Listen to RM156: The Ultimate Guide to Interstate Transfers and Revocation Retakings
Andy 00:00
registry matters as an independent production. The opinions and ideas here are that of the hosts and do not reflect the opinions of any other organization. If you have a problem with these thoughts fyp recording live from fyp Studios, east and west with Metamucil transmitting across the internet. This is Episode 156 of registry matters. Happy Saturday night, Larry, welcome back.
Larry 00:24
Glad to be with you.
Andy 00:27
What do we have going on tonight?
Larry 00:30
We have a really spectacular program tonight. We’ve got Of course we do. We’ve got a couple of submissions from prison. And we’ve got a doctored question from prison that someone sent and unfortunately, I’ve misplaced the actual submission, but it was long, long. And and, and, and very took a lot of meandering detour saw put together what he was essentially trying to ask. So we’ve got that question. And we’re gonna get it leads us into the deep dive we’re gonna do on interstate compact, trance transfers, and revocation of probation. Love it. Love it. Violations of supervision when you’re at a when you’re in a non sentencing state. We’re going to talk about that a little bit.
Andy 01:19
Got your terms, it’s your non sentencing state once you put the words together, like non sentencing, okay, like,
Unknown Speaker 01:26
Oh, that
Andy 01:27
makes perfect sense. But my small little feeble brain can’t go, Oh, Okay, got it. I wouldn’t be able to like, put that together to start. But leave it to Larry to come up with the good terms that describe something very concisely. You ready to go? Or do you want to cover anything before
Larry 01:43
we get going? Oh, let’s let’s dive right in. Because we’ve only got 20 minutes to be here tonight. Oh, all right.
Andy 01:51
Well, we’ll we’ll can talk fassler first thing that we have coming up is a question that you you put in here and it says read first, it says, Dear Larry, recently, you responded to a Kentucky man’s questions about driving commercial motor vehicles across country. I’ve provided a bit more information. And I hope you will least send this to the individual or printed in a future issue of the nozzle digest. I pray you’re not offended. And I truly only want to help yours truly. Thanks, Brian.
Larry 02:25
I am actually not offended. I’m very, I’m very flattered and appreciative of the work that Brian put into this. And it’s a well written nice penmanship. And it, it probably is very accurate in every respect being that he has experienced. I did respond back by letter that we wouldn’t be able to send it to him, unfortunately, because of the rules or correctional facilities have about about acting as a conduit. And I wouldn’t want our transcripts to be denied because of a perceived acting as a conduit between inmates. But I do have it and I’m trying to figure out how to incorporate it so that it’ll it’ll be useful to people who were in that situation. And I do appreciate Brian sending it to us
Andy 03:15
probably don’t have to meander there for very long either. Right? Nope,
Larry 03:19
it was it was it was very thorough, you’re looking at their last three pages there. They have what he wrote.
Andy 03:25
Right? But Alright, so then we’ll move on to the second one, it says gentlemen, saw your ad in my issue of the digest. I cannot use anything with the internet cable. Well, I mean, I can’t use anything with internet capabilities, I would appreciate a free sample transcript of this come from someone inside or someone out in the wild.
Larry 03:47
This is someone out in the free world. And, and I was a little distressed about that, because there’s been so much litigation about a blanket internet ban, which means that this person, if he if he has a full band with no internet access, He better be a really bad person that they can actually give concise, specific reasons for the total ban. And that’s probably not the case being that Florida’s as conservative as it is when it comes to how they punish people. I’m betting that they have a policy that they just apply to everyone. And I’d like to know more. And then hopefully we can if he hasn’t already contacted the Florida action committee that would be a place to stop and see if this is one of the projects they’re working on because they’re they’re looking at challenges and trying to raise funding for challenges and this may be something that they’re working on already and in our sole affiliate in Florida, but but I’m very distressed to hear about he cannot use anything and that’s pretty all inclusive with internet capabilities. Um,
Andy 04:56
so a friend of mine just in the last handful of days was released. And he went and saw his probation officer for the first time. And the PEO said that he’s allowed to use it for work. And that this was like the funniest terms essential home activities or something like that, which to me says something like banking or probably like job application things. But of course, they said no social media. But you know, that’s not, that’s not a full on ban. And I know from my own personal experience that I’ve had pretty free rein even to like, you’re like, you said to me, guy, you do whatever you want. And I mean, I had pretty free reign, and nobody bothered me. The only so from my understanding of computers, which I’ll just say, I know a lot. But for that, so if somebody was like the distributor, like the kingpin of distributing the naughty pictures and stuff, I could see them, hey, look, you use your computer to commit all of the crimes, and then they would say, yeah, you can’t use them. But I can’t see why they would do it for everything for every other just Joe Schmo for all the miscellaneous crimes that people commit from urinating to even having a relationship with a minor that didn’t require the internet to go about. So why do they then ban you from using the internet doesn’t make sense?
Larry 06:16
Well, it doesn’t, if you think in the terms that you’re thinking and but you, you as most people have difficulty putting yourself in their position. And I’m not justifying their position, because I don’t want to be in their position. But here’s what they’re faced with. There’s things called cameras and news media’s news media. And if they start, and the last thing a bureaucrat wants to do is to have to make a decision that’s caused, that’s going to be the source of a camera being in front of them. Because this is something that’s very sensitive to the community. So if you start deciding on a case by case basis, who should have access of what level of access when one of those people inevitably messes up? And they will, they absolutely will, we’re human, and there will be people who will foul up, then in comes to cameras, how could you have possibly made that decision is the first question is asked because the person is a sex offender. And it causes outrage, and it causes a lot of phone calls to go to their supervisors. And in a state system, for example, it would be the governor of New Mexico’s office who would get a deluge of phone calls after read on Channel 13, about how this person was granted access to the internet. And they did X, Y, and Z on the internet. It’s easier, and it’s safer. And they need safety. They need safety from community outrage, and safety from people screwing up. It’s easy to say, if you’ve had a sex offense, conviction, you can’t do X, Y and Z. That is the safest thing from their perspective. That doesn’t make it right. But if you think like they do, it makes it right.
Andy 08:00
Well then make restrictions. I know you guys over there have you can’t leave the county and you have like 12 counties in the whole state. And I mean, it leaves you a lot, a lot of swath of territory that you can cover. But hey, so don’t leave your house, don’t use the internet and just watch television all day there. Now everyone will be safe and don’t have company while you’re at it. Okay, well, now, nobody can offend for anything.
Larry 08:24
By means you’re drawing, you’re you’re eliminating the absurdity of what I’m telling you how they’re how they’re wired. Yeah. To them, it makes perfect sense. Because they didn’t have to make a risky decision. How would you determine who would have access to there, I know you can start with the basics, but they used internet for their crime. But it’s only a person who used the internet for their crimes, the only person who’s capable of ever misusing the internet, if that be the case. If that be the case, we would never have any internet crimes, they would have already all been committed. Right? So therefore, therefore, in their mind, they are being safe and proactive. And if they have these rules, then it’s easier to violate people because the more rules you have, the more violations are likely to be happy. The more rules you have, the more more violations you’re going to have. Because people screw up. If you have if you have as many rules if you look at our behavioral contract here, one of these days go to put it up in the program, all the things you can’t do when you’re under supervision. There’s there’s very few people that comply with all those all the time.
Andy 09:38
Paul makes the obvious statements his total ban is to overbroad. Yes, of course it is. And but one I bet you if you go back to Episode 40 ish, you’ll find where we covered a West Virginia Supreme Court I think decision that said you can’t do this. And we cover many things in multiple places that you can’t just They know you can’t turn on and have the little bits go back and forth and do the modem sound. But so this individuals experiencing this? And the answer I’m pretty sure you’ll agree with is they can do it until they’re told to stop.
Larry 10:13
That is why I want to find out if it’s if it’s uniquely tailored to him. Or if it’s system wide, if it’s system wide, there’s a lot of leeway to litigate on that because of packing him. And then the body of case all this developed in other jurisdictions that have rested on packing him. So therefore, I’ll be curious to know. And then if he’s if he’s been in contact with Ford Action Committee, what their position is.
Andy 10:38
Very good. So the answer here for this individuals contact fac and see what kind of angles they have to assist. Is that the answer there?
Larry 10:49
Well, we’re gonna we’re gonna ask him to provide more information. And then and then we may contact Florida Action Committee ourselves, but but I’m curious to know if if this has been tailored to him, or if this is just a blanket policy, and we’re going to communicate that they have more weight when we send them a copy of this episode.
Andy 11:07
And then Paul, actually, as he says, They tried it with me and I went in federal appeals court, ninth district. So there would be another some level of what’s the word providing not evidence, but another court stating the same thing. What’s that called? exact precedent, thank
Larry 11:22
you for being persuasive. Is persuasive authority if it’s if it’s not in the same jurisdiction, if it’s not binding, okay? It’s not it’s it’s a precedential case only as a jurisdiction, but it’s persuasive that you would argue it you say this is such a fine, brilliant analysis, that it applies here as well.
Andy 11:40
All right, then we’ll moving on. This is a letter This came typed and it looks like it’s on like a 1950s typewriters. It says, thank you very much for taking the time to respond to my letter with a date. I know you did not make any promises as what your author of the legal corner might have to say, but I find it encouraging nonetheless. And then highlighted by you, it says I hope by now you’ve read the Texas constitutions Bill of Rights and articles bla bla, bla, bla, bla bla, and you can see for yourself how it is unconstitutional in Texas to enact retroactive laws. Isn’t that true everywhere, Larry?
Larry 12:16
Well, keep reading of it. I’ll explain.
Andy 12:19
Okay, it says they are void. Since registration carries a felony punishment for failure to register and submit civil commitment has similar felony clauses. These laws are also ex post facto in violation of both us and text and Texas constitutions. I would not be here if I was not forced to bend to the will of the legislature’s new laws made retroactive. I want to be released. I want to be paid for my illegal incarceration for the past eight years, the state of Texas pays ,000 a year for false imprisonment for almost excuse me or unlawful incarceration, do the math, I need help. I won’t forget if it’s you that helps this, forgive me. But this sounds like almost one of those chain letters that you get from the Saudi Prince, and he’s in prison and need some help just send and pass it along to your friends?
Larry 13:08
Sort of Yes. Well, in terms in terms of your question, if you are looking at the United States Constitution, it is against the law to impose an ex post facto law, but the only the only laws that come within the zone of being ex post facto, are criminal schemes, civil schemes, not sorry, are not covered. And therefore his analysis breaks down. The Texas now I have not analyzed the Texas constitution. Now it is possible the Texas constitution could provide a greater protection than the United States. And we’ve talked about Maryland, for example, it says that the no disadvantage may be imposed after the fact. And that’s been interpreted to be civil disadvantages as well. But in the case, the United States Constitution, if he’s going to rest on the US Constitution, it has to be a criminal law. And he seems to confuse the fact that you can be punished for not complying with the registry. The death somehow makes the registry itself criminal. And it doesn’t. There are dozens and hundreds, I mean, countless regulatory schemes that if you do not comply with them, it’s a crime. And you could be criminally prosecuted. And I think we have pre shell banter I talked about registry for the draft 18 to 2018 to 26 year old young men have to register for the draft. No one to my knowledge has ever argued that registering for the draft constitutes punishment. If you fail to do it, you can be incarcerated in the federal prison for up to five years. And you forfeit financial aid as a student if you can’t certify and they can or cannot verify compliance with Selective Service. And in fact, there seems like to me that because Play because it only applies to young men. I mean to this day of equality, it seems like to me that you would have an equal protection clause I’m required to register. I’m not because I’m older than Methuselah. But if I were young man, I would, I would, I would argue that, that, that, that I’m not being protected equally by the Constitution, but 1826 year olds, only only males have to register. That would be a potential argument. I don’t know if it’s been raised. I’ve not researched it, but but on his and then his final point, about ,000 a year, the incarceration has to be illegal. And if he’s been prosecuted, legally, and there is a law, I don’t know how he can prevail on that. He’s gonna have to find a Texas attorney believes in his case, because he’s clearly say, Bob won’t forget who helps me that saved I don’t have anybody, but I’ll pay you on my winnings. He has to find someone who’s willing to go after this knowing that there’s a likelihood of him getting 80,000. at first blush, I don’t see the likelihood of getting 80,000 because the Texas registration scheme has not been declared punitive. Therefore, it doesn’t violate ex post facto law. Therefore, his incarceration if he’s either pled guilty or been convicted of it, it’s not an illegal incarceration.
Andy 16:10
I gotcha.
Unknown Speaker 16:13
So
Larry 16:15
when I don’t know
Andy 16:16
what happens to this individual.
Larry 16:19
Well, he he’s he’s got a logical mind to the point that that it breaks down when when he says, just because it’s it, you know, hit the the same type of civil command, but he says that that’s one constitution, because it’s ex post facto, but by the very definition, it’s civil commitment. Yeah. Civil commitment is inherently constitution constitutional. Sure. As far as I know, every single state in our union has civil commitment. The federal government has civil commitment for people just to refresh people’s memory. A guy named john Hinckley was civilly committed after attempting to assassinate President Reagan in 1981. For
Andy 17:02
like, 40 years or something. Yes. For a long time.
Larry 17:07
Yes, he was. And that was a civil commitment, because he was found not guilty by reason of insanity.
Andy 17:12
But yeah, by reason of insanity.
Larry 17:15
And but that was a civil commitment. The goal of the regular civil commitment is to is to rehabilitate people, so you can release them. Now, the standards for rehabilitation were taken a major detour, but the standards for rehabilitation for someone who is shot a president, as well as Secret Service, as well as DC police officers, that is going to be looked at far more carefully in terms of how much recovery has actually occurred, before they release something like that someone who’s gotten on top of a water tower, and threat the job and it’s caused the closure of some streets for a couple hours, is going to get far less scrutiny than what john Hinckley received before he was finally released.
Andy 17:58
And he wasn’t released until if at least after Ronnie died, and then even he has been released, right?
Larry 18:06
Yes. Well, now there were several people had died just tried to use for memory because I didn’t actually plan to talk about this. There was there was Reagan and it was the Press Secretary James James Brady. That’s where the brady bill and all that stuff about correct gun control comes comes from. And then there was there was an officer. So I remember the name della handy, and it seems like McCarthy and I think there were five total don’t remember the other one. But many of those people were dead now. And by the time by the time they released. Hinkley, Brady and Reagan both had passed. Okay.
Andy 18:42
All right. And so we’re done there.
Unknown Speaker 18:46
We’re done there. Cool. All right. Well,
Andy 18:49
I guess this is now the time to roll up our sleeves and get ready for Interstate transfer kind of things. Right.
Larry 18:56
Fantastic. We’ve been down this far before we did.
Andy 19:01
It wasn’t even very long ago. I was thinking about it. When I was coming back from from activities today. I was like, it wasn’t that long ago that we cover this. But it’s always good to circle back around because this subject comes up all the time.
Larry 19:13
We didn’t cover it in the detail we’re going to tonight, but we have covered write regularly about interstate transfer.
Andy 19:19
Yep. All right. So let’s start things off since I’ve been reading the nozzle digest for years now. And I do appreciate the work they do. Having said that, I do have one observation to make. Can’t they find someone other than Larry to write the legal corner column? He’s got to be the most depressing person anyone could ever meet. It doesn’t matter how good the News is. He was fun some way to dash our hopes. It’s a very strange individual, to say the least. I’m getting ready to be released on parole from prison here in Texas and I would like to live with my family in Mississippi. It seems to me that I have a right to live with my family since they can provide me with stability and transition system. Since I know Larry will have some wacky explanation, that I don’t have a right to live with my family, just wondering if you can let me know what I might expect. I don’t bother referring this to Larry, if nobody else Excuse me, I don’t bother. Maybe I don’t mind if, if no one else can refer to this other than if Larry can respond, it seems to me that being in a supportive environment would benefit society. So transferring me to Mississippi should be a no brainer. Why is this such a funny question? They’re broke the fourth wall again, you broke the fourth wall. Again, I cannot get you people to cooperate with me. You’re just supposed to roll on? Why is this funny question?
Larry 20:45
What is funny, because that doesn’t seem like he likes me. And I don’t like to either. And, and he believes that the greater good of society is what should guide the decision on Interstate transfer. And I just find that laughable in America, because we’re all about the individual. Anybody who talks about the greater good of society is usually ostracized and accused of being some kind of socialist evil. And I think it’s funny that magically when it comes to this, the greater good of society is what he wants to rest upon. But the so that makes it a little bit appeasing?
Andy 21:26
Yes, I gotcha. So how if he wants to transfer from Texas to Cisco mipi? What should he need to know about this transfer process? And stop being such a negative person, by the way?
Larry 21:42
Well, I don’t think I’m that negative, am I?
Andy 21:48
God is being is being a person knowledgeable on a subject and telling you how shitty and awful and challenging something is, does that make it negative? No, that makes it educated and spot on. And I know that we’ve received plenty, plenty, plenty of comments from people that saying that they would rather hear it straight instead of have everything sugar, sugar coated, just the same with me and the attorney that I hired. Don’t tell them don’t blow smoke up my rear end and tell me that things I want to hear. If you think it’s impossible, then tell me it’s impossible. But don’t lie, either. Tell me tell me what we’re in good shape or in bad shape?
Larry 22:22
It’s actually a fantastic question. And we actually have discussed it in various bits and pieces numerous times. And we’ll just get to bits and pieces tonight. Because this is a complex issue of of Interstate movement. And there’s a formal process for transferring people who have state imposed probation or parole or any type of supervision and maybe see ourselves refer community supervision for life. But any type of supervision, there is a process through the interstate compact for adult offender supervision. But I will state off off the bat that the person in prison is not the only one we want to deal with there are people believe it or not, who don’t go to prison, and they go straight to probation. So I’d like to like to discuss the nuance about the people who don’t have a prison journey at about the pitfalls interstate compact as it applies to them.
Andy 23:20
All right, what are those?
Larry 23:22
The biggest pitfall is that a person person may have visited a state and picked up an offense, they may have solicited a minor. Or they may live in a border state. And they are across the border right across the border, they may be running a sting operation like to catch a predator. And the person may drive across state lines to meet up with A with B minor. And all of a sudden they’re ensnared in one of these interstate operations that’s being done by the Sheriff’s Department on this side of the Mexico border, Texas. And when when they plead out the case, they they made bond in Texas went back home and worked for a year and a half, two years or cases pending. And then when they when they when they get a probation sentence, the lawyer tells them, I’ve got your great deal. Oh, I got your great deal. We’re gonna check five years probation, you’re not gonna do a day of jail? And are you gonna do this be on probation, you should take this. And the lawyer has no idea what they’re looking at in terms of the sex offender supervision. But more importantly, they don’t have any idea that that person, the minute they walk out of the courthouse and go over the probation office, the probation officers said tell them that you can’t go back home. And I said, Wait a minute. My lawyer told me I was gonna leave you’re on probation. They said, well, you are on probation. But um, but but but but you, you don’t understand, don’t have to wear today. They said they say well, that’s not our problem. There’s a compact does not allow us to send you back there because that address may not be in compliance with that state’s rules in terms people convicted of sexual offenses. So therefore, before we can let you go back, we have to apply this a special rule, a normal person, if all you’ve done is just sold drugs to kids on a school grounds, something like that very minor, you know, these little things that don’t amount to anything, they can go ahead and give you reporting instructions and let you return home because you’ve got proof that you lived that address. But if you if you’re required to register in either the state that convicted your or the state, you’re going to be living in that you’re classified as a sexual offender. And you can’t go home until that investigation, and they’re allowed 45 days, a lot of people don’t have or died in their pocket, when they go to those please, the lawyers already clean that pocket out. Yep. And then they’re stuck.
Andy 25:48
And they’re attorneys who do the attorneys and their clients, but by not knowing the law.
Larry 25:56
They do, indeed, I have taught this at at an attorney training, and that you ought to see that looks in their eyes, when I tell them that there’s this provision that the person’s going to have to wait to be approved to live at the place. They’ve been living out for 20 or 30 or 40 years. They they’re there. It’s like mind boggling.
Andy 26:17
It is a it is something spectacular. I tried to journey down this path. I think a couple of times, well back to the person in prison, how can he or she get the ball rolling?
Larry 26:28
Well, let me stress that the process is all done by the bureaucracy, not the offender. And so each state has different ways of transitional assistance and different levels of case management in prison. So I can’t give you a universal answer. You may live in a state where they have very, they have one caseworker that has 150 inmates and you’d ever get to see the case manager. And but but theoretically, if if if all goes according the way should you would tell your case manager it that you would like to parole because they do know that you’re going to be released I do I’d be there is some tracking of offender releases. And there’s some level of service and all the states that I’ve been familiar with it may it may vary dramatically. But there are some I mean, they don’t just hope for the best and let you decide when to leave. I mean, they do monitor to kick out dates, and there are some level service but you would you would talk to your case manager and tell them that you’d like to live in Mississippi, and ask them to submit the paperwork. And there’s a process that they go through filling out stuff online in electronic system, they would submit it to Mississippi in this case and ask could you live there it would have it would include a proposed address. And as much information about you there’s a whole list of things that they have to put in the packet and they would send that electronically in Mississippi, Mississippi would check it out and determine if they’re going to accept you or not.
Andy 27:59
Raiders fan in chat says Yep, that’s why you get the attorney to stipulated in the actual judgment and sentence. I don’t think that that helps you. Because you the judge can say it all that all he wants to from from Wisconsin, and then you move to Wyoming wherever Minnesota I don’t care if they don’t allow those rules where you go. So the judge can say it all he wants.
Larry 28:22
Well, I mean, he’s making making sense, and I should, that’s what I tried to train the attorneys to be on the lookout for is that. But the problem is the judge across the state of Texas can’t bind New Mexico. And the compact is an agreement. It’s like a treaty between states and would normally between nations be referred to as a treaty. But just the states have agreed that this is the process. So therefore the judge cannot override the compact, and order that the person be allowed to live there. And to be a Texas judge cannot order New Mexico probation to allow a person to live in violation to Mexico law, for example. Now, we don’t have statutory Exclusion Zones here, but some states do. So our state probably wouldn’t be the best. We only have policies where people under supervision can’t live within 1000 feet. But there’s no statute. But a judge in Texas couldn’t tell Oklahoma, that you disregard your 3000 feet, I think it is restriction and you let my finger live there that judge judge in Texas, Texas doesn’t have that authority to bind Oklahoma, that what the judge can do, what the plea agreement can do. And but they say that, that if the if the if the person can’t live where they’ve been living, then that that that provides opportunity for grace, withdrawal of the plea because the play is contemplated on them being able to live where they’ve always lived. And okay, magically, magically, if you put that provision in there, the prosecution in Texas will get on the phone and they will try to figure out a way to make it happen because they don’t want that played it but they don’t want that play to be withdrawn.
Andy 30:00
I can understand that. All right. But yeah, I mean, so you know that the judge in state aid does not have jurisdiction over state B. And so what you just said is, then if you make sure that that is a condition of you accepting the plea, then that will potentially get the DEA to arrange that this is going to work out. But then how does that apply to the destination state accepting it when you actually then make it back to where you came from?
Larry 30:29
I kind of got confused by that question. When you make it back. Okay. So yeah,
Andy 30:33
so you started your you live in, you know, Arizona. So that’s, that’s state borders you, and you hop on over to New Mexico and do the bad deed, and you are then arrested, and you take a plea deal that and you get it to coordinate that says, when you get back to Arizona, that you can live in your you know, pearly white gates. How do they how do you get the exception to be applied that when you get to Arizona, they don’t say, nevermind, we’re not going to do this, because this comes from Mexico, and they don’t have jurisdiction here.
Larry 31:04
Well, that’s exactly what they’re going to say. They’re gonna they’re gonna
Andy 31:10
switch. I mean, you took the plea deal, then, based on Yeah, hey, we called them we talked to them in Arizona. They said everything’s hunky dory. Great. I’ll sign the paperwork. And back to Arizona, they say, Sorry, you can’t live here.
Larry 31:22
Well, well, what I’m saying is, though, it’s a part of the plea agree but with, with taxes, that if Arizona will not let the person live there, that that’s grounds for withdrawal to plida, you’re gonna have a hard time getting someone to agree to that a prosecutor is going to have the prosecution that the defendant would be happy to agree to it, but you’re gonna have a hard time getting a prosecutor to agree that because I’m a prosecutor, and I’ll say, Judge, I can’t control what they do out there in Arizona. I mean, he’s gonna deal with that himself. I, all I know, is that, that if he lives here, these are our rules. He can live here if he wants to. But if he wants to go back there, he’s going to comply with their rules. But that’s the only way you can really protect yourself is if you can get a plate that allows you out if you’re not allowed to live there. For example, maybe you’ve had a disabled loved one, you had to care for them. They’ve been in the place for two years. And, and it’s 996 feet trouble school and the rules 1000 feet. It is possible that Arizona could give an exception if it’s merely a policy rather than a law. But if it’s the law, theoretically, there’s no exception. I mean, you and I don’t there are exceptions. But But if if you if you can’t ask another state to allow an offender to go there and be in violation of the law, that’s not reasonable. Right?
Andy 32:33
Yeah, yeah. And then if you did end up on your home state soil, and they didn’t like it, then you’re allowed to go back to you can just say, hey, nevermind, and you can go back to where your crime was then committed. So you go back to the state that you’re not familiar with. But you still don’t have any place to live. Or now, now you’re like, but that doesn’t have a home.
Larry 33:01
That unfortunately happens.
Andy 33:06
That sucks. I’m just, there’s a movie with Tom Hanks called kind of can’t think of the name of it. He’s in that he’s in the air. He’s doing international travel. It’s called terminal. And while he’s in the air, there’s a revolution, his country and his country like ceases to exist. So then he’s stuck in immigration. And he doesn’t his passports no longer valid. So now he’s just stuck in the terminal. Because he doesn’t belong, where he came for, like, that’s some bullshit.
Larry 33:33
I remember that. he’s a he’s not a person anymore.
Andy 33:36
Right? He just now like, how you can’t make it through immigration, and you can’t go home? What do you do you just live in the in the terminal? I guess? At least you’re not paying sales tax on everything. Right.
Larry 33:47
Well, would you be paying tax on the terminal?
Andy 33:50
I think it’s duty free. I’m not saying that this is a reason to go there. Because usually everything is incredibly expensive. I guess let’s move on to who sets the conditions of supervision and which registration requirements control god this question always, always kills me, Larry, I think a person only has to register once per year in Texas, and everyone registers quarterly in Mississippi, can you help me and everyone else understand this?
Larry 34:20
Well, it’s easy to the registration scheme says that’s regulatory in nature, it will be in Mississippi will be the controller whatever state the person lives in. So they could care less about if you had a 10 year registration period in Vermont or Texas or once a year that is of no use to them. It will not come into the equation. So you register in conformity with the requirements, just like you would when you take your clunker vehicle from one state to another, you’ll pay the registration fees based on whatever their formula is. You don’t inspect it based on whatever their standards are for safety and or automations. And you’ll comply with that state. That’s the same thing on registration is a registration of where you would have been had you not transferred, you need to leave that in the rearview mirror.
Andy 35:11
But probation, your supervision requirements may come into play, where you go,
Larry 35:18
they absolutely will come into play where you go, your your supervision requirements will be controlled by both states. That was clarify, the duration of your supervision is controlled by the state who imposed it on you.
Andy 35:35
Okay, so that’s where your crime was committed.
Larry 35:39
So that’s correct. So if you have 10 years of supervision, when he leaves Texas, he’ll have 10 years of supervision, when he gets to get to Mississippi, that will not change the conditions that that Mississippi either through the parole board or through the court, those conditions will follow him to Mississippi. In addition, Mississippi is allowed under the interstate compact, to put special conditions on him that were not given to him in Texas, they may have, they may be completely something that Texas doesn’t do. And it will not enlarge to appear to the supervision. But he might have in Texas not have had a curfew, he may find himself in Mississippi with a curfew because that’s what they do. For people who have that type of conviction, they’re allowed to do that, as long as it’s consistent with how they would supervise the similarly convicted offender in their state. So they can add the special conditions, consistent with how they supervise their offenders with similar convictions. They can’t just build conditions so that you want, your desire will be not to move there. But the conditions that they typically, if you could have traveled all over the state of Texas with what just to travel with no travel permit. And only if you’re gonna leave Texas, we do need a travel permit. If you get to Mississippi, and they say you can’t leave the county without a travel permit. That is what controls you, whatever they require there is what is the conditions are they allowed to add to what came with you, but the conditions that they’re imposed in your sensing state, they follow you, they don’t go away. And that’s what too many people, they, they, they, they’ve they’ve been in prison, and somebody was there from one of the more progressive states and they hear that, that that things are not so bad there. And they said, Well, I’m gonna want to move there. And they, they move there. And then they get they get there. And they say, Well, people here get three year supervision. I’ve got five to 20. And Yep, guess what, you still have five to 20. AD, they simply. But but but this, this is not fair to me, I was convicted. And you guys treat me that we didn’t impose this on you. We’re just simply acting as an agent for the state that impose it on you. You you have that you have that period of probation, that period of parole, we don’t have anything to do with that. And then they think that the conditions that they were posed to them, don’t follow them. But the interstate compact, is clear that the conditions do follow you now I can’t tell you that humans are if you get to a state, they find something shocking the conscious that they just wouldn’t impose that I can’t tell you that they’re gonna, they’re gonna, they’re gonna vigorously enforce conditions that they think are ridiculous. But they’re technically obligated to.
Andy 38:30
Can we noodle around that for a minute that they’re the way that I sort of tried to understand it is that the state that you are now moving to they are doing the state that you came from kind of like a favor, and you know, hey, so one person moves from state a to state B and somebody else moves state B to state a. So hey, look, I scratch your back, you scratch mine, but they’re kind of doing a favor to then take over the supervision for the state that is sending the person. Is that fair?
Larry 38:58
That’s completely fair. That’s what they’re doing.
Andy 39:02
So if they want to, as you were just describing, if they have much more strict requirements, of, of supervision of checking in, of how often they check on you, then that’s their prerogative to do that in their state.
Larry 39:21
That is correct. And you cannot go back and complain and say, Well, what I was overbought, they only came out every three months. They will say, Well, you know, you could have stayed there.
Andy 39:34
Ready to be a part of registry matters, get linkset registry matters.co if you need to be all discreet about it, contact them by email registry matters. cast@gmail.com you can call or text a ransom message 27472274477 want to support registry matters on a monthly basis. Ted to patreon.com slash registry matters. Not ready to become a patron, give a five star review at Apple podcasts or Stitcher or tell your buddies at your treatment class about the podcast. We want to send out a big heartfelt support for those on the registry, keep fighting. Without you, we can’t succeed. You make it possible. All right, well, then, we’ve talked about this a whole bunch of times, are you saying that a person doesn’t have the right to live a state of his or her own choosing? Part of the beauty of the United States is that we have the freedom to move about and like state borders, kind of like don’t mean anything, you just Hey, let’s just go to Chattanooga for the weekend, and we just go up to Tennessee, it’s like we can’t just move about with that freedom.
Larry 40:50
Not while you’re being punished, you can’t. You’ve lost your lost some of your rights while while you’re serving, you’re paying your debt to society. And the freedom of unlimited travel is one of those freedoms that’s curtailed, you’d have to acknowledge that supervision becomes more more difficult as the person moves out from the zone of the supervising authority. Therefore, therefore, the mobility history are limited. In some cases, the supervising authorities provide a lot of freedom. I’ve said that remarked that over and over about your supervision, but but it’s it’s not a right that you can assert you were getting privileges. Right.
Andy 41:31
And I and I always like greatly appreciated them. And I would only ask for them when I needed them. And I wouldn’t ask for anything else. And I tried to stay as far away from them and always comply just to keep them off my ass as much as possible. So they were like, Nah, man, this dude’s perfectly fine. We don’t need to check on him. Everything’s great. hunky dory. Ah, okay. Um, I recall you saying that many of the states impose a fee for submitting the application. Is that true? It’s 45 bucks. No, we’re not 45. But it could be like
Larry 42:02
250. I think you’re right. That was that was too high. When I’ve got a I’ve got a chart. And it’s available on interstate compact for adult Fender super business website, there’s a fee schedule, LS pulled it 2017. And I can just about guarantee than other fees have been reduced. Some of the fees could have been, have gone up because states are struggling for revenue. And the states that believe that you can’t raise taxes for any reason whatsoever. They look for ways to fund government. And this is one way to pass it on to the offender or their family. So the fact that the fees are some states zero, and some states as high as I think 250 it, you just have to figure out how to hit this particular case, I looked at it and it doesn’t appear that Texas charges a fee. Now, if he were going the other way, Mississippi does charge a fee for application, but Texas does not so he will not have to pay a fee. Unless that has changed since my last schedule was pulled.
Andy 42:59
Interesting. And this again, kind of put somebody in a pickle that the person is not from this state where he is currently residing. And to get out, the person potentially has to pay a fee for this particular case know for this person in Texas know trying to get to Mississippi. And so now they’re they’re putting out money potentially for a hotel, they’ve had to hire an attorney. And now they also have to throw in some order of a couple hundred bucks to try and get out of where they don’t want to be. And it could take them some 45 days to get out of there. Isn’t that because 22
Larry 43:34
it is a catch 22. So you got to you got to pay for the for the privilege of of having your application. Now, of course if to the for the to the extent that I could influence public policy. If I were a corrections official, I would always testify before the legislature, we want to never have a fee, we want to get rid of just as many as we possibly can. So but that’s not that’s not a universal attitude. So you get your you have to pay a fee. And in some instances you’re spending anywhere from I guess you can still find cheap hotels in the 59 to range, but you’re probably paying a night for a place to stay. And you’re anxiously awaiting it since the since the proposed state has 45 days, they do not generally want an open door to out of state pf ours. They’re going to take a lot of that 45 days if not all of it. So you could you could be doing this for some time. And if they turn you down, you’re back to square one. You have to you have to come up with a new plan and deal with Why are they turned you down. If the residence was not a conforming residence, you’ve got to find something else so you could be stuck while you’re looking for another residence. Remember, you don’t live in that state because you’re stranded in the state you didn’t want to be and you’re not connected to. So you’ve got to find a residence that complies and you’ve got to be able to fund that while you’re funding the one where you’re waiting. Mm hmm. And Yeah, yeah, I have to admit, That’s bizarre.
Andy 45:04
It’s definitely bizarre. And now you’re stuck like Tom Hanks in Terminal where you don’t want to be where you are, and you can’t get to where you want to be. And you’re just stuck in the twilight zone. Hey, but Charles and Chet just really like I had never considered this and only a person like you, Larry would consider this many states. How is their prisoners in other states? What happens here? I mean, you’re now you’re not even. I mean, I guess you’ve been released. But now you’re potentially not even in the state where your conviction occurred? Or would they transport you back to where you came from? Where your conviction occurred? Before they open the gates on you?
Larry 45:41
It would be my guess. Now, that’s such a great question. Even I haven’t thought of that. But he is correct. There are states who don’t have adequate prison capacity. And they end up borrowing and borrowing they pay for but they end up they end up borrowing and paying for for for prison capacity in other states, my guess is the same as yours, what I would think they would do is when when they’re holding someone from another state, when that when the authority to hold the person ends, they would they would return them to that state. And that would become that state’s problem, what to do with them. But I don’t know that to be a fact I would have to I’d have to do some queries on that if you’re serving a robot sentence. And I think robots one of those states that doesn’t have much prison space, so they will send people to other states. When you when you’re into the year sentence, if you have a post prison supervision period, how do you facilitate that movement to the community that they do go by to robot to be kicked out? Or do you get kicked out from whatever state you’re in? If they’ve got you down in West Virginia?
Andy 46:39
You know, and suppose it’s like, you know, doesn’t Alaska? How’s their people? I mean, one way the other people get housed in Alaska doesn’t Alaska, like us, New Mexico for housing capacity?
Larry 46:50
I never heard that what you’re
Andy 46:52
what you’re but I mean, Alaska being the vast wilderness that it is, your prison could be 10,000 miles away from where you want. That would be Oh, my God, I can’t even imagine you would be so far from home. And it’s not like you could just sort of like hitchhike or, you know, take a bus. Oh, my god, you’re practically in another country. I’m pretty sure Alaska either houses people. Either way that this works, either they are housing people, or they are housing people elsewhere. That would be diabolical.
Larry 47:24
Well, if I lost those housing people, for other states, I would be very cumbersome for those people to be moved back and forth. I would doubt Alaska housing prisons for other states.
Andy 47:36
But I got I think their housing their people elsewhere, either way, and then count the temperature and and and you’re obviously not getting visits, if that’s the case, either. All right. Well, let’s move on. Does it make sense to call the probation parole authorities in the location where you would like to go and ask them all the questions of, Hey, can I live here? Can I live there? Is there any place pre approved? What can I do? I made a call like this?
Larry 47:57
intellectually, it does make sense. But unfortunately, the reality is, most supervising authorities are not trying to bring offenders into their, to their states, and particularly those forced to register. Therefore, I don’t think at the corporation level is going to be magnificent. And if you have an inside connection, if you have an outsider, first of all, getting a call from prisons can be very difficult to call a probation as a supervising authority. But if you have an outsider and they have, they have a report or some sort of relationship. In standing in the community, you might find someone that will talk but there’s not people just sitting down. There’s no state jobs here that I can think of where their job is to sit and entertain interstate transfer requests to talk to people. There is an interstate compact office in every state. And theoretically, they can answer questions, but they are answering questions from the States themselves, not from the offenders. And when you call them, they can be a little bit snarky, because they don’t they don’t deal with individuals, but people do resort to calling interstate compact offices. And have you ever talked to them? Not in the capacity of one and get my supervision but I’ve trained I’ve talked to him several times we had we have an interstate compact in the practice law office officer in Oklahoma, excuse me, in Pennsylvania, that was not understanding of why he couldn’t move an Oklahoma Fender out to New Mexico because he was with a 996 feet of a school and it was literally that’s what it was like another 96 feet of apart elbow Park out of school. And his offense was not with a human it was with an animal But uncle humbled required him to register and he couldn’t understand why that that that the person had bought a home and he could live in the home he had bought in and and so he and I talked together we finally figured out how to resolve that impasse, but but would you would you call us an offender. They’re gonna tell you to have have your probation officer submit the application.
Andy 49:54
Um, oh, okay. Um, okay, so when I call Yeah, got in The names of these isn’t always the icons office, because when I placed these calls, I would get all kinds of Nope, you need to call this people. Nope, that’s not this place. You need to call these people. Nope, not that place. You need to call these people. Is it always called like, the icons Office of Oklahoma or Arkansas or Minnesota? Is that always that or is it handled by the the police, barracks, whatever it is in Pennsylvania and like, is a unified office naming?
Larry 50:28
Well, the the the administrative arm is usually in the capital, the state of they have an interstate compact office that that manages the state. But But all that goes out to field offices. But when I when I when Santa Fe gets an application from from Oklahoma, or from Arkansas, or wherever it comes from, the people in Santa Fe don’t investigate it, they send it to the field office that said the region of foreign persons proposing to live and the field office does the investigation to go out meet with people they determine the proximity of things that would that would create a problem, the background of the people who would be living in the home are the guns everywhere. Are the people going to be complied to they have criminal background, I mean, when you when you’re applying to live with people, the people that you’re going to live with cover under the scrutiny of the corrections authorities, they’re going to be coming in out for home visits. And they’re not going to be too keen on coming up with a house full of guns.
Andy 51:22
I’m just picturing some dude in an office in a waiting for phone calls with a vacancy sign out there. That’s what I pictured for the icons person.
Larry 51:29
So but yesterday in the archives, people are going to be dealing with the supervising officers more than than offenders. But I can say people do call in saboom. But do get reasonably good cover have a gauge of reasonably good conversations. But there’s administrative arm of it the field offices are where the investigations are going to be done at a probation officers going to come out in most cases, and investigate the proposed residence of the people who occupy that residence?
Andy 51:57
Is it likely do you think that Texas will not let them apply to move? Or do you think it is likely that Mississippi will say new?
Larry 52:06
I’m not really on the inside of Texas, in terms of how many offenders they would want to get rid of, I’d want to get it all I can. But that’s just me. I don’t understand that’s a no brainer when you talk about no brainers. To me, if if you can get another state to supervise your offenders, you’ve you’ve really won, you’ve won the lottery there. So I would want to get rid of as many as I could.
Andy 52:30
And your reasoning there is if if we have no registrants known registrants pfrs in our state, we have no chance of any of them reoffending. I mean, that’s the logic, there is pretty sound.
Larry 52:44
I want to get rid of all defenders. I can’t I’m not putting myself in. I don’t want the the guy who wrote the criticizing email on YouTube last week to understand this is I’m putting I’m putting myself in the position of an administrator. And I’m thinking exactly like they would logically think this is not my personal view. But if I’m holding the position of Secretary of corrections of the state, my policy in that role is going to be I would want to get rid of all I could because the more fenders I have in other states, the more fences Ria fence is going to be occurring there. That is absolutely a no no brainer. Statistically you cannot argue with that. Right. So so I do not know what Texas policy is. But I know I know our state. They try to impede movement, both in and out. There’s something about them where they want to hold on to offenders and they don’t want to do the paperwork. I don’t know if it’s if it’s for budgetary reasons, if they can justify more full time equivalent positions or what, but Texas probably will not be the impediment he will probably have more issues than Mississippi because it Mississippi has an extremely strict registration scheme. They have driver’s license markings. They have they have, as far as I remember, exclusions zones, and he’s going to have whatever he proposes to live in Mississippi is going to probably not comply. So I suspect he’s if he gets if he gets past Texas, he’s going to have problems in Mississippi because there’s so many barriers that they don’t even have to look hard when you have a state that doesn’t allow you to live anywhere. And you have to jump through all these hoops to find a place to live so he’ll probably be denied because his residence doesn’t comply.
Andy 54:27
Do you want to stick around that for just a minute and talk about how really atrocious Mississippi is as a as it’s hostile to pfrs.
Larry 54:38
Well, we can for a little bit it’s it’s it’s not a place that’s the south of the Deep South is there another place you want to be? Mississippi is one of those states you don’t want to be we had the registry officer and I won’t name What county because if he’s still there, it could cause him problems but a registry director for one of the counties that Mississippi contacted narsil A number of years ago and he said, I don’t understand why you people don’t come down here and litigate. He said, I have such ridiculous rules I have to impose on these guys. And he set up having to charge up fees for getting an ID every 90 days. And everybody, regardless of your offense, they have three tiers. But all three tiers coming in every 90 days. And he said, that’s just a total waste of time. He’s got people of buy list, he said, there’s only a fraction of I have any concern about and he said, but I have to have have the process through here every 90 days, they have to go redo their ID, they have to get their specialty bar driver’s license, and it’s just not a place you’re gonna find a lot of happiness. In Mississippi, it it would not be my first choice of places unless I had no no other option.
Andy 55:46
Can you put on your legislator hat for a minute and come up with a rationale for them making it so awfully bad atrocious for this, like, you could look around at your other 49 state peers and see what works and doesn’t work, but to just put the screws to people just because you can, I can’t really see how it makes much sense to put all that burden on the administrative side of the registration office to try and handle all of those people constantly coming in every three months.
Larry 56:21
Well, the the the what data Walsh Act was passed with the recommended changes. It required a lot of analysis to figure out how to do it correctly. And will i what i said early in the podcast about people don’t like to take risk. And still trying to figure out which offender belongs in the tier based on the offense and the nuances of the offense. Because the age of the same offense can be a tier a different tiers, depending on the age of the victim, you can have the exact same title of the offense. But if it’s a victim under one age, it should be a tier three, if it’s the victim over that age, it can be a tier two. And And my guess is that the Mississippi legislature doesn’t have a lot of brainpower, they’re probably a part time like ours. And the law enforcement put this scheme together and said, This is what we need to do to be AWS compliant. And they have been deemed substantially compliant with AWS. And nobody gave a lot of thought that when the proposal was presented, there was no one in the room that had any objection, when it went went through committee process, then it looked pretty good to everybody. And trust me, if there’s no objection to something, if there’s no constituency, no advocates of any type opposing, it is wishful thinking, to think that a committee having heard a piece of legislation as it’s been proposed as written, and nobody has raised any alarm bells about it, it is completely wishful thinking to think they’re gonna turn that down. They’re gonna say, oh, even though nobody has any problems with it. I do. It doesn’t work that way.
Andy 57:58
Let’s assume a person makes it through the hoops and is accepted here. She picks up a violation of supervision in the new state. What happens? Do they just extradite them? And what happens from there got this. This, this friend of mine that I was just talking about this happened to him, it’s just all the way around shitty.
Larry 58:18
This is one of the most misunderstood components of the interstate compact. The the person is actually not subject extradition, because they’ve already waived extradition when they agreed to be supervised in a state. Other than the one they were they were convicted of that massive amount of forms that you signed. One of them is a waiver of extradition. So you’re not extradition doesn’t even come into play?
Unknown Speaker 58:47
Okay,
Unknown Speaker 58:48
why not?
Larry 58:51
So Well, if it’s not an extradition, what the hell is it?
Andy 58:55
Right, if Yeah, exactly. What is it if it’s not expedition?
Larry 59:00
Well, that’s it’s actually a retaking, which is different from an expedition.
Andy 59:08
Okay, and so you always get hung up on semantics in terms and you want to be hyper specific. No wonder people get so frustrated with you. What is the difference between extradition and a retaking? You still get hauled back to the original state? So what’s the difference?
Larry 59:26
Well, there’s a big difference. an extradition a bit You’re right. You do get you do potentially get hauled back to the state. an extradition can fail in a retaking can fail. But the scope of an extradition inquiry is so different that a retake and an extradition. You have a fugitive demand of of a sovereign saying we want our we want our alleged criminal back. And so that’s the demanding side of it. That’s the demanding state and you have a place for the fugitive Hold up, that’s called, that’s called the asylum state. And the demanding state only has to prove two things to get that offender back, they have to prove that, that they’re that they’re seeking the return of the right person, and that they’ve put the paperwork together correctly, to execute that demand. That’s all the due process, you have been an extra addition. And if you’re subject to a retaking, you have the right to a determination before a neutral detach hearing officer, that probable cause exists to retake you that you violated. A sup with the word is it is it’s a, it’s a serious violation it you have to violate a condition of supervision. And it has to be serious enough that had that a violation occurred by someone who was convicted in that state, that revocation would be thought of that individual. And so if a person violates curfew, um, they wouldn’t normally seek a revocation. In Georgia, Georgia cannot try to force a revocation from an out of state offender for that. So it has to be a significant violation. And then you’re entitled to a showing of probable cause in a hearing before you have to go back to the state that you were convicted in. So if I had my choice, where I could only contest my identity, or if I had a choice of having having to force the probation officer to put on evidence showing probable cause, which would you choose?
Andy 1:01:31
I would certainly rather the retaking versus the extradition.
Larry 1:01:36
So so that’s the difference. So that’s why that’s why it the semantics are important. Anytime you violate supervision, and you’re not in the state that you’re with, when the attorney comes to talk to you and says, You should just waive extradition, that attorney is not qualified to represent you. Because the first thing you need to tell that your first thing you need to tell them is I’ve already waived extradition before I ever got here. This is not an extradition, this is a retaking, and I’ve been titled to determination of probable cause in this state. Before I have to go back to my state of conviction to the sending state, this is referred to in the compact. And if your attorney says you’re not entitled that that is the warm attorney. Now I realize if you have a public defender, you’re going to have to make that argument somehow directly to the judge, but you’re entitled to a probable cause determination. And go over that with lawyers. Well, that would be a convened hearing, where the probation officer would put on evidence of what the violation was, you’re entitled to notice of the date of the hearing, what the alleged violation is, as some kind of scope of what the evidence is, are going to witness list of what they’re going to use against you to establish the probable cause. And you have the opportunity to call witnesses to cross examine their witnesses. It’s a it’s a regular adversarial process, unlike the extradition, where they’re showing a proof of identity. And the judge s issue, Andy was looking at it. Yes, I’d like it. I’m looking at this picture here. It looks a lot like you. bailiff, take his fingerprints, let’s come to Let’s run them through the aphis in sequence and say person, maybe that’s the issue that that’s the scope of the inquiry for the extradition there for this isn’t does it really rise to the level of being a significant violation of supervision? It is there at least a showing of probable cause that did you that doesn’t require, remember, it never requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt to revoke your supervision because you’re already convicted. But there has to be some evidentiary process and some confrontational process allowed. And without that, you can’t be forced to return to the state that that convicted you and the Henley’s people these things to sign all the time to waive extradition. It is wrong, because the only way you’re actually supposed to be able to waive your retaking your probable cause hearing and retaking is to admit to one or more violations of supervision as a part of that waiver. And you would never want to admit anything unless you want to be resolved. If if the state is willing to come pick you up and take you back. The chances are real good, you’re going to do some some jail time, at least if not going to prison. If they have to incur expenses to go to Florida to pick you up to take you back to Oklahoma. Even though it’s the extradition transport company, somebody needs a little bit of skin out of you for all that trouble. So you don’t want to go back there and have that revocation hearing because when you get back there, they’re not gonna they’re not gonna care that you’d have probable cause here. They’re gonna go want to go straight to the revocation. And it’s you’re going to have a hard time arguing about your probable cause determination because the officers that would have testified it’s probable cause hearing, they’re back at the other state. They’re not going to be there. And, and so you’re gonna end up at a revocation of what they’re going to offer you as some kind of deal to admit to the violation. And they’re gonna make it sound really sweet. So you’ll sign off and admits a violation without them having to bring witnesses in, because if you don’t admit they are going to have to put on some evidence. And it’s not necessarily the strongest evidence I’d have to put on, if you were if it was a trial of the merits, but they’re gonna have to put on some evidence of the other violation, which is usually your admission.
Andy 1:05:32
Does the interstate compact include out of state offenders from US territories such as Puerto Rico or other countries or just the 50 continental states?
Larry 1:05:43
I believe the territories are included, but but not other countries. But I think the territories are included. I don’t remember what’s on the list. But there’s a list of the back of the of the of the bench book LD on the website, it has all the states that have have have great, and I think the territories are listed
Andy 1:06:00
back to the extradition, retaking the answer, but how does this happen? How does the court not know what process should be afforded the individual that has done whatever level of violations they have done?
Larry 1:06:12
Well, that that is a that’s a great question. And the reason why the court doesn’t know is because the court doesn’t assign the case numbers that causes things to come before them. So in some cases, like in our state, you just languish, you know, you don’t ever go anywhere. So if a probation officer arrest you here, since they can do warrantless arrest, they can take you on a custody order, issue, what’s called a PV hold, and then nothing happens. You just sit and sit and sit, sit, because there’s not a local case attached to you your cases from out of state. But, but, but in states where they do a little bit more correctly, if they if they lodge someone in custody, they have to generate some kind of case number. And often what they do is they open a miscellaneous fugitive demand case, and it looks like to the to the court that that’s exactly what it is. So so so the judge when he would when he or she opens the file, they open up a file, and it’s got that case coding, that’s a fugitive extradition demand. So the first thing they ask is counselor, does your client want to waive extradition going back to Arkansas, and, and the person sitting in jail, and, and jails always look better than one year not and most of the time anyway, because nobody wants to buy but think about that way, when you were in custody, how many times people waved water to get to a different jail because it was going to be better. And
Andy 1:07:36
we were watching a TV show of like a prison in Michigan and someone had a you know, a one person cell and they had a piano in there like a you know, electric keyboard. I was like, I need to be there.
Larry 1:07:48
So Well, anyway, people people find themselves in these dungeon jails. And they, they they just go ahead and agree to go back and they wave. They wave their their due process. And they sign the extradition. And as far as the court is concerned, since no one’s raised an issue. defender doesn’t know that it’s not the correct process. Neither does the lawyer. Yeah. And the case looks like an extradition so so the person signs their extradition, the state’s notified that they can come pick the person up. And that’s the way it happens. All too often. People people get hauled back. And they shouldn’t have they might would have been able to extinguish the violation if they had pushed for a probable cause determination. And it’s so so sad but happens all the time. Tell me about your guy. How do you what what happened with your guy that that you said that that does
Andy 1:08:36
happen to I, I’m I want to be as as loose and abstract as possible. But what I understand is that his brother brought by his kids to like to see his parents, so he was saying it with his aunt and uncle. And that caused the violation. But he was near children. And I’m pretty sure they extradited them, he paid some large sum of money for to have an attorney represent him. And I don’t know quite all the details beyond that other than Him paying for an attorney. And I mean, maybe that was he was trying to do the due process thing to try and defend himself. But he ended up and then maxed out. They brought him back to Georgia and he finished at a sentence and spend another additional two years locked up.
Larry 1:09:24
So he but he did her. Where was he supervised at Texas? Yes. And any artifacts in Florida to try to to defend them on the on the retaking?
Andy 1:09:35
I believe so. Yeah.
Larry 1:09:37
It’d be curious to know if that if the lawyer called it an extradition because that would that would tell me that the lawyer probably didn’t have the proper preparation, understanding if he referred to it as an extradition.
Andy 1:09:47
I have I have prepped him that he might be a guest for you to inquire about to see what went down and try and do further. You know, not not specifically for him because this has already passed but to educate For the future of people that may end up in this condition.
Larry 1:10:03
So well, it’s it’s all too common.
Andy 1:10:07
Yeah, I can only imagine because none of us know this crap. Larry, like none of us, we almost need to have some sort of like Internet bot run around and catch people that are on a blog or somewhere that has done like a revocation that we can then try. I know this is impossible, but try to reach out to to try and advise them. It’s impossible. Yeah, no kidding. Someone says stay away from Texas in the chat. Definitely.
Larry 1:10:29
So well, that is why I am here.
Andy 1:10:33
Yeah, I got a button for that. You know that I got a button.
Unknown Speaker 1:10:36
That is why I am here. Yeah.
Andy 1:10:38
Wow. All right. I don’t think we have time to do any articles there.
Larry 1:10:42
We’re are running short of time, aren’t we?
Andy 1:10:45
We are we are we are let’s let’s cut it short, Larry. Visit registry matters.co. That’s the website. And well wait, before we do that, we do have a new patron that my very good friend Leo has become a patron at a very generous level. And I want to extend a personal best of success on your recent freedom to him. So congrats. And thank you so very much for becoming a patron. Like within days, man, he gets out of gets out of prison and becomes a patron a couple days later.
Larry 1:11:10
And that’s fantastic. And we do have super patrons question. Oh, shoot.
Andy 1:11:16
Right. We have super patrons question. I forgot about that. And I have a button for you ready for our super patrons question.
Larry 1:11:22
Hi, I’m ready.
Unknown Speaker 1:11:26
Hey, guys, just wanted to call and ask a quick question, Larry, if you could, would you explain the differences between cases that are dismissed with prejudice and without prejudice? I’ve seen in the recent ex post facto case that was dismissed in Florida, that it was with prejudice. Could you explain maybe what that means and what that means to the case? And maybe the differences between the two? I really appreciate it. And as always loved the podcast and fyp take care of
Andy 1:11:57
interesting question.
Larry 1:11:59
So well, that one’s fairly easy. It’s it’s the with prejudiced spins, attack cases dead, it’s been extinguished. That particular case is dead. Now the issue itself may not be dead. But that case has been decided on the merits. And for whatever reason, it’s it’s over. And when a case is dismissed without prejudice, make it real simple. A case can be dismissed without without prejudice. The officer doesn’t show up. And, and Okay, so first persons a person’s in custody. But well, Jeopardy has not attached. Yes, the person was in custody, and the person’s attorney screaming that this case should be dismissed, because the officer didn’t show up. But there hasn’t been a decision made on the merits of the cases, just just simply the officer didn’t show, therefore to be dismissed. The prosecution can go back and refile the case. It’s been dismissed without prejudice. But if the officer did show up, and a decision was made, and it was it was educated on the merits, there, then it can’t be rebroadcast if it’s an adverse decision. So this this case, I have no idea which case he’s talking about. But it means that case has ended, that they cannot refile it, that the Jeopardy has attached, and it based on the merits the cases over.
Andy 1:13:19
All right. All right. So prejudice means dead, not prejudice means it could be brought up again.
Larry 1:13:25
All right. But without prejudice, Yes, it can. It can be refiled. And and like our case here on our LSA translation, where we had challenged the failure to provide due process we ended up with of our all of our plaintiffs, we ended up with only one left because of adverse ruling where the judge decided that since they had not asserted their their claims within three years, that the statute of limitations barred them. So those plates, those plaintiffs were dismissed, we ended up with one he moved out of the state. So we end up with somebody who did have a controversy because he was no longer been required to register under New Mexico law. So that case was dismissed without prejudice, we could refile that, that that case with those issues because we have litigated them on the merits. And we are about to do that probably early in 2021. But but but test test the difference, we can refile.
Andy 1:14:17
Alright, alright. So then I’ll try to do this again. Or I think we’re done. Are we done?
Larry 1:14:25
I’m really hard. So how do people support How do people find us first, where do where do they find this podcast?
Andy 1:14:33
Find us at registry matters.co.
Larry 1:14:37
And then how do we how did we get that phone call we just received?
Andy 1:14:41
Well, that was actually he just he recorded on his phone as a voice memo and emailed it in which is awesome because it sounded so much better than a phone caller.
Larry 1:14:51
But if they were to call us how would they do it?
Andy 1:14:54
Alright, that’s 74722744777472274 Seven, seven is the phone number to reach the podcast and say fyp at the end, or I’m not playing it.
Larry 1:15:06
Alright, and then if you want to write to us, you can do it on YouTube. In the comment section.
Andy 1:15:14
We’ve been getting a flurry of comments on YouTube lately. Any anything you want to cover there?
Larry 1:15:19
Well, I just I was I was wanting to play that clip today. We may play it next week. But I wanted to play that clip, because the person did say that, that we took a position about herd immunity. And in my mind and looking at the transcript, listen to it. I don’t think we did. I said that there is a theory out there of herd immunity. And then in my mind, I was poking fun of the theory, because I don’t believe the theory holds water. But there is that theory. And I said, But yes, there’s a theory there, this would constitute a real time lab experiment, because the people in prison, the prison population is relatively stable. And once the infection has, has, has made its way through the prison, theoretically, that immunity under that theory would exist. And so those who didn’t die, which would be a tragedy, because people in prisons thought that we talked about I think we even gave the number of how many people had died in prisons. But those who didn’t die with directly be immune. But but that I said, how’s that working out? For us? I posed that as a question I don’t think we took Did you take a position?
Andy 1:16:27
I don’t recall, do it. I said it would be a great natural experiment to actually figure out what it is. This is a perfect natural experiments to figure out if herd immunity does work because you have a confined population that pretty, like you said, stable. And you have a smallish number of 500,000 2000 people in those prisons and jails, yeah, it would be a perfect way to find out if we can achieve herd immunity. And I’m going to go if it hasn’t worked out so well.
Larry 1:16:52
Oh, well, like say I thought I was poking fun of the people who who were the are the proponents of that theory. I did not know I was endorsing it. If I did. It sure was news to me.
Andy 1:17:03
So registry matters cast@gmail.com. And then of course, our favorite way for people to support the podcast is to go to patreon.com slash registry matters. But also follow us on Twitter and look for us on YouTube. You can find us at registry matters in all of the places and Larry that is all I have for this evening.
Larry 1:17:24
If you watch us on YouTube, make sure you hit that subscribe button. We we need that number to go up every week. So hit that button of course and and and even hit the bell so you know that when there’s of course Yeah,
Andy 1:17:38
that’s what I wanted you to say was hit the bell. Perfect. Larry, have a great night. I appreciate it. As always.
Unknown Speaker 1:17:45
You’ve been listening to F YP
