Loophole in Oregon DV laws leave victims unprotected after sentence completion

Maxine Bernstein
(AP) — PORTLAND, Ore. - Ten years after she survived a brutal beating by her husband who struck her repeatedly in the head with what police suspect was a crowbar, Erika Belka is scrambling to put together a safety plan.

John Belka, now 52, served seven years in prison for attempted murder, followed by three years parole. Under a plea deal, the state agreed not to bring additional charges involving suspected sexual misconduct with his children.

Parole officers kept close watch on Belka the past three years with stringent conditions: sex-offender treatment and regular polygraph tests; orders to not contact his wife, their seven children, his sister, sister-in-law or any minors; and an electronic bracelet with a GPS system that tracked his whereabouts with directives not to travel to Portland's east side except to see his parole officer.

On Dec. 7, Belka completed his parole, and the conditions, treatments and tracking systems are gone.

Oregon has no other way to protect victims, unlike neighbor Washington state, which offers criminal no-contact orders that can extend after an offender's sentence and parole are completed. And, unlike many states, Oregon places a restriction of six months from the time the violence or a threat occurred to the time the victim can petition for a civil restraining order, unless the person was in jail or out of state.
In Belka's case, neither applies because he's been on parole for three years, living in Portland. His ex-wife would have had to get the restraining order immediately when Belka was released from jail and renew it annually.

"When the supervision ends, it sometimes leaves people out there without any protections," said Kim Hirota, Belka's parole officer. "If I were in her place, I'd be worried right now. There doesn't seem like there's a lot we can do legally for her."

Washington state does have criminal no-contact protection. In fact, it's perhaps the most expansive of any in the nation, said Doug Miles, a former Colorado prosecutor who now is an advisor to the Washington, D.C.-based AEquitas: The Prosecutor's Resource on Violence Against Women. There, judges routinely order domestic violence defendants to have no contact with their victims, usually for the duration of the crime's maximum penalty, even if the person convicted doesn't serve that long.

If Belka had been convicted of attempted murder in Seattle, for example, he'd be ordered to have no contact with his ex-wife the rest of his life because attempted murder carries a maximum of life in prison. If he did contact her, he'd face criminal sanctions, initially a misdemeanor that would rise to a felony after multiple violations.

"The reason we ask for no-contact orders here is because we want to provide every protection for victims that we can," said David Martin, King County senior deputy prosecuting attorney who oversees domestic violence cases. "I think it's pretty basic."

Christine Herrman, a former King County prosecutor who now directs Oregon's Sexual Assault Task Force; Multnomah County domestic violence coordinator Chiquita Rollins; and Rod Underhill, a Multnomah County chief deputy district attorney, all say the Belka case shows a gap in legal protections that Oregon should fix.

Herrman said seeking more protection for victims after defendants have completed their parole is something the Oregon Legislative Alliance to End Violence Against Women will consider in the 2010 special or 2011 regular legislative session. "I do think there's a hole," Herrman said. "I don't think many of us would expect to have the unwelcome surprise of running into our offender, especially after clearly surviving such a horrendous attack."

About 5:30 a.m. April 16, 1999, paramedics found Erika Belka on her back along the driveway of her Northeast Portland home, bleeding heavily. Her husband was shirtless, kneeling beside her, blood on his mouth and arms. Belka told police he suspected his wife interrupted a burglary while she was on the porch praying. The couple were active in New Song Community Church.

Police determined that Erika Belka, who counseled church women, had kept mum about serious problems in her own home. The day before the assault, though, she confided to a friend concerns that her husband had blown her inheritance and wasn't paying the bills, and she learned he hadn't been telling her when her sister called.

Doctors initially said she had a 20 percent chance of survival, with nearly 1,000 skull fractures and bruising on the left side of her brain. The prognosis improved, yet John Belka seemed to keep pressing for a do-not-resuscitate order, police records show. Detectives arrested him June 11, 1999. By January 2000, he pleaded no contest to attempted murder, and the state agreed not to pursue sexual abuse allegations made by his children.

The plea deal meant the state could monitor him heavily during his parole but couldn't register him as a sex offender or alert the public upon his release. A community alert, drafted in 2006 but not publicized, described Belka's method of offending: gains access to minors by placing himself in a position of responsibility over them, has joined religious congregations to gain access to potential victims. "My biggest concern is that because of the plea bargain and how he was charged, the community can't be warned," said his sister, Lynn Siva-Wentzel.

Erika Belka's older sister became her legal guardian the past 10 years and handled her medical and health needs, legal and financial matters. The Belkas' seven children-six of whom they had adopted-were placed in foster care; one was adopted. All but one are now adults.

Erika Belka, now 55, has made a slow but remarkable recovery, lives independently and volunteers. She's had numerous surgeries to relieve pressure in her skull, including one earlier this year. She still has a brain shunt and plates in her head, suffers hearing and vision loss, headaches, seizures, significant short-term memory loss, vertigo and cognitive impairment. Belka, her sister and John's sister recently met with his parole officer to plan for their safety. Police have flagged their addresses. If problems arise, the county's Domestic Violence Reduction Unit is to be alerted.

John Belka says he lives with what he's done. He says he's not going to contact his ex-wife or children and just wants to keep his job of three years, dispatching for a trucking company. He said he wouldn't have minded a no-contact order post parole. "I recognize what I did was wrong. It was evil. I bear all the responsibility, and I own that every single day," he said. "My responsibility is to stay away because I've hurt everybody so bad."

Domestic violence experts and prosecutors say tweaks in the law or new statutes might be warranted. Underhill wasn't aware of Washington's criminal no-contact law but thinks it bears looking at. Defense lawyers, however, may object to post-parole court orders. "I understand the logic behind it, but you have to balance that against someone's constitutional rights," said Jon Martz, a Portland criminal defense lawyer.

Other states also allow longer durations for civil protective orders, including Washington and Colorado, where they may be permanent.Rollins said it might be easier to tweak the existing civil restraining order law in Oregon, adding a clause that would allow domestic violence victims to obtain them within six months of the completion of an offender's parole or probation.

Other states, including Washington and California, can grant permanent civil protective orders. In Oregon, there was a trade-off-making it easier for victims to obtain the civil orders without a hearing at which they'd have to face their offender, while requiring victims to renew them annually.

Belka's parole officer is frustrated. "He had all these conditions, and the people in this situation don't want contact with him," she said. "Now, he's just free to do what he wants." While John Belka's sentence may be up, Erika Belka's will never be lifted. "I think one of the things that hit home to me" Hirota said, "is when she said, 'You know, I'll never be done with this."

NY seeks to criminalize teacher student sex over the AOC

Due to an incident where a teacher seduced a 17 year old student in Spackenkill, NY, New York State lawmakers are considering a bill that will eliminate the AOC from teacher/high school student sex.

State Sen. Steve Saland, R-Poughkeepsie, said Wednesday[January 28] he will renew the push for passage of a 2007 bill he co-sponsored that would make students legally incapable of consenting to sexual conduct with a school employee.

"It would criminalize what is alleged to have occurred in Spackenkill," said Saland, chairman of the Senate Education Committee.

The renewed local effort to change New York law comes after the Journal Wednesday reported a former Spackenkill High School teacher is being investigated by state education officials for allegedly having a sexual relationship with a 17-year-old female student. Depending on the findings by the NY State Education Department, his teaching certificate could be revoked by the state.

Town of Poughkeepsie police and Dutchess County justice officials also investigated the finding, but found 38 year old Leon Almeida committed no crime because New York's AOC is 17. Under New York law, people 21 and older who have sex with minors under 17 can be charged with 3rd degree rape. However, Almeida resigned in November, and depending on the status of his teaching certificate at the end of the school year, Almeida may get his full salary for the 2008-09 year.

If the certificate is suspended or revoked, Almeida won't be paid, but if its still in good standing, he'll be paid $78,000 in salariy and benefits.

Little's bill would amend existing law that covers the conduct of health and mental health care providers. That law makes it illegal for those professionals to engage in sexual conduct with patients during treatment sessions, consultations, interviews and examinations. State law also prevents those who are incarcerated in jails and prisons from giving consent. The law also applies to those in youth homes operated by the state.

The amended bill backed by Saland and others would make students legally unable to consent to sexual conduct with most school district employees. The proposal would cover teachers and other school employees age 18 and over who are more than four years older than the student at the time of the conduct.

The victim's mother said that the loophole in the law making it a regulatory, but not a criminal offense for her daughter to be molested made her angry.

"There is a gap in the law in the state of New York," the mother said.
She said she favors legislative changes such as the one proposed by Saland "so other families don't encounter the same issues we've encountered."

Besides New York, Louisiana and Washington officials are proposing legislation that will make 18 year old students legally off limits.

Female employee of halfway house gets off due to technicality

A woman had charges dismissed for having sex with a resident in a halfway house because the sexual misconduct occurred outside the detention facility, and the law said that the sex had to occur within the facility. US District Judge Dale Kimball said that the requirement of sex within the facility made in impossible for charges to stick against Ashley Ford, a hall monitor at a federal halfway house.

Ford allegedly had sex with a work release inmate from the Cornell Community Corrections Center in South Salt Lake in her apartment while she was off duty. She met the resident at a party in October 2006, a month before she was hired as a hall monitor at the facility. Sexual contact, which always occurred at Ford’s apartment, occurred twice, and led to a pregnancy.

Arguing against the dismissal, prosecutor Trina Higgins said the resident was allowed to bring alcohol into Cornell and hold parties there on Saturday nights during his relationship with Ford.

In addition, the resident tried to force Ford to have an abortion and claimed she wrote bogus disciplinary reports about him because she was jealous of his relationships with other women, Higgins said. A federal grand jury indicted Ford last September on a count of sexual misconduct with a ward in a federal institution.

In a motion to dismiss, defense attorney Edward Montgomery argued that Ford had the same status as any other citizen when she was off duty and did not have any custodial authority over the resident. In addition, he said the sex occurred outside the facility, which provides monitoring of pre-trial defendants and helps those who are finishing their sentences prepare to go back into society.

Melodie Rydalch, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Attorney's Office, said the office is reviewing Kimball's ruling.

The resident was sentenced to 46 months in prison for weapons charges. In other states, cases regarding teachers and students have withstood appeal, despite arguments that the teacher/student relationship ended when school ended.

Florida teacher has sex with 18 year old student, but can't be charged

Natalie Fraxedas, a 23 year old rookie Santaluces HS teacher, admitted to having sex with an 18 year old high school senior who she met while tutoring him in Spanish. Fraxedas started having sex with him in January, a charge which would have led to a sexual battery arrest if he was under 18.

Throughout the fall and winter, Fraxedas exchanged flirtatious text messages with the student and gave him higher marks than he deserved in Spanish class, according to the police investigation.

By January, she and the student were having sex at Fraxedas' West Palm Beach apartment. Both denied having sex on the Santaluces High campus.During interviews with school police, Fraxedas said the student initiated the relationship, and she agreed to it only after he turned 18.

But the student told police that Fraxedas recently had become extremely jealous and possessive and had made him uncomfortable in class. A three-page love letter from Fraxedas also painted her as the pursuer.

"I want you to be my man that can stick with me through thick-n-think," she wrote. "I believe that you want to be with me ... I just don't think you've had a 'real' relationship and don't know how to handle one."

At the end of the letter, she tells the student that she will wait for him.

"Even if I only see you in class. I will wait till May 18," she wrote referring to Santaluces' graduation.

Because Fraxedas had sex with an 18 year old victim, she can't be charged with sexual abuse, but there were calls to change that.

Despite the numerous laws passed this legislative session to combat educator sexual misconduct, none included criminalizing sex between a teacher and an adult student. Only five states - Connecticut, Georgia, North Carolina, Ohio and Wyoming - have such laws. [Also, Texas has such a law. Other states, like Illinois, raise the AOC for teacher/student sex to 18 from lower consent ages. New Jersey prosecutes sex with 18 year old students as official misconduct].

[State Sen. Don]Gaetz, a former school district superintendent, said any teacher who has a sexual relationship with a student should be barred from teaching in Florida and face criminal charges.

"Any educator who abuses that trust has committed a crime," he said.

Santaluces Principal Kathy Orloff decided not to renew Fraxedas' teaching contract, which is the same as firing. After being reassigned, she has had no contact with students since March. While she apologized for the "affair" and believed that it was inappropriate, Fraxedas believes that she should not face internal Florida Department Of Education discipline, which can include revocation.

Fraxedas recieved high marks for teaching from some colleagues.

At least one colleague described Fraxedas as a dedicated teacher. In a glowing letter to Orloff commending her, the teacher noted that Fraxedas kept her mornings and afternoons free to tutor students struggling in her class. She brought in cupcakes on their birthdays.

According to Orloff, if other school districts ask for references, she'll refer them to Fraxedas' file which include the misconduct investigation.

An Palm Beach Post Editorial talks about criminalization of sex between adults, arguing against it.

Loophole in Oklahoma rape statutes closed

A rape law loophole in Oklahoma which defines cases where a victim is drunk, unconscious or drugged as second degree rape instead of 1st degree rape has been closed by Oklahoma legislators. Representative Pam Peterson of Tulsa authored the bill to close the loophole after prosecutors in her city had to prosecute rape committed after a victim was drugged as second, not first degree rape. The difference in penalties regarding first degree versus second degree rape can be huge - life in prison versus a fifteen year maximum.

Current law authorizes a first-degree rape charge "where the victim was incapable through mental illness or any other unsoundness of mind, whether temporary or permanent, of giving legal consent."

Tulsa prosecutors used that definition to file a first-degree rape charge against a former nurse who was accused of raping a drugged patient at a Tulsa hospital. But the defendant's defense attorney argued that "unsoundness of mind" does not qualify when an alleged victim is drugged and unconscious. A judge ordered the man bound over for trial on a second-degree rape charge in April, and prosecutors decided not to appeal the ruling.

"I think it was an oversight in state law," Peterson said.

In a similar case in Coyle, a teenage girl recently attended a party and was given a drink she now believes contained a "date rape" drug. After passing out, the girl says she was raped and woke up with six men in the room. The only person charged in the case, a 24-year old Coyle man, is accused of second-degree rape by intoxication.

The new legislation updates state statutes to authorize a first-degree rape charge when the act is "accomplished where the victim is intoxicated by a narcotic or anesthetic agent" or in instances "where the victim is at the time unconscious of the nature of the act and this fact is known to the accused."

Peterson's bill passes with bipartisan support, and she said the new legislation would make convicted rapist pay the full price for what they have done.

"It's encouraging. We can work in a bipartisan way to get good legislation passed. It can be done....This legislation will make it easier to subject rapists to the full punishment allowed under the law."

The bill is expected to be signed by Oklahoma's governor next week.

Legal double standards in sexual abuse cases involving 18 year olds

Two days ago, a priest was acquitted of sexually assaulting an 18 year old woman in El Paso, Texas. Three of the counts in the case against Rev. Phillip Taban involved sexual abuse using emotional dependency, which means that the abuser or sexual predator created or fostered a dependency relationship which left the woman (or man) unable to truly consent, even though she didn’t say no or do anything physical to suggest the relationship was unwanted. The prosecution failed to prove emotional dependency in this case, but said that it would try in a similar case with similar circumstances should one come up later.

Meanwhile, two Texas teachers have been indicted this week on charges of improper relations between an educator and a student for sexual relationships between themselves and 18 year old students under their care. Joy Blackstock, 23, was accused of having a sexual relationship with an 18 year old male student which occurred last fall, in Early, TX, and another teacher, Austin teacher Allen Cole, 34, was accused of having a sexual relationship with a 18 year old woman.

Sexual abusers, regardless of their victim’s age, create conditions where their victims are made emotionally dependant on them. This process has a name – grooming. Grooming is used to facilitate the abuser’s sexual abuse by creating a conflict between the victim’s desire for the abusive relationship to end and the dependency needs the abuser created in her. Unless there is forcible rape, all sexual abusers make their victims dependent on them.

As a brief aside, the “emotional dependency” charge could theoretically be used against domestic abusers who create a position of trust (as a partner or spouse) to control their spouse. Sexual abuse occurs often in abusive relationships, and the victim is often coerced into sex. Texas prosecutors should consider the feasibility of using “emotional dependency” sexual assault charges against domestic abuse perpetrators.

The three Texas cases, with major events occurring within a few days of each other, proves that there are legal double standards depending on which professional is exploiting an adult victim. If a person in authority sexually exploits an 18 year old person under their care, the punishment that they will get depends on which profession they use to exploit their victim in Texas (and other states). If the exploiter is a prison guard or a high school teacher, it becomes a second degree offense punishable by between 2 and 20 years in prison as a maximum sentence in Texas.

If a doctor or lawyer exploits their vulnerable 18 year old patient or client, then the maximum punishment for a non-forcible rape offense will be suspension or expulsion from the profession, but not a criminal charge in most states. If a college professor or priest does the same thing that Debra Lafave or Rev. Paul Shanley did to their charges, there is no criminal punishment for the sexual relationship per se, though the professor’s victim can use collegiate sexual harassment internal policies or Title IX to file a complaint and get the professor removed.

There are double standards not just with regard to gender that are played out in the court of public opinion, but also in the court of law in each state. The 18 year old victim of teacher sexual abuse has a criminal recourse in Texas, but not in Illinois, Wisconsin, or Michigan as of 5-16-08. The therapist with an adult victim of therapist/patient abuse faces a 2 year misdemeanor in Michigan, but a 12.5 year felony in Wisconsin. In all cases, a civil recourse is possible, and the professional can be stricken from their profession’s roster.

It takes sexual assault charges for professionals who are sexual abusers of adults to be brought to the attention of the criminal justice system. With teachers and prison guards, most states define sexual intercourse and other conduct as sexual assault. A smaller number of states define therapist/patient sex as abusive. Sexual exploitation by professionals of adults is not defined as criminal sexual conduct in many instances, so victims are robbed of justice in too many cases.

Has there been any scientific research that says that priests or college professors who sexually abuse vulnerable adults under their care do less damage to their victims than their counterparts in the high school? Has their been any research which states that 18 year olds who are seduced by priests and professors rather than high school teachers are more mature? I don’t think so.

Research has shown that professional abuse of clients runs in the 10% range over a career.

Perhaps it’s time to review how professionals who sexually exploit vulnerable adults are treated. The vulnerability may come from youth (under 25), dependency, past victimization, mental illness or other disorders, or a belief in professionals acting, well, professional.

In Arkansas, professionals who use their position to coerce or seduce 18 to 21 year olds into sex are considered to be felons, as this case shows. (Arkansas’ AOC is 18). Unfortunately, older victims do not have the same sort of protection from predatory professionals.

The three cases above show that the laws need to be standardized, and strengthened so prosecutors don’t need to bring charges of emotional dependency to stop abusers. A law criminalizing professional/client sex with adults in and of itself could go a long way in stopping such abuses.

It’s time for the same outrage that would have been felt if the victims were 9 instead of 18 to apply when professionals abuse their trust with vulnerable adults. And it’s time for the law to punish in the same manner, regardless of profession and age when such breaches occur.

Massachusetts seks to criminalize "rape by fraud"- but questions arise about scope of law

(Original Post 2-2-08)

Two sexual assault victims were denied their chance to get justice after a loophole in a 50 year old law permits trickery to be used to obtain sexual "consent." Prosecutors were forced to drop rape charges against a Massachusetts pharmacist who posed as a gynecologist and examined two victims because of an outdated law which defines rape as sexual activity obtained by force instead of by fraud.

According to the AP story,

Police charged pharmacist Nicholas Creanza with rape after he allegedly lured the women into the back room of his Springfield pharmacy and gave them exams. Because the women consented to the exams, even though they were being deceived, by law it could not be considered rape, Hampden County prosecutors said in dropping the charges.

Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court urged lawmakers to close that loophole in the law in a 2007 case in which they found a man could not be prosecuted for rape for duping his brother's girlfriend into having sex.

The SJC's 2007 ruling came in the case of a Westfield man who was accused of impersonating his brother and raping his brother's girlfriend in a darkened room. The woman told police she was asleep alone in the bedroom she shared with her longtime boyfriend when a man came in, climbed into bed and had sexual intercourse with her. The woman said that during the intercourse she believed the man was her boyfriend, and if she known it was his brother, she would not have consented.

Because the assault were done using trickery and fraud instead of force, and also because of an outdated law, the fake gynecologist cannot be charged with rape, and therefore, charges were dropped.

"The facts and circumstances of this case clearly indicate that the victim's consent was obtained by fraud and deception. However, the Commonwealth is unable to proceed with the prosecution of this case in light of (the SJC ruling)," Assistant State's Attorney Elizabeth Dineen said.

Creanza was arrested in 2005 after two women told them he assaulted them at a Springfield pharmacy. One of the victims declined to file charges.

Wendy Murphy, a Boston attorney and woman's advocate who teaches courses of sexual violence, questioned the decision to drop the charges.

"It is not possible to consent to a medical exam by a nonmedical professional," she said. "If it's not a medical exam, what's left? It's a sexual assault."

In court papers, St. Clair said there was no evidence of rape or indecent assault and battery. He said the grand jury that indicted Creanza heard testimony that the woman was pregnant, and Creanza asked her if she was happy with her obstetrics care. When the woman said no, Creanza offered to make a referral. They then went to Creanza's office, where he performed an examination.St. Clair's memorandum said the woman never told Creanza she was uncomfortable or called out to the person in the next room.

Springfield police Sgt. John Delaney said he hopes the decision to drop the charges against Creanza will not have a chilling effect on rape victims."We can't be discouraged nor do we want victims to be discouraged when they come forward and something like this happens," Delaney said.

State Rep. Peter Koutoujian, D-Waltham, said he has been working with the Massachusetts District Attorneys Association to draft legislation that would add deceit and fraud to the rape statute."The way the law was written is the old understanding of what rape was. It was a forcible act," Koutoujian said."In fact, we know now through decades of work with victims that rape is not necessarily only a physical act. You don't need to use force in order to rape someone. It's really the act of consent that is more pivotal to the charge of rape."

Now 59, Creanza hopes to get his job back as a pharmacist. Neither he, nor his attorney had any comments.

The sexual assault victims in Creanza's case are still victims and still need healing. Creanza assaulted those women, but due to the unfortunate loophole, can't be charged. Consent cannot be obtained if there if trickery or fraud involved. There is also a fiduciary relationship between a doctor (whether a pharmacist or a gynecologist) and a patient which would have also precluded true consent. Here's hoping that the Massachusetts legislature gets moving on closing that loophole, and preventing a fourth victim. If the victims were 18 year olds involved with a high school teacher, there would be no loophole.

(Updated 5-7-08) Lawmakers in Massachusetts are angling to close this loophole, but the proposed law doesn't just criminalize fraudulent consent, it expands the definition of fraudulent consent to include false promises or misrepresentations to obtain sex that a reasonable person wouldn't have consented to.

The proposed law was drafted by state representative Peter Koutoujian, and is being supported by District Attorneys Joseph D. Early Jr. and Gerard Leone. The text goes as shown in this link:

Some commentators say that there are problems with the breadth and the criminalization of the wrong type of sexual "violators." Others say that sex between fiduciary figures and vulnerable victims should be criminalized. Eugene Volokh of the Volokh Conspiracy and a poster to the Huffington Post spells out potential problems:

So let's see how it plays out in the cheating situation. Alan and Beth are lovers. Beth has sex with Carl. She doesn't tell Alan (or, if Alan confronts her about his suspicions, denies it — that doesn't matter for purposes of the law), but then has sex with Alan again. That, under the law, is rape, so long as the jury or judge concludes that a reasonable person wouldn't have consented to have sex again with his lover had he known that she had cheated on him. Naturally, the same would apply with married couples, but this isn't even just a revival of criminal punishment for adultery — there's no requirement of marriage. (Note of course this would apply regardless of the sex, or sexual orientation, of the partners.)

And of course all this would require the case-by-case, jury-by-jury development of the Law of Reasonable Sexual Criteria, as Massachusetts courts have to decide whether a reasonable person would treat a sexual partner's poverty, age, promiscuity, infidelity, and other attributes as sexual deal-killers.

(Would it matter, by the way, how appealing the other person otherwise is? Would the jury have to decide whether the "victim" would have had sex with the "rapist" in any event, because the victim was so infatuated, or because the rapist was so hot? "True, Angelina Jolie didn't tell the victim that she was still in a sexual relationship with Billy Bob Thornton, but a reasonable man would have had sex with Angelina Jolie no matter what he knew about her"?)

Volokh has more about the issue of criminalization of sex obtained using false pretenses, and there is interesting discussions about when or whether it should be criminalized. In certain cases, like lying about the reason about the sexual encounter or relationship, civil remedies have been denied. Fake doctors and pretending to be another person should obviously be criminalized, as is obtaining consent while concealing an STD, but the key question is, where to draw the line?

Upskirting soon to be illegal in Oklahoma

In Oklahoma, upskirting is currently legal because of a case where a man sucessfully got his voyeurism case dropped because courts said that a woman did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy from Peeping Toms. Videotaping kids is illegal.

In the criminal case, a 34-year-old man was arrested in 2006 for placing a camera underneath the girl's skirt at a Tulsa store and taking photographs. He was charged under a "Peeping Tom" statute that requires the victim to be "in a place where there is a right to a reasonable expectation of privacy."

A Tulsa County judge dismissed the charge in January 2007 after ruling that "the person photographed was not in a place where she had a reasonable expectation of privacy." The decision was upheld this week by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. Appellate court Judge Gary Lumpkin dissented from the court's 4-1 decision, writing that "what this decision does is state to women who desire to wear dresses that there is no expectation of privacy as to what they have covered with their dress." "In other words, it is open season for peeping Toms in public places who want to look under a woman's dress," Lumpkin wrote.

State representative Pam Peterson, R-Tulsa, has written a bill which makes it a misdemeanor to video tape a person's private areas,"regardless of whether the person is in a public or private place." Penalties range up to a year in jail and a $5000 fine.

In Illinois, videotaping of both kids and adults was made a felony as of January 1st, and a Chicago Tribune report dated December 26, 2007 showed that damage to victims from the videotaping and distribution on the Internet was widespread.

For those who are interested, the Oklahoma bill to outlaw peeping with cameras is HB 2606. Unfortunately, unlike other states, the maximum penalty is a misdemeanor.

Nursing homes, other institutions escape notification of sex offenders

After recent incidents where sex offenders allegedly preyed on wulnerable women in nursing homes, gaps in Florida's (and other states') sex offender notification law have been found. Ivey Edwards, 82, whose criminal history dates back to 1945, raped a comatose 77 year old nursing home resident back in 2002. Thomas Ango Oliver, a sex predator convicted of raping a 10 year old girl in 2004, is accused of groping a female patient at his nursing home New Year's Eve.

More from the Bradenton Herald's Loophole in sexual predator law:

These incidents and others underscore what experts and notification advocates say is a long-standing gap in state laws nationwide: Laws requiring public notification of sexual offenders and predators have long focused on protecting children - but not vulnerable adults such as those in nursing homes, hospitals and mental health facilities. As a result, an untold number of people are placed in greater jeopardy of being sexually assaulted.

"There's not only people out there who abuse children, but people who specifically prey on adults," said Judy Cornett, executive director of Safety Zone Advocacy, a national non-profit organization that provides education on safety, prevention and intervention on sex crimes against children.

"Any business, hospital or nursing home - I think it should be required to do a background check on those who come in," she said. "Hospitals could be a little tough. But nursing homes, I think it should be mandatory. There should be a law passed."

One anti-sex predator group, A Perfect Cause, has compiled a report on offenders in nursing homes.

In a pair of reports published in 2004 and 2005, A Perfect Cause said it found 800 registered sexual offenders in long-term care facilities in 36 states. Of those, 58 were in Florida - including two in Bradenton facilities who have since died.

Those offenders committed more than 100 crimes, including murder, rape and assault, against fellow residents, the group said. Its findings led several states - California, Illinois, Oklahoma and Virginia among them - to begin requiring nursing homes to check prospective residents' criminal backgrounds and/or notify residents or their guardians if convicted sex offenders live on the premises.

The Herald's report is four pages long. It shows how we have focused all our efforts on children, but failed to focus the same efforts we place on protecting kids against sexual predators as we do protecting vulnerable adults, like those in hospitals, treatment programs, and nursing homes.