|
News & Noteworthy © ---
Featured Issue 7-10-05 |
|
A significant percentage of Michigan's Sex Offender Registrants may be erroneously subjected to arrest nationwide when the Michigan Sex Offender registry is phased into the Department of Justice's National Sex Offender Registry this August.
|
|
7-8-2005 Michigan:
Audit: Sex Offender Registries Contain Inaccuracies State Police Say Burden Is On Sex Offenders To Provide Accurate Info |
.The state's sex offender registries contain inaccurate and incomplete information that may give the public a false sense of security, according to a state audit released Friday. Auditors said the Michigan State Police, which oversees the registries, did not have procedures to verify the accuracy of data including sex offenders' names and addresses. They also found that information on Michigan's two registries -- one for the public, the other a more complete listing for law enforcement -- did not always match.
The Office of the Auditor General covered records from October 2001 to Aug. 31, 2004. Auditors concluded that State Police did not match data from its criminal history system with the complete registry to identify convicted sex offenders not listed on the registry. As of August 2004, according to the audit, only two full-time employees managed about 35,000 sex offender records. About 200 new records are added each month.
Overall, the audit found that State Police were somewhat effective in ensuring the registries have accurate and complete data. State Police responded that state law places the burden on sex offenders to provide accurate information and said offenders routinely provide incorrect information to law enforcement.
..more..
: by Click-on-Detroit
|
.In the past few weeks we have tackled the world of Michigan's Sex Offender registry and its confusing statistics and variable definitions.
In our earlier Featured articles "Michigan Registered Sex Offenders: Out of Compliance, AWOL, Unaccounted For, Absconded, what does that mean? (6-17-05)" -and- "Michigan: Having trouble reporting consistent "Sex Offender" registry statistics: What is the truth? (5-9-05)" we explained some of the confusion but never really got to the source.
Today we have learned why, from Michigan's Office of the Auditor General, their July 2005 "Performance Audit of the SEX OFFENDER REGISTRIES (1 meg 36 pg PDF file)," yes plural.
The report reads like a "Keystone Kops" routine with finger pointing, he did it, its not my responsibility, or the offender is wrong, even in the face of blatant system errors that could not be caused by the offender.
The state claims there are two registries, the SOR for law enforcement, and the PSOR for the public to view records; actually there are more but we will get to them later. The SOR is running on a computer that is 37 years old (pg-7) which is probably an older Unisys system (Formerly Burroughs based in Michigan), with a newer system coming in late 2006.
The state is charging registrants $35.00 each for the maintenance of this old relic (pg-7). The audit report failed to question the state as to why they have not followed their normal schedules of phasing out old equipment leaving us to wonder about management. Also, will this $35.00 fee be phased out when they new equipment comes in 2006?
I am sure the state would counter with, the registrants should pay for the new system as well. However, one must read this audit report with a close eye, that equipment is also running the state's Law Enforcement Information System (LEIN), and that cost should come out of General Funds not paid for by just registered sex offenders. Someone needs to raise this with the legislature.
"Audit Finding 4: Accuracy and Completeness of System-Generated Reports":
"c. The monthly status report used by the MSP Sex Offender Registry Unit to report statistics (such as the number of registered sex offenders) to the public, the media, and other governmental agencies was inaccurate. For example, the report categorizes sex offenders, but when the categories were totaled, the result did not agree with the total number of sex offenders identified on the report. DIT was responsible for creating and providing the monthly status report to MSP, and MSP was respoinsible for verifying the accuracy of the report." MSP and DIT (programming department) indicated that these report deficiencies are due to errors in logic used to create the reports." (pg-19) In other words, the programming was WRONG!
"a. and b." also found errors in other system-generated reports, one of them is very disturbing, one report identified a sex offender as being "out of compliance" when in fact he was "in compliance," was an ARREST warrant issued for this person? Further, how many registered offenders in the past have been illegally arrested for being out of compliance when they were not? The audit failed to check that as it was not considered important.
As a result of this audit it seems most logical that, since the numbers reported to the public and the media in the past are at best questionable, that MSP should be publishing corrected numbers for all to see with an explanation. Newspapers usually do post Corrections to earlier articles that were wrong, why not the State of Michigan?
Audit Finding 1: Accuracy and Completeness of Data Within the Sex Offender Registries.
Here the auditors compared the SOR with the PSOR registry and noted over 700 differences. The auditors also found that there was a "program" which the MSP could run to tell them when there are differences, and the MSP had not run the program, it was run and differences corrected.
Now, the auditors failed to address "How these errors occurred" which leads us to a hidden system in use by the MSP. The only way such errors could occur is, if the information input by local police agencies (into the LEIN system 37 years old) was not automatically applied to the PSOR. Hence there must be a PAPER or HAND system to get new registrants and changes into the PSOR, the Public Online Registry. This was not investigated or reported on.
The MSP claimed no responsibility for incorrect addresses in the SOR, they laid the blame for that on local police agencies who input the data, and on offenders who the MSP claims "offenders routinely provide incorrect data to the entering agency." (pg-15) The MSP always claims "offender misconduct" to the media but never mentions the problem with "local police agencies."
Given the MSP claims these errors, we should look at what the law requires, at initial registration, and when an address change takes place:
MCL 28.725a Notice to registered individual; explanation of duties; reporting requirements. subsection (6) When an individual reports under subsection (3) or (4), an officer or authorized employee of the local law enforcement agency, sheriff's department, or department post shall verify the individual's residence or domicile and any information required to be reported under section 4a. The officer or authorized employee shall sign and date a verification form. The officer shall give a copy of the signed form showing the date of verification to the individual. The officer or employee shall forward verification information to the department by the law enforcement information network (LEIN system) in the manner the department prescribes. The department shall revise the databases maintained under section 8 as necessary and shall indicate verification in the compilation under section 8(2).
subsection (8) An individual required to be registered under this act shall maintain either a valid operator's or chauffeur's license issued under the Michigan vehicle code, 1949 PA 300, MCL 257.1 to 257.923, or an official state personal identification card issued under 1972 PA 222, MCL 28.291 to 28.300, with the individual's current address. The license or card may be used as proof of domicile or residence under this section. In addition, the officer or authorized employee may require the individual to produce another document bearing his or her name and address, including, but not limited to, voter registration or a utility or other bill. The department may specify other satisfactory proof of domicile or residence.
It does not seem likely registered offenders, who are taking the time to register, and are standing in front of the registering agent, are going to lie about the information they are providing, especially knowing the registering agent is required by law to verify that information. Agreed, there will be a few, but they will be in the minority especially knowing that they could face jail or prison time for lying.
In response to the Audit finding the MSP said, "it cannot be held accountable for the actions of other agencies." (pg-16)
Audit Finding 2: Address Verification Date Field.
This information is critically important to the registrant, because if it is wrong, then they might be arrested and charged with a crime of "Failing to Register or Failing to Verify Address" and that could be either a misdemeanor or a felony depending on the person.
The Audit tested "109 DD-4 forms and noted 11 instances in which the date on the DD-4 form did not agree with the address verification date on the SOR." (pg-16) The Audit only reviewed 109 forms, and 10% were in error, there are over 23,000 used every year. This may partially explain the 5-9-05 Detroit Free Press article Sex offenders AWOL from state registry, Nearly 9,000 not accounted for!
Considering 35,069 registrants (pg-14) less those in prison (11,800 at last report) means about 23,269 must report their addresses at least annually. Accordingly, annually about 2,326 (10%) will be erroneously labeled an "absconder" (i.e., the erroneous absconder) and possibly arrested because the state made a mistake. That estimate does not even take into consideration that some registrants must report quarterly, and 10% of them may also be incorrect. Acceptable?
"The design of the system prohibits law enforcement agencies from entering the actual address verification date. Instead, the SOR system (37 years old) records the address verification date as the entry date regardless of when the information was collected." (pg-16) MSP response, we are working on a rewrite of the SOR program to allow MANUAL entry of this date by local law enforcement agencies and anticipates it will be complete late 2006. Next year, what about those being put in jail today?
Audit Finding 3: Validation of Sex Offender Records.
Apparently FBI procedures mandates that the MSP validate the SOR against criminal history files or court records within 90 days of registration and annually thereafter. If the MSP does not do that in a timely manner the FBI is required to remove the offender's record from the National Sex Offender Registry (The FBI was not enforcing this at the time of the audit). (pg-17) In a July 2004 FBI review of Michigan's SOR, the FBI found that the MSP was erroneously marking records as validated.
In November of 2004 the MSP requested that the FBI eliminate this requirement. The Michigan Audit does not seem to resolve this issue nor report on any response from the FBI.
While it is understandable that the FBI would only want to list people that have valid criminal records, I do not understand why the MSP would want this eliminated, it is a perfectly logical system of checks and balances. If records are to be automated then there should be a quick and automated way they can be verified as well.
On July 8, 2005 "Governor Granholm announced today Michigan will join the United States Department of Justice National Sex Offender Public Registry in August. This may take place if the FBI permits her to allow records that have not been validated according to the current rules.
In our 6-17-05 Featured Article we drew upon the MSP "Sex Offender Registry Backgrounder" document (pg-2) for the definitions of "absconders." However, today's Audit Report identifies the "erroneous absconder," generated by an inflexible 37-year old computer that should have been phased out decades ago.
Given the findings of Michigan's Auditor General, in the "Performance Audit of the Sex Offender Registries" dated July 2005, I would hope the ACLU would step in and ask the Federal Court for an injunction to prevent the phasing-in to the National Registry of the Michigan Registry with so many erroneous "address verification dates," and criminal records which have not been validated according to federal law.
Added to all this confusion the legislature wants to add a 1,000 foot tape measure around schools, allegedly to protect children from the hypothetical criminal who has yet to strike anytime in known history. Who will take responsibility for the certain errors in this system?
|
|
|
