Opinion ID: 2294072
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Second Classification by the Sex Offender Board of Review

Text: On May 20, 2004, the Superior Court granted the state's motion to remand Mr. Germane's case to the Sex Offender Board of Review for reconsideration in light of the 2003 amendments to the Sexual Offender Registration and Community Notification Act. [16] On March 2, 2005, the board of review issued a one-and-one-half page risk assessment report concerning Mr. Germane. Less than a quarter of the report concerned appellant directly; the other half was a generic description of the risk assessment instrument used to evaluate appellant's risk of re-offense. [17] Attached to the report was a one-page coding form for a risk assessment instrument commonly used to evaluate risk of recidivism for sexual offenders viz., the STATIC-99. [18] Mr. Germane was determined to have two individual risk factors on the STATIC-99, which translates to a Moderate-Low risk of re-offense according to that instrument's scoring key. The board of review had access to all of the information, records, and reports previously available to the Board of Review of Sexually Violent Predatory Behavior, [19] including appellant's February 9, 2000 interview with a member of the Sex Offender Community Notification Unit. The board of review did not reinterview Mr. Germane when considering his risk assessment. The board also considered a 2005 report from Michael Stevens, a therapist at Behavioral Medicine & Health Associates. Mr. Germane was participating in group therapy under the aegis of that organization; in his report, Mr. Stevens described the group as consisting of individuals who have sexually assaulted or who have sexually inappropriate behavior. [20] Mr. Stevens made the following notation apropos of Mr. Germane: Tom does not make the connection    that in the past when he experienced difficulties or things were not stable he responded in self-destructive behaviors such as his sexually inappropriate behavior or isolating himself. [He] is also unable to express any concern for others regarding his acting out behaviors and the consequences these behaviors have for others. His lack of appreciation on both of these dimensions makes him less prepared to cope with future problems should they occur. However, it is also significant that Mr. Stevens made the following further notation: Based on two separate Risk Assessment Measures which examined his current life adjustment and participation in treatment [Mr. Germane] scores at low moderate to low in terms of current risk. Factors generally associated with high risk recidivism are absent for Mr. Germane. These risk assessments are based only on information [Mr. Germane] has provided[.]    If this information is not accurate[,] the risk findings would be meaningless. Mr. Stevens concluded as follows: [Mr. Germane] is not motivated in treatment and does not perceive a need to make changes.    He must be regarded as in the earliest stages of treatment in which defensiveness and resistance are present at levels that interfere with progress. Upon consideration of the above-described materials, the board of review classified appellant as an overall Risk Level III. A Risk Level III classification relates to an offender who is at high risk to recidivate. The board's explanation of the apparent discrepancy between Mr. Germane's STATIC-99 score and his ultimate risk level classification was as follows: Based on a review of other risk factors in this case, the Board recommends that this STATIC-99 score under represents Mr. Germane's risk at this time. The other risk factors considered that led the Board to this conclusion were the following: Stable variables: Sexual self-regulation and General self-regulation; Acute variables: Anger/Hostility, (SONAR, Hanson & Harris, 2000). The board provided no further elaboration, nor was there any explication of these rather cryptic comments. Sexual offender community notification is currently governed by the guidelines promulgated in 2007 by the Rhode Island Parole Board pursuant to § 11-37.1-12. Section 9.0 of the guidelines directs that local law enforcement shall provide an offender fact sheet [21] to any member of the community likely to encounter appellant. Local law enforcement is further required to notify the community of the offender's presence using a variety of other public information resourcesincluding news releases, fliers, and advertisements in local newspapers. As an aggravated offender, appellant will be subject to community notification for life and will be required to register quarterly with local law enforcement officials. As required by statute, the board of review notified Mr. Germane of his classification and advised him of his right to appeal that decision to the Superior Court. Availing himself of the provisions of § 11-37.1-13, appellant timely filed an application for judicial review of the board's determination. Some time after appellant filed his application for review but before the first scheduled hearing in the matter, the magistrate assigned to handle appeals of the board of review's risk assessments advised the Office of the Attorney General that the exceedingly brief reports issued by the board of review, coupled with the STATIC-99 coding forms, constituted an insufficient record for meaningful judicial review in such cases. [22] The magistrate felt that he would have some difficulty making a determination of a level of notification based strictly on a risk assessment tool. The Office of the Attorney General thereafter supplemented at least some of the board of review reports then undergoing review before the Superior Court (including appellant's) with additional information elaborating on the basis for the board of review's risk level determination. This one-page supplemental attachment provided a somewhat more complete description of the materials reviewed by the board of review in making its classification of Mr. Germane; in the words of that attachment, those materials included [the] criminal record [and] police, institutional, probation/parole supervision, and treatment information   . The board of review also noted a number of characteristics specific to appellant's case that in its judgment militated in favor of a higher risk assessment than that indicated by the results of the STATIC-99. [23]