the essential nature of his confinement," Sack wrote.

Sack was joined by Judges Joseph McLaughlin and Peter Hall.

A lawyer for the plaintiffs, Ameer Benno, said he was gratified by the 2nd Circuit's ruling on qualified immunity.

The case is Bailey v. Pataki, 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 10-2563.

For the plaintiffs: Ameer Benno, Richard Sullivan and Jeffrey Rothman of Benno & Associates.

For the defendants: Cecilia Chang, Barbara Underwood and Benjamin Gutman of the New York attorney general's office. ..Source.. by Jessica Dye

NY court denies officials immunity in prison case


2-15-2013 New York:

NEW YORK (AP) — A federal appeals court refused to grant immunity to former Gov. George Pataki and others Thursday from a lawsuit claiming officials acted unconstitutionally by ordering prisoners transferred to psychiatric facilities without hearings.

A three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan said a reasonable official would have known that the process by which men were committed did not satisfy basic constitutional requirements.

It said Pataki took action after a recently-paroled sex offender killed a woman in June 2005 in the parking lot of the Galleria Mall in White Plains. He announced in an October 2005 press release that every sexually violent predator in state custody would be evaluated for involuntary civil commitment once that person was released from prison.

The program was discontinued after a state court in November 2006 ruled that the state was wrongly confining convicted sex offenders in psychiatric facilities.

"We think there can be no serious doubt that the liberty interests implicated here are of a high order," the 2nd Circuit Court said. "Not only were the plaintiffs' physical freedoms curtailed, but they were also subject to specialized mental health treatment."

The ruling came in a case brought on behalf of six men transferred to institutions after the expiration of sentences for sexually-based criminal offenses. The civil case now returns to the lower court for trial.

Jeffrey Rothman, who represents the men, said more than 100 former inmates were affected by the program before it was changed. He said he had not yet read the decision and was not prepared to comment on it.

A spokeswoman for the state attorney general's office declined to comment.

As part of the program, three separate medical professionals evaluated each person before they were involuntarily committed, with fewer than 20 percent of those evaluated being ultimately committed, the court said.

Those treatments sometimes included the use of a "penile plethysmograph" that gauged the responses of each person's genitals to sexually explicit pictures displayed to determine his sexual arousal patterns, the court said.

"One can imagine that to be something less than a dignity inspiring experience," the appeals panel wrote.

"Although it may be dangerous to overstate the importance of the fact that the initiative was quickly put into place in a politically charged environment, it is difficult to ignore," Circuit Judge Robert Sack wrote for the panel. "Because of the infancy of the initiative and the lack of training or formal procedures, coupled with significant political pressure, the risk of error seems to us to have been enhanced." ..Source.. by LARRY NEUMEISTER