Location and Apprehension of Missing Sex Offenders Technological

Location and Apprehension of Missing Sex Offenders: Technological Versus Nontechnological Investigative Strategies in Four States James M. Byrne, April Pattavina, Andrew Harris, Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology, University of Massachusetts, Lowell Donald Rebovich, Utica College

Trends in Sex Offender Arrest, Conviction, Sentencing, and Control � Reported crime: Despite the media attention to sex abuse in the Catholic Church, internet solicitation of minors on To Catch A Predator, and the recent stranger abduction /assault cases involving Elizabeth Smart and Jaycee Lee Dugart, sex crime has been on the decline over the past two decades, mirroring the overall decline in violence in this country since the early 90’s. � Sex Crime Locations: About 40% of sexual assaults take place in the victim’s own home, and 20% take place in the home of a friend, neighbor or relative (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1997). � Arrests and Prosecution: New categories of sex defendants are entering our federal and state court systems, due to new laws , while new Federal, state, and local law enforcement initiatives appear to have increased both sex crime reporting and clearance rates. � Sentencing: Compared to a decade ago, Sentences for convicted sex offenders are now more likely to include incarceration, but the majority(60%) of all convicted sex offenders are currently in the community corrections system. � Re-Offending: Sex Offenders are not a homogeneous group in terms of recidivism risk, but overall, sex offenders pose the lowest risk of re-offending of all offender groups. The U. S. Department of Justice found that over a three year period after being released from prison, 5. 3% of sex offenders were rearrested for a new sex crime (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2003).

The Community Control of Sex Offenders: New Initiatives � Lifetime Supervision: Legislation has been passed allowing lifetime probation or parole supervision for convicted sex offenders in twenty six states; in these jurisdictions, GPS monitoring of offender location and movement is also the norm. � New Classification and Reporting Procedures: Adam Walsh Act requirements –if implemented fully—will increase the size of the registered sex offender population, and mandate uniform offense-driven reporting requirements. To date, only Ohio has substantially met these requirements. � Residency Restrictions: Many jurisdictions have passed legislation that restricts registered sex offenders from living near schools, parks, libraries, bus stops, and other places where children congregate. � Monitoring the Homeless Sex Offender Population: Due to residency restrictions, a growing number of sex offenders are registering as homeless, which requires new strategies for monitoring this subgroup of registered sex offenders.

The Location of Registered Sex offenders in The United States

Mapping Registered Sex Offender Locations: An Ohio Illustration

Can Hot Spots Locations For Registered Sex Offenders Be identified? In the Ohio illustration, it is apparent that registered sex offenders are clustered in a small number of Ohio Counties. No research has been conducted to date on whether sex offenders are locating in jurisdictions where reporting requirements and/or monitoring strategies are more lenient. It is also possible that registered sex offenders are locating/ clustering in those areas without residency restrictions for sex offenders.

Estimates of the Size of the Missing Sex Offender Problem National Compliance Estimates by NCMEC: There approximately 100, 000 sex offenders currently not in compliance with sex offender registration/notification requirements. These estimates are based on telephone survey data, which raises reliability concerns. Compliance rates are likely to vary both within and across states, due to a variety of factors, including (1)resources, (2) qualifications of personnel , (3) monitoring frequency, and (4) access to technology.

An Overview of Our Case Study Research Strategy: � Compliance: We need to understand how compliance with sex offender registration requirements is monitored at the state and local level. � Non-compliance: We need to understand how investigators identify sex offenders who are not in compliance. � Location: We need to understand the specific techniques, technologies, and resources investigators use to locate missing sex offenders. � Avoiding Detection: We need to understand why sex offenders abscond, and how missing sex offenders avoid apprehension. We are particularly interested in the use of ID Theft and/or ID manipulation. � Performance: We need to understand the key linkages that facilitate( or impede) intra- and inter-state cooperation and coordination in the location and apprehension of missing sex offenders.

Research Team for Case Studies �Our research team includes faculty from Utica College and the University of Massachusetts, Lowell. Four State-Level Case Studies have been completed to date: �Florida( Tallahassee and Orlando): Donald Rebovich and James Byrne( June, July, 09) �Texas( Austin and San Antonio): Andrew Harris and James Byrne( September, 09) �Connecticut: April Pattavina and Andrew Harris( June, 09) �California( Riverside): James Byrne( June, 09) �Additional Case Studies will be conducted over the next two months in Ohio, Oklahoma, California( San Diego)and Hawaii.

Case Study Site Selection Strategy �Three initial criteria: size, location, and innovation �Our First Site Selection Criterion: Size �We have conducted site visits of the three State systems with the largest number of Registered Sex Offenders: California, Texas, and Florida; approximately 33% of all registered sex offenders in the United States reside in these three states. �We have also identified three states—Connecticut, Oklahoma, and Hawaii– with much smaller number of registered sex offenders to determine whether “size matters” in terms of how sex offenders are monitored, and the techniques used to locate missing sex offenders.

Case Study Site Selection Our second criterion was location: we wanted to conduct site visits in each region of the country: Northeast( Connecticut), Midwest ( Ohio, Oklahoma), South ( Florida, Texas), West ( California), and Islands/territories( Hawaii)

Case Study Site Selection Our third criterion was evidence of innovation and effectiveness. To identify high functioning state systems, we reviewed available data on state-level compliance rates, while also interviewing Sex Offender Sentencing Monitoring Apprehending Registering and Tracking (SMART ) Policy Advisor, Lori Mc. Pherson. Several state systems were identified as potential sites, including Ohio, California, Florida, Texas, and Hawaii.

Connecticut and California Case Studies �Connecticut: Interviews conducted with key members of the Sex Offender Registry Unit( SORU), a division of the Connecticut State Police, including: � State Police Lieutenant Sam Izzarelli, the unit director, and � Sergeant Joseph Biela, the unit’s operations manager. �California: In Riverside County, interviews were conducted with key members of the Sexual Assault Felony Enforcement(SAFE) Task Force, including � Task Force Director, Supervising Investigator Ron Garcia from the Riverside County District attorney’s Office; and � Sergeant Lori Marquette, Task Force Assistant Director from the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department.

Florida Case Study: Tallahassee �In Tallahassee, Florida we interviewed the following individuals: �Mary Coffee, Planning and Policy Administrator, Florida Offender Registration and Tracking Services(FORTS) �Members of the absconder team, Registrant Tracking and Systems Development Unit, FORTS; including Jon Roddenberry, Robin Stevens, and Stephanie Hires. �Florida Computer Crime Center, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Special Agent Supervisor Mike Phillips. �District Court Probation, Ronnie Whitmire. �Department of Corrections Absconder Unit Director Vernon Barber. �Tallahassee Police Department, Officer David Northway

Florida Case Study: Osceola County In Central Florida’s Osceola County, interviews were conducted with the following individuals: Detective Robert Tyrell, Director, Central Florida Task force Special Agent Yesenia Leon-Baron, Florida Department of Law Enforcement

Texas Case Study In Austin Texas, we interviewed the following individuals: Sergeant Greg Moss, Director, Sex Offender Unit, Austin Police Department Scott Merchant and Vincent Castilleja, Texas Department of Public Safety In Dallas Texas, an interview was conducted with Agent Andre O’Bryan, a member of the Dallas-fort Worth High Risk sex offender Task force

Key Findings from Initial Site Visits �Finding 1: The responsibility for monitoring compliance with sex offender registration and for locating absconders varies from state to state. There are three distinct models: Centralized, decentralized, and Hybrid. �Centralized systems typically established a statewide sex offender unit to manage compliance/ non-compliance. �Decentralized systems view compliance/non-compliance as either a local , county, or regional responsibility of law enforcement. �Hybrid Systems combine features of centralization( the registry data base and/or initial registration) and compliance monitoring ( by local police or Task Forces)

De-centralized Sex Offender Registration, Monitoring, and Location �Texas: In Texas, the initial registration, monitoring compliance, and absconder location/apprehension is a decentralized function; in some parts of the state( e. g. Dallas) Multi-Agency Task Forces have been established, but in many areas the responsibility falls on local police departments. The statewide sex offender registry data base is maintained by the State Office of Public Safety. �California: In California, monitoring compliance and absconder location/apprehension is decentralized , and county task forces have been established and maintained utilizing Federal grants to support the program, including overtime for project personnel and access to technology designed to locate missing sex offenders.

Hybrid Model �Connecticut: In Connecticut, a hybrid model is used. There is a centralized registration process managed by the State Police’s Sex Offender Registry Unit. � Responsibility for locating and apprehending missing/non-compliant sex offenders is generally decentralized and left to local police agencies throughout the state. �However, the State Police in Connecticut are involved in location and apprehension if the sex offender’s last known residence is in one of the towns covered by the state police.

Finding 2: Reporting Requirements For Registered Sex Offenders Vary � Florida: The current requirement is one in-person address verification—by the absconder unit-- per year for all registered sex offenders. For those individuals classified as sexual predators, four verifications per year are required. � Texas: The current requirement is one address verification per year. Sex offenders who have been civilly committed( n=1200), or transients( 1500 statewide) are required to verify address every thirty days. Sex offenders with 2 or more priors must appear every 90 days at a local police department. � Connecticut: All registered sex offenders must verify their residence every 90 days, via a mail-based address verification system. In addition, they must inform the Registry within 5 days of any changes in name, place of employment, school, and internet identifiers. � California: In Riverside County, SAFE team members conduct at least one address verification per year, but due to contacts/verication by probation, local law enforcement, and/or the Sheriff’s office, it is estimated that each registered sex offender is “seen” 2 -3 times per year.

Finding 3: Intra-and Inter-Statelevel Variation in Compliance Rates � Florida: Variation in compliance rates identified by county( and within county, by circuit), but overall non-compliance estimated at 5%( with 50, 000 registrants). � Texas: According to the Director of the Sex Offender Registration system, about 12% of the 57, 000 active cases on the system are in noncompliance; in a significant number of these non-compliance case, system errors—not offender non-compliance—are the problem. However, no jurisdiction –specific compliance rates have been calculated to date. � Connecticut: About 8%(400) of the 5000 registered sex offenders in Connecticut are currently listed as non-compliant; the majority of these have failed to mail in an address verification. � California: Significant intra-state variation in non-compliance rates has been identified, with a low of 4. 9% in San Diego ( with 4000 registers)to a high of 25% non-compliance in Los Angeles( with over 15, 000 registers).

Finding 4: We did not find a Link Between Missing Sex Offenders and Identity Theft/Manipulation Florida: Offenders certainly use aliases, but ID Theft is rare. Texas: No evidence of ID Theft, but aliases are always used to avoid detection during police stops. Connecticut: Offenders attempt to change appearance, and use aliases; no cases of stolen identities. California: In a few cases, offenders left the country and returned illegally using a “fake” identity.

Finding 5: The Technology Available to Locate Missing Sex Offenders varies both within and across states Florida: Investigators have access to a broad range of local, state, and national data bases, including both commercial and public agency data bases. Texas: recent cuts in Federal grants have resulted in fewer personnel, which translates to limitations in the types of searches completed on available data bases. Connecticut: Investigators rely on U. S. Marshal’s Service to locate “hard to find” missing sex offenders. California: Jurisdictions with active Task Forces appear to have greater access to technology.

An Overview of Investigative Techniques Used to Locate Missing Sex Offenders � Technological Techniques: � Registry of motor vehicle address checks � Check out-of-state drivers license information � Social Security Administration address checks � Searches using commercial data bases, including Lexis/Nexus and Accurint � Check death index, vital statistics � Check immigration and customs � Biometrics/ facial recognition scans of drivers license data base � Check all available in-state law enforcement and corrections data bases � Non-technological Techniques: � Check last known address � Routine follow-up interviews with family, friends, neighbors, and employers � Arrest warrant issued � Non-compliance sweeps � Follow-up interviews with probation, parole � Check with prison/jail intake to see whether the offender was incarcerated � Review criminal history for aliases

Finding 6: Non-technological “Old School” Investigative Strategies appear to be consistently used across jurisdictions to Locate Missing Sex offenders � Florida: Investigators find that even when missing sex offenders move away to avoid detection, they move to areas where they have family ties. In these cases, the key is knowing where relatives reside. � Texas: Investigators indicated that they “worked” these cases as fugitive apprehension cases, beginning with interviews of family, friends, relatives, and coordinating intelligence with the statewide fugitive apprehension unit and, where applicable, the U. S. Marshal’s Service. � Connecticut: Over half of all missing sex offenders were located last year during grant-supported sweeps of areas where these offenders were thought to reside. � California: While new data systems are often a timesaver, it is the “old school” techniques that result in the location of the majority of sex offenders; most are located within three months of being officially listed as “missing”.

Finding 7: The Role Of The U. S. Marshal Service varied in the Four States �Florida: active role, including Task Force participation. �Texas: to date, only a limited role, but due to resource constraints, it is anticipated that the U. S. Marshal’s service will be more active in the future for cases involving out of state location and apprehension. �Connecticut: moderate role, linked to hard to find missing sex offenders; every few months, a list of active warrants for missing sex offenders is forwarded to NCMEC. �California: limited role in Riverside County, but more active in other parts of the state.

Issues To Consider: Final Thoughts �Centralized vs. Decentralized Sex Offender Registration, Monitoring, Location, and Apprehension Practices �Interstate Transfer of Sex Offenders �Interstate Cooperation in the Location and Apprehension of Missing Sex Offenders �Identity Theft and Identity Manipulation among Missing Sex Offenders �Technological vs. Non-technological Location Strategies

Are Missing Sex Offenders Really Missing? Florida: Verification of residence becomes more difficult when the offender is homeless. Texas: Non-compliance may be a function of clerical errors at the local level in this decentralized system. Connecticut: Non-compliance has been linked to mail -in verification system gliches. California: In some parts of California, a sex offender can move without notification and not be considered in violation if he subsequently—upon detection— agrees to re-register.

The Absconders: Where Are They? How do they avoid detection? � Florida: Investigators believe most absconders remain in the state, but move to large cities, work as day laborers, do not obtain credit cards in their name, and use multiple names during police contacts( in particular Hispanic sex offenders). � Texas: The vast majority of missing sex offenders are located within the state, using “old fashioned” non-technological police work( starting with a visit to the last known address) � Connecticut: Investigators here believe absconders attempt to use a variety of addresses to avoid initial detection; some will change their physical appearance to avoid detection; others become homeless, making them difficult to track. � California: The majority of absconders in Riverside County moved without notification to another part of the state; a small number leave the state and a handful have left the country. In only two cases did the offender employ identity theft to avoid detection.

Next Steps in the Research Process U. S. Marshal Service Interviews Florida follow-up Texas follow-up Connecticut follow-up California follow-up Ohio Oklahoma Hawaii

Examination and Analysis of State. Level Sex Offender Registry Data Sets Offender Profiles Offense Profiles Mapping Registered Sex Offender Locations Mapping Missing Sex Offender Locations Identity Manipulation by Registered and Missing Sex Offenders

Overview of Florida Sex Offender Registration, Monitoring and Location Process Step 1: Initial Registration Step 2: Monitoring Compliance Step 3: Location of Absconders Step 4; Apprehension of Absconders

Overview of California Sex Offender Registration, Monitoring, and Location Process Step 1: Initial Registration Step 2: Monitoring and Verification Step 3: Location of Absconders Step 4: Apprehension of Absconders