Laserfiche WebLink
<br />The Minnesota Legislature discussed passage of a version of the Kanka Law in during a special session <br />called to deal with the issue of chil corrnnitment of predatol)' offenders, and again when the regular <br />session convened in 1995, but the Senate and House of Representatives could not agree on the <br />language. What they did agree on was the formation of a Legislative Work Group on Community <br />Notification. <br /> <br />This work group consisted of members of the legislature and representatives from the Minnesota <br />Department of Corrections (DOC), the Minnesota Sheriffs Association, the Minnesota Association of <br />Chiers of Police, the Office of the State Public Defender, a county prosecutor, the Minnesota Attorney <br />General's Office, and the victim service community. The work group sought and heard testimony from <br />the DOC, the Jacob Wetterling Foundation, and individuals from probation services, law enforcement, <br />and th.e community at large. Lieutenant Robert Shilling of th.e Seattle, Washington, Police Department <br />offered significant relative testimony. Community notification had been in effect in Washington in some <br />form since 1990, and Lieutenant Shilling was instrumental in shaping both th.e law and police procedure. <br /> <br />Detective Shilling spoke of th.e need for a consistent statewide method of risk level determination, and <br />the necessity of community education meetings to assist with. the process of releasing information about <br />th.e highest-risk sex offenders. The Legislative Work Group developed language that was enacted into <br />law in 1996 and Shilling's suggestions. <br /> <br />The "Community Notification Act (Minnesota Statute 244.052)" included ideas gained from court cases <br />challenging notification in other states, and reflected the testimony reviewed by th.e legislative work <br />group. It directed the DOC to develop a risk scale to assign to those offenders due to be released, and <br />proscribed a corrnnittee to review each case and assign the offender a risk level. The statute also <br />directed law enforcement to develop a standard policy for notification processes statewide, and <br />directed the law enforcement agency responsible for the jurisdiction where the offender resides to <br />actually conduct th.e notification. <br /> <br />Offenders are assigned to one of three risk levels. The risk levels determine the scope and content of <br />the notification to th.e community. Law enforcement agencies follow th.ese guidelines when notifYing <br />communities of offenders who are due to be released from prison, or who are moving to a different <br />address after their initial release. These risk levels are as follows: <br /> <br />. Risk Levell: Law enforcement can open a file on the offender, and share th.e information \vith <br />oth.er law enforcement agencies. Also, information can be given to victims, witnesses, and others <br />designated by the prosecuting attorney. <br />. Risk Level 2: In addition to the procedures indicated for Level One, law enforcement may notify <br />schools, day care centers, or other organizations where potential victims of th.e offender might be <br />found, based on his pattern of offending behavior. This information is intended for use by these <br />organizations to protect individuals on or near their premises, but not for redistribution. Law <br />enforcement may also notiJ)' individuals whom they believe may be potential victims of the offender, <br />again based on the pattern of behavior. <br /> <br />2 <br />