46 replies to this topic

[supermom]

huh, thats good to know. thanks for sharing that.

 

I do think it rather sad that it is only for convicted of crimes under 16.

but hey, maybe i watched too many dirty harry's ---you know...once a rapist always a rapist attitude.

[Robert Gary]

Furthermore, background checks for employees are limited, unless they wish to be sued. There is very little employers really can do, anyway-if the prospective employee is not on the Meghan's list (or similar).

 

Not sure what you mean by that. You get checked for such things when volunteering for Boy Scouts, coaching any city run sports leagues, working for school districts (janitors, etc). So are they all somehow legally liable for something?

 

BTW: Typically the employer does not do the background check themselves. They hire a company to do it. You provide the company your requirements (i.e. "not a sex offender", "no DUIs", "no bad credit" , etc ). The background company comes back with "yes" or "no". They will never tell the employer which criteria was failed. That protects the employer. If the employee wants to challenge an incorrect conclusion they do so directly with the background company.

This is pretty standard business practice. Pretty much all companies require a background check nowadays. 

 

The difficulty in tracking backgrounds with moving etc shouldn't apply to sex offenders as they are required to register. If he had failed to register I'm sure he'd still be locked up at this moment.

 

-Robert

[Terry]

Megan's Law required registration and PUBLIC DISCLOSURE VIA DOJ WEBSITE of all person convicted of sex crimes beginning in 2004.  Prior to Megan's Law in 2004, sex offenders were only required to register with their local law enforcement agencies and the public could inquire of the local law enforcement as to any registered sex offenders.  I don't have the specific information on this suspect, but I assume if he was convicted of any sex offense which required him to register, it would have been prior to 2004's, Megan's Law requirement.  Further, some sex offenses are pled down to lesser charges and therefore not require sex offender registration 

[ducky]

Megan's Law required registration and PUBLIC DISCLOSURE VIA DOJ WEBSITE of all person convicted of sex crimes beginning in 2004.  Prior to Megan's Law in 2004, sex offenders were only required to register with their local law enforcement agencies and the public could inquire of the local law enforcement as to any registered sex offenders.  I don't have the specific information on this suspect, but I assume if he was convicted of any sex offense which required him to register, it would have been prior to 2004's, Megan's Law requirement.  Further, some sex offenses are pled down to lesser charges and therefore not require sex offender registration 

 

Thanks for the explanation, Terry.  I was wondering why he wasn't registered.  If the conviction was in 1997, that would explain it.

[Robert Gary]

.  I don't have the specific information on this suspect, but I assume if he was convicted of any sex offense which required him to register, it would have been prior to 2004's, Megan's Law requirement.  Further, some sex offenses are pled down to lesser charges and therefore not require sex offender registration 

 

So after 2004 those previously convicted were not required to register?

 

If someone pled down to a lesser charge than they aren't convicted sex offenders, so that makes sense. But that isn't how this case was presented.

 

-Robert

[Terry]

 

So after 2004 those previously convicted were not required to register?

 

If someone pled down to a lesser charge than they aren't convicted sex offenders, so that makes sense. But that isn't how this case was presented.

 

-Robert

 

Those who were convicted prior to 2004 were required to register only with their local law enforcement agency (where he/she resides - thus if one were to move from one jurisdiction to another, he/she would have to register upon each move with the appropriate law enforcement agency.  

 

Megan's Law registering applied only to those convictions occurring in 2004 or later.  So, this particular suspect, had he been previously convicted with a sex crime, would have to register with Folsom PD as a sex offender when he moved here.  A member of the public would then have to inquire of the Folsom PD as to local registered sex offenders.  Megan's Law registry has only those with convictions in 2004 and later, so there are those offenders who are NOT on Megan's Law registry, but are on file with Folsom PD; assuming of course, these offenders comply with the requirement to so register.

[supermom]

Terry it was actually a bit before 2004.

 

http://ojp.gov/smart/legislation.htm

 

If this guy was a registered sex offender- someone dropped the ball.

 

So.. who originally said this guy had previously been convicted? 

Because if he was... it looks like several entities screwed up. If he wasnt, then I wonder if he really waited 10 years to try to reoffend (if that statement about him previously being convicted was true)- or if this was his potential first victim in the last several years

[Terry]

Okay, one more time - Megan's law set up the offender registration program prior to 2004, but 2003 legislation in California set up the PUBLIC WEBSITE to display those offenders' information. Prior to the public website, a member if the piblic could go to the local law enforcement agency and ask for the information that is now on the Megan's Law Website. Assuming a sex offender conviction prior to 2004 and its Megan's Law WEBSITE availabilty, one would have to inquire at their lical law enforcement agency. Clear now?

[Robert Gary]

I don't think that's true. Looking at the website I see At least one registered offender that reports his last conviction was in 2000.

[supermom]

that whole website I posted indicates that the meghans website was a cluster funk when it first started- and took several years to get in order. Notice it states the feds passed a law that any State that did not have a decent registration system MUST require their convicts to register with the FBI?

 

Meghans law registration has been a crap shot in the dark in controlling anybody. Police intervention even less so. 

 

The only part of meghans law that has kept the monsters at bay is the fear of the public seeing their photo and coming after them with shovels and crow bars.

[MikeinFolsom]

Knew the guy and his family some time ago.  They did own a mattress business.  He used to be a main fixture at Lakeside church with all of the kids programs.  Supposedly they did a background check too, but I think that involves LiveScan only.  I believe the age difference between him and his first wife was in the area of 15-20 years.  Kids and his wife were always really nice people.  Never really interacted with the guy, so I can't really make a judgment call. 

[supermom]

http://www.city-data...California.html

 

27 is just too many

 

so the Folsom PD site says that Ca has been tracking sex offenders for 50 years.

 

If this guy had offended in 1997 or whatever-in Santa Clara County--then a livescan from the church and the gym or the gym's contractor--doesnt matter its usually done in only about 10-20 places in the local area....should have caught the offender part.

 

So either someone screwed up--or someone has the wrong name mixed up with this person... Is either possible? yes. Im kind of surprised though.

hmmm-even more unsettling if its true this same guy volunteered at the local church as stated above.

I thought it was volunteer members of the church who also happen to be FPD were the one's who run the live scans over to the "store" for back ground checks. How did that get past them? 

 

I dont know. Maybe it didnt but they werent allowed to do anything because it was part of their "off" time and not on the cop clock.

 

 

oh this interesting....

http://www.ssci2000....n-flawed-system

 

"SURPRISING FACT # 3.LIVESCAN DOES NOT CHECK THE CALIFORNIA SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY (Also Known As The Megan’s Law Registry)."

[Robert Gary]

I think the scan is done through the state DOJ. I've had to submit fine for coaching youth sports, Boy Scouts and even Civil Air Patrol. I did once do one at a Sheriff's substation but that was a long time ago.

 

The state DOJ is the same agency that stamps your approval to buy a fire arm so I would hope there are not too many holes in the system.

 

-Robert

[Deb aka Resume Lady]

The dance class at Broadstone was targeted at adults.

 

Having not been there I don't know the answer to this: Could he potentially have been alone with children in that environment? Did adults bring children to hang out while they were in class? Could the children/he roam around?

[nomad]

 

Having not been there I don't know the answer to this: Could he potentially have been alone with children in that environment? Did adults bring children to hang out while they were in class? Could the children/he roam around?

 

No he wasn't alone with kids there. And yes adults bring kids there. Under a certain age they go to the day care or kids care rooms. If they are 13 they can use the gym. Some kids roam around but it's not a zoo that I've ever seen. And the guy was so well known there I don't think he'd ever try anything on site there.

 

I also heard last week he was trying to tell his side of the story to the dance class, not sure what that means though.