Jones v. Cnty. of Suffolk & Parents for Megan's Law
| Decision Date | 01 May 2018 |
| Docket Number | 15-CV-0111(JS)(ARL) |
| Parties | JOHN JONES, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF SUFFOLK and PARENTS FOR MEGAN'S LAW, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
APPEARANCES
For Plaintiff:
Christopher T. Dunn, Esq.
Erin B. Harrist, Esq.
Aadhithi Padmanabhan, Esq.
New York Civil Liberties Union
125 Broad St., 19th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Jennifer Spirn, Esq.
Lawrence F. Spirn, Esq.
Spirn & Spirn
Hauppauge, NY 11788
For County of
Suffolk:
Marlene Lange Budd, Esq.
Rudolph Max Baptiste, Esq.
Suffolk County Attorney's Office
H. Lee Dennison Building
100 Veterans Memorial Highway
P.O. Box 6100
Hauppauge, NY 11788
For Parents for
Megan's Law:
Michael Anthony Miranda, Esq.
Richard B. Epstein, Esq.
Miranda Sambursky Slone Sklarin
Verveniotis LLP
240 Mineola Blvd.
Mineola, NY 11501
Plaintiff John Jones1 ("Plaintiff") commenced this action against the County of Suffolk ("the County") and Parents for Megan's Law ("PFML" and collectively "Defendants") on January 9, 2015, alleging violations of his rights under the United States and New York Constitutions. (Compl., Docket Entry 1.)
On March 30, 2018, the Court granted the County's motion for summary judgment (County Mot., Docket Entry 119), and PFML's motion for summary judgment (PFML Mot., Docket Entry 120) and indicated that a decision would follow. The Court now sets forth its findings, reasoning, and conclusions.
The Court assumes familiarity with its prior Order resolving the Defendants' motions to dismiss the Complaint. See Jones v. Cty. of Suffolk, 164 F. Supp. 3d 388 (E.D.N.Y. 2016).
Plaintiff is a veteran who resides in Suffolk Countywith his wife, Jane Jones, and their children. He pled guilty to attempted rape in 1992, served a four-year jail sentence, and was released on parole in 1996.3 (PFML 56.1 Stmt. ¶¶ 74, 76; Pl.'s PFML Resp. ¶ 74; County 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 3; Pl.'s County Resp. ¶ 3; Mr. Jones Dep. 9:24-10:6.) He remained on parole until 1998. (Mr. Jones Dep. 10:15-21.) Since his conviction, Plaintiff has not been charged with any crimes or violations, but as a result of his conviction, Plaintiff was required to register as a sex offender. (Pl.'s 56.1 Counterstmt. ¶ 80; Mr. Jones Aff. ¶¶ 4-5.)
Pursuant to New York's Sex Offender Registration Act ("SORA"), sex offenders are required to register with the New York Staate Division of Criminal Justice Services (the "Division"). (Pl.'s PFML Resp. ¶¶ 3-4); see N.Y. Correction Law § 168-a(5),168-f(1). In connection with the SORA requirements, sex offenders are classified as level one ("Level One Offenders"), level two ("Level Two Offenders"), or level three offenders ("Level Three Offenders"). See N.Y. Correction Law § 168-l(6). For as long as the offender is required to register, he or she is required to report his or her address to the Division on an annual basis, and for Level One and Level Two Offenders, to appear at a local law enforcement agency and provide a current photograph every three years. (PFML 56.1 Stmt. ¶¶ 3-4; Pl.'s PFML Resp. ¶¶ 3-4); see N.Y. Correction Law § 168-f. Level One Offenders remain on the registry for twenty years, and Level Two and Level Three Offenders are on the registry for life. (PFML 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 81.)
When Plaintiff was released in 1996, he was required to register as a sex offender pursuant to SORA and re-register each year until he was removed from the registry. (County 56.1 Stmt. ¶¶ 1, 43; Pl.'s County Resp. ¶ 1.) Plaintiff testified that when he was released, he was classified as a Level One Offender. (Pl.'s PFML Resp. ¶ 77; Pl.'s County Resp. ¶ 4; Mr. Jones Dep. 10:25-11:8.) A Notice of Hearing from 2004 and a reclassification order from 2005 indicate that he was a Level Two Offender upon release and that he was re-classified as a Level One Offender on January 5, 2005.
According to Plaintiff, between approximately 1996 and 2012, SCPD detectives came to his home each year, verified that he still resided there, and asked to see his driver's license. (County 56.1 Stmt. ¶¶ 25, 39; Mr. Jones Dep. 101:20-103:19.) He testified that the incidents lasted two or three minutes and that on some occasions, he allowed them into his home. (County 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 40; Mr. Jones Dep. 102:19-103:14.) He also indicated that on at least one occasion, one of the detectives was carrying a firearm. (County 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 38; Pl.'s County Resp. ¶ 38; Mr. Jones Dep. 102:9-11.) Pursuant to SORA, from approximately 2005 to 2016, Plaintiff was also required to visit an SCPD precinct every three years to submit a photograph and fingerprints. (County 56.1 Stmt. ¶¶ 24, 33, 42.)
PFML is a not-for-profit organization that provides support to victims of sexual abuse, rape, violent crimes, hate crimes, and other crimes through victim counseling, advocacy, and referrals. (PFML 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 1.) Prior to February 2013, PFML received complaints from members of the community about the accuracy of the sex offender registry, including the addresses provided by sex offenders. (PFML 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 6.) Laura Ahearn was the executive director of PFML during the relevant period. (Ahearn Dep., Miranda Decl., Ex. U, Docket Entry 124-21, 8:5-8.)
Ahearn testified that in 2012, the Suffolk CountyExecutive and his staff requested that PFML develop a sex offender management plan for the County, including a proposal for in-person address verifications. PFML developed the proposal--the "PFML Sex Offender Tracking and Community Support Program"--and presented it to the Suffolk County Legislature and the Legislature's Public Safety Committee. Subsequently, in February 2013, the County passed the Community Protection Act ("CPA"), which among other things, authorized the Suffolk County Police Department ("SCPD") to contract with PFML to conduct address verifications of registered sex offenders. PFML and SCPD subsequently entered into a contract (the "Contract"), which provided that PFML would verify the addresses of registered sex offenders.4 The Contract became effective on May 1, 2013 and expired on April 30, 2016. (Contract at 1; PFML 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 9; County 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 16.)
Pursuant to the Contract, PFML agreed to use Registry Verification Field Representatives ("RVR" or "RVRs") to "conduct in-person Home Address Verifications for Level One, Level Two, andLevel Three Sex Offenders required to report pursuant to SORA, excluding Homeless Sex Offenders and persons currently incarcerated . . . utilizing Sex Offender Registry information available pursuant to New York State Corrections Law § 168-1 and/or identified through [PFML's] use of electronic data or other publically available information." (Contract at 8, III(A)(2); PFML 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 18; County 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 61.) The Contract defined an RVR as "a retired law enforcement officer, employed by [PFML], whose principal duties include in-person or other means of verification of Sex Offender home or work addresses." (Contract at 5, I(E); PFML 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 19; County 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 62.) The RVRs were required to conduct the verifications utilizing unmarked vehicles and to display identification that did "not resemble law enforcement identification nor include insignia that appears to be a law enforcement badge, shield or image." The identification cards displayed the RVR's name, picture, the organization ("Parents for Megan's Law & The Crime Victims Center"), the program ("Sex Offender Registration Verification Program"), and the phrase "[a] contract agency of the County of Suffolk."
The Contract required PFML to verify the home addresses of Level One Offenders once a year and the home addresses of LevelTwo and Level Three Offenders twice per year. Additionally, PFML agreed to conduct work address verifications for Level Three Offenders and to access publicly available records and data to confirm the work addresses provided by Level Three Offenders.5 (Contract at 9, III(B); PFML 56.1 Stmt. ¶¶ 15-16; Pl.'s PFML Resp. ¶ 15.) The Contract further required that each week, PFML submit a list of the sex offenders scheduled for address verifications to SCPD, and SCPD "reserve[d] the right to alter, reject or suspend any scheduled in-person Home Address Verification at its sole discretion." An evaluation from 2014 indicates that between May 1, 2013 and April 30, 2014, SCPD removed between ten and forty-five percent of the offenders scheduled to be verified each week. (Pl.'s 56.1 Counterstmt. ¶ 19; Performance Eval., Harrist Decl., Ex. 16, Docket Entry 129-16, at 4.) When it conducted its review, SCPD removed any offenders who were the subject of ongoing investigations and never added any sex offender to the weekly lists provided by PFML. (PFML 56.1 Stmt. ¶¶ 28-29.) However, the parties agree that PFML decided which sex offenders would be subject to address verifications each week, based on"logistical considerations" and "the requirements of the [C]ontract." (PFML 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 27.)
PFML was also required to conduct address verifications "on an as...
To continue reading
Request your trial