PITTSFIELD — A convicted sex offender admitted he kissed and fondled a cardboard cutout of a woman, which was part of a North Street pharmacy’s advertising display.

Charlie J. Price, 57, of Pittsfield, pleaded guilty to a single count of disturbing the peace, subsequent offense, and was ordered to pay a $200 fine by Central Berkshire District Court Judge Fredric D. Rutberg.

Saturday around 5 p.m., Price, who was allegedly intoxicated, walked into the Rite Aid pharmacy, “grabbed hold of the sunglass display, hugged it tightly and then began to lick and kiss the face of the female party on the display,” according to a Pittsfield Police report.

This behavior lasted about a minute, according to police, and ended when Price fell to the floor. He eventually got back on his feet and began yelling and screaming, according to the police report. Meanwhile, Price’s behavior apparently scared customers who “actively” tried to get away from the area. Price was arrested by the Pittsfield Police.

Price is a level 3 sex offender, and therefore is considered to be at a high risk for reoffending. In 1991, he was convicted of indecent assault and battery on a child under 14. Last year, he was convicted of open and gross lewdness and lascivious behavior, according to the Sex Offender Registry Board.

This decision demonstrates the low threshold that society has for those convicted of a sexual offense, regardless of the nature of the conviction. For individuals facing sex offender classification in Massachusetts, it is crucial to have legal counsel. If you are a facing sex offender classification in Massachusetts and have questions regarding your Massachusetts sex offender classification or want assistance in reviewing or seeking sex offender reclassification, you need a Boston sex offender attorney. Please contact Attorney Crouch at (617) 441-5111 or email him to set up a free, initial consultation. To request further information please contact us.

The state attorney general’s office, which is responsible for reviewing all new bylaws, will consider a sex-offender residency measure that was approved by voice vote at Monday’s Town Meeting. If approved by the AG’s office, the bylaw would prohibit convicted sex offenders from living or loitering in areas where large numbers of children or senior citizens congregate.

The Lowell Sun reports the details of the proposed ordinance.

Pending a constitutionality and legal review by the Attorney General’s office, the Town of Ayer has enacted a sex-offender residency restricting bylaw for Level 2 and Level 3 sex offenders. Such offenders will not be permitted to reside within 1,000 feet of public and private schools, day-care centers, passive and active recreation fields and senior centers and senior housing.

The measure was broadened by amendment during the meeting to include 1,000-foot zones around bus stops for not only school children, but Scouting and summer camps registered with the town and Police Department. With the change, the draft map that accompanies the bylaw will be retooled before it is submitted to the AG’s office.

A man who identified himself as Jeff Hagelberag of Littleton Road said he opposed the idea, comparing the measure to “Nazi Germany where they classified groups of people as different” and justified taking “rights away from them. Here in the United States, this is really about freedom.” Hagelberag said “they made mistakes, they went to jail, they did their time and now they’re just trying to move on with their lives. This is really removing their rights.”

Hagelberag also said the Sex Offender Registry Board’s classification of offenders as Level 2 (of moderate risk of reoffending) and Level 3 (deemed at high risk of reoffending) is “kind of arbitrary.”

His comments invoked disbelief
Advertisement
from many in attendance. A woman who identified herself only as “Shilo” from the Devenscrest neighborhood said she had three children. “Wow, I don’t even know where to begin.”

She said her uncle betrayed a trust and was convicted and deemed a Level 3 sex offender who reoffended twice again after his initial release. She placed the blame squarely at her uncle’s feet “for ruining — not making a mistake — for ruining two girls’ lives. I was shocked because he was one I trusted.”

“They lost their rights when they harmed the innocent,” said Shilo, whose comments were greeted with applause.

Brenda Gleason asked, “do I have to say my address? I don’t really want to.” But her husband co-initiated the call to the selectmen to take action and enact a bylaw in light of a spate of recent Level 2 and Level 3 sex offenders emanating from two Ayer homes owned by the same landlord, one of which is located directly across the street from the Ayer school campus. “We have a property right across the street from the school, literally, with swing sets and toys (in the yard) but no children living there.”

Selectman Jim Fay is an Army veteran and has two sons in law enforcement. “Sex offenses are real and they’re happening in Ayer. If we didn’t need it, we wouldn’t put it forward.” Fay said, “I take personal offense to the reference to Nazi Germany.”

Jeff Mayes noted that some day-care centers were not included on the map. Lt. Brian Gill of the Ayer Police Department said there are 16 licensed centers in town and the map will be revised to encase them all in a 1,000 -foot wide protective zone.

John Norris of Nashua Street is a Marine veteran who lives in close proximity to another flagged house of concern owned by the same landlord. He thanked selectmen for taking swift action in bringing the bylaw to Town Meeting. He, too, took offense to “someone calling this Nazi Germany while trying to protect my child.”

Patrick Kelly co-sponsored the initiative. He said that postings of pictures of sex offenders at the police station and library can only include Level 3 offenders by law. But upon request at the Police Department, citizens can make a request for a list of the Level 2 offenders. Kelly said there’s a “considerable” number of Level 2 offenders in town.

Selectman Frank Maxant is a tenant in one of the two targeted multifamily residences that has provided shelter to some of the sex offenders who have been flagged for prosecution in recent months for reoffending and/or failing to register as an offender living in Ayer. Maxant thanked Hagelberag for “giving me the courage” to speak up.

Maxant said he, too, had “misgivings” about the bylaw saying the current draft was “really overreaching” and places a “bull’s eye right on our forehead” for a legal challenge from groups like the American Civil Liberties Union.

Tom Horgan challenged Maxant. “Is the position Mr. Maxant taking contrary to the (will of) the Board of Selectmen?” Heads nodded.

Maxant compared his commentary to “dissenting opinions” included in U.S. Supreme Court cases before obliging and leaving the stage to speak from the main meeting room floor.

Maxant concluded by saying the bylaw is the equivalent of handing the ACLU “the easy button” to sue the town “when we deprive people of their civil rights.”

The call came to move the question. The group loudly agreed. With only Hagelberag making a vocal vote against the measure, the sex offender bylaw passed on an overwhelming voice vote before the meeting adjourned. But not before a woman offered a comment that she was ‘offended that Maxant would be able to comment when he lived with these sex offenders.”

Ayer has 4,480 registered voters, and 157 showed to vote at the special Fall Town Meeting. Fifty is the minimum number of voters needed to conduct business.

Such sex offender residency ordinances are increasingly used by local communities to drive former offenders from their communities. These proposed laws will affect many individual sex offenders. If you have questions regarding your Massachusetts sex offender classification or are already a registered Massachusetts sex offender who wants assistance in reviewing or challenging his or her classification, or to request further information, you need a Boston sex offender attorney. Please contact Attorney Crouch at (617) 441-5111 or email him to set up a free, initial consultation. To request further information please contact us.

The ruling was restricted to the case of [the offender], but it could put more of a burden on prosecutors seeking to commit sexual offenders who have no history of posing physical threat of harm, known as contact crimes, according to legal analysts.

[The offender] is a 55-year-old who has been convicted of open and gross lewdness seven times, mostly for flashing young adult woman, sometimes while masturbating, and he has told medical examiners that he has done it as many as 30 times since he was 13 years old.

But in a ruling issued yesterday, the state Supreme Judicial Court drew a distinction between [the offender]’s conduct and the type of menacing threat of harm that would necessitate his commitment under sexual predator laws, such as stalking someone while flashing, or doing it in front of a child.

“The Commonwealth must show the defendant’s predicted sexual offenses will instill in his victims a reasonable apprehension of being subjected to a contact sex crime,’’ the court said in a decision written by Justice Francis X. Spina.

“A generalized fear or some other unspecified psychological harm such as shock or alarm will not suffice.’’

While maintaining that the ruling was restricted to [the offender], Spina also wrote that the decision should not suggest that every sex offender who has committed only noncontact crimes such as flashing do not pose a threat to the health and safety of others.

“Each case is specific,’’ Spina wrote. “We can easily envision a case where the outcome might be different, based on the specific behavior of a particular defendant.’’

The ruling is still significant in that it has set a benchmark for prosecutors looking to civilly commit a sex offender, even if that offender has not caused physical harm to anyone. The ruling, for instance, could protect people who possessed child pornography – rather than distributed it or harmed a child in the process – from commitment.

Legal analysts say that the ruling does not affect offenders who have caused harm to others, or created the threat of it. The ruling, for instance, affirms that a flasher who stalks someone, lurks around a particular area such as a bathroom, or who targets a particular person could be considered a menace to someone if that person feels threatened.

The high court affirmed an Essex Superior Court ruling. The Superior Court judge found that while [the offender] could have been committed under the language of state laws, it would be unconstitutional to do so because prosecutors never demonstrated that his convictions were predictors that he would harm someone or create that menacing threat necessary to commit him.

The high court did not address whether the state law is unconstitutional, but it determined that [the offender] could not be committed under the state laws because he did not cross the threshold of being a menace.

This decision is important for many individuals sex offenders as this interpretation has led to many attempts to civilly commit individuals. Upon release from prison, it is important to know that the failure to register as a sex offender is a serious crime in Massachusetts with devastating consequences. If you have questions regarding your Massachusetts sex offender classification or are already a registered Massachusetts sex offender who wants assistance in reviewing or challenging his or her classification, or to request further information, you need a Boston sex offender attorney. Please contact Attorney Crouch at (617) 441-5111 or email him to set up a free, initial consultation. To request further information please contact us.

A fifth member of the Massachusetts State Police Ten Most Wanted Sex Offenders list is in custody today after Massachusetts troopers directed a task force in the Pacific Northwest to the suspect’s location.

Police arrested ELWOOD J. JOHNSON, 54, this afternoon at an apartment at 903 Union St. in Seattle. In recent days, Trooper Carlos Rivera of the Massachusetts State Police Violent Fugitive Apprehension Section had developed information that JOHNSON may be at that address. Trooper Rivera contacted the Pacific Northwest Fugitive Apprehension Task Force, a combination of local and state officers and United States Marshals, and directed them to JOHNSON’s potential location. Task Force members found him there today and took him into custody.

JOHNSON is currently being booked and is expected to be arraigned at the King County Superior Court in Seattle later today. Massachusetts authorities will work with their counterparts in Washington state to arrange for JOHNSON’s rendition to answer to his charges here.

JOHNSON was previously convicted in Washington state in 1992 for rape of a child and is currently wanted by the Worcester Police Department for failure to register as a sex offender. He is also the subject of a warrant out of the state of Georgia for failure to register.

JOHNSON is the fifth member of the Top Ten Most Wanted Sex Offender List to be captured since the list was updated by State Police and the Sex Offender Registry Board last month. In February, Level 3 offenders CAESAR J. DELGADO, STEVEN M. HESCOCK, FRANKLIN C. MILLER and ROBERT GRIGGS JR. were captured.

GRIGGS was arrested at a motel in Fort Myers, Florida, after Massachusetts troopers learned he had been living in a series of motels in that state. GRIGGS is wanted by the Fitchburg Police Department for failure to register as a sex offender as required by law. GRIGGS was required to register because of a 1994 conviction in Massachusetts for open and gross misconduct and lewd and lascivious behavior and a 1995 conviction in Texas for aggravated sexual assault on a child.

DELGADO, 44, was arrested in Central Falls, R.I. after Massachusetts State Police learned he was staying in an apartment there. DELGADO is wanted by State Police and the Lowell Police Department on four counts each of rape of a child with force and indecent assault and battery on a child under 14, as well as for failure to register as a sex offender. His registration is required by a 1999 conviction for indecent assault on a child. DELGADO had been previously arrested last October but fled a month later after cutting off the GPS monitoring bracelet.

HESCOCK, 34, was captured by Massachusetts troopers at a relative’s house Revere. HESCOCK is wanted by Revere Police for failure to register as a sex offender and larceny and by Medford Police for larceny. His registration as a sex offender is required by a 1994 conviction for rape.

MILLER, 33, at a Boston shelter. He was wanted by Fitchburg Police for failure to register as a sex offender. His registration was required by a 1997 conviction for rape of a child.

All members of the list of Most Wanted Sex Offenders have been classified as Level 3 Sex Offenders by the state’s Sex Offender Registry Board.

The failure to register as a sex offender is a serious crime in Massachusetts with devastating consequences. If you have questions regarding your Massachusetts sex offender classification or are already a registered Massachusetts sex offender who wants assistance in reviewing or challenging his or her classification, or to request further information, you need a Boston sex offender attorney. Please contact Attorney Crouch at (617) 441-5111 or email him to set up a free, initial consultation. To request further information please contact us.

The state’s highest court today threw out the conviction of a serial sex offender for failing to register his address with the Boston police within two days of his release from jail. The judges said the state Sex Offender Registry Board did not have the authority to institute the two-day requirement.

The ruling in Malcolm S. Maker’s case came only a few days after the man was arrested again for exposing himself, officials said.

Maker, 52, has been designated a Level 3 sex offender, the class characterized as most likely to reoffend. Maker has a history of convictions for open and gross lewdness and lascivious behavior.

Maker was charged in 2009 with failing to notify the Boston police within two days of his release from jail that he would be living in a homeless shelter in Boston. He was convicted on Nov. 24, 2009, and sentenced to two years in jail.

But the Supreme Judicial Court ruled today that the registry board, set up to identify and monitor sex offenders, had no legal authority to enact the two-day registration requirement, which applied to both Level 2 and Level 3 offenders. Other requirements had already been established by the law creating the board and the board had no authority to go beyond that law, the court ruled.

The law requires that sex offenders mail their future home and work addresses to the board before they are released. The board then sends the information to local police. Offenders must verify their information periodically. Level 2 and Level 3 offenders are required to verify their information in person annually at their local police department. If they are living in a homeless shelter, they must verify the information every 30 days.

The high court said it would not rule on the merits of requiring the two-day registration, saying, “Nothing in the statute authorizes the board to create new registration requirements such as the regulation here at issue.”

“The wisdom or practical advantages of creating new registration obligations is of no relevance when the board lacks the power to do so,” Justice Judith Cowin wrote in a 10-page decision.

While the court was considering the case, Maker was still serving his term. He was released on Friday, according to the Suffolk sheriff’s office.

Just before 8 a.m. Tuesday morning, Maker was arrested again for masturbating in the women’s bathroom room of the Cheesecake Factory restaurant at Boston’s Prudential Center. He was charged with open and gross lewdness in Boston Municipal Court, and was ordered held on $2,500 cash bail. Prosecutors had asked that he be held on $10,000 bail.

The board issued a statement saying it would abide by the court’s ruling and had notified police departments of it. It emphasized that sex offenders still must register before they are released and must notify the board or police of any change to their registration, including address changes.

“Today’s ruling does not change local law enforcement’s authority to arrest any offender who violates registration requirements and the offender still remains subject to severe penalties if convicted of failing to register or to update registration information,” the board said in a statement.

Maker’s attorney, Elizabeth Caddick, did not immediately return a telephone message seeking comment.

This decision is important for many registered sex offenders as this interpretation has led to many failure to register convictions. The failure to register as a sex offender is a serious crime in Massachusetts with devastating consequences. If you have questions regarding your Massachusetts sex offender classification or are already a registered Massachusetts sex offender who wants assistance in reviewing or challenging his or her classification, or to request further information, you need a Boston sex offender attorney. Please contact Attorney Crouch at (617) 441-5111 or email him to set up a free, initial consultation. To request further information please contact us.

Unsubstantiated myths, outright misconceptions and “fraught with constitutional complications.” That sums up the conclusions of a committee that was created to review a proposal that Plymouth establish residential restrictions for registered sex offenders.

The Committee to Consider a Sexual Offender Bylaw, a subcommittee of Town Meeting precinct chairs, was initially formed at the end of 2009, following the defeat of an article that argued for new residency and loitering regulations for sex offenders living in Plymouth.

Among the rationales put forth by the regulations’ proponents was that, in light of similar regulations in other communities, Plymouth needed to act to protect itself from becoming a refuge for sex offenders fleeing those other towns.

It was also argued that new restrictions, such as the anti-loitering provision that would apply to all convicted offenders, were needed in order to keep them from spending too much time around playgrounds, school yards and other areas where potential victims might be located.

The report of the committee, submitted to the Board of Selectman this week by Precinct 4 Town Meeting Rep. John Hammond II, confronted all of those arguments head on.

A committee member collected the existing bylaws and ordinances affecting sexual offenders from a number of other Massachusetts municipalities. Statistical studies that looked at the relationship between repeat offenders and residency were gathered and scrutinized. The committee also conducted interviews with Plymouth Police Chief Michael Botieri, the chief probation officer of Plymouth Superior Court, John Healey, and local experts Debra and John Baker

The data they collected, the report says, “were astonishingly uniform in finding that residency had no relationship to offenses, that convicted sex offenders did not re-offend in the neighborhoods where they lived and, indeed, that most convicted sexual offenders did not re-offend, contrary to the general myth.”

Chief Botieri told the committee that his officers visit Level 3 sex offenders three times as often as the state recommends and that, in his opinion, “these visits are an effective control mechanism.”

The Bakers – she is a licensed Mental Health Counselor who specializes in the treatment of sex offenders, and he is the retired administrator of the Massachusetts Sexual Offender Classification Board – offered the opinion that a residency restriction would not be helpful, and that Plymouth is, itself, not attractive to sex offenders.

As of late 2010, there were only four Level 3 offenders living in Plymouth, the committee determined, and of the 351 municipalities in Massachusetts only 11 have residency restrictions (and none of those are immediate neighbors).

“Plymouth is not in danger of attracting convicted offenders,” the committee’s report states, quite bluntly.

It was noted that, at least at the time the report was being put together (October 2010), there were only three Level 3 offenders living in Plymouth.

“The bulletin board (in the entryway of Town Hall) is misleading,” Hammond said. “I don’t know if any of the names and photos of offenders there have ever been taken down.”

The reports also say that while there has been little, if any, research on the effects of anti-loitering legislation on offenders, “there was no information in their experience or research to suggest that a blanket anti-loitering provision would be effective in protecting victims or curbing recidivism.”

The report also reported that Botieri told the committee “stopping unknown persons based upon a third-party complaint as to their criminal history as a sex offender would be easily challengeable.”

Botieri said that enforcing such a loitering bylaw would be unwieldy and would, the report notes, “lead more often than not to confrontations that either get out of hand or were legally indefensible.”

“Unlike offenders that were known to police through the registration system or court probation – for whom a threshold stop to inquire would be easily justified even without a bylaw,” the report detailed, “stopping unknown persons based on a third-party complaint…would be easily challengeable on fourth amendment grounds.”

After stating the report’s conclusion, which was obvious at that point, Hammond added a personal note.

“I am a social worker by profession,” he told selectman, “and I have worked on both sides of this issue, victims and perpetrators. I feel it would be much more effective if we focused on educating the public on how to protect your children, and what they should know to protect themselves.”

This proposed bylaw, Hammond said, might have given people false comfort, but it wouldn’t have accomplished anything.

Selectman Serge Harnais praised the committee for its effort and research, noting that the original article that had been proposed to Town Meeting “didn’t have the benefit of the expertise that this report contains.”

The board then voted unanimously to accept the report, as written.

Read more: Local sex offender bylaw dismissed – Plymouth, MA – Wicked Local Plymouth http://www.wickedlocal.com/plymouth/archive/x1365673337/Local-sex-offender-bylaw-dismissed#ixzz1FCQ5oMNY

PLYMOUTH —

A special committee made up of Town Meeting Precinct Chairs has come out against local sex offender regulations with special residency or loitering restrictions.

The committee’s report – delivered to the Board of Selectman Tuesday night – was prompted by a 2009 town meeting article that argued that without such a regulation Plymouth could become a refuge for sex offenders, and that playgrounds, school yards, and other facilities needed extra protection from predators.

The committee “took no initial position” their final report noted, but sought objective information from as many credible sources as possible.

They reviewed the available literature, consulted Plymouth Police Chief Michael Botieri,and interviewed a number of experts and concluded that the regulation, as written, would offer residences no additional protection and risk a variety of “constitutional complications.”

They further concluded that Plymouth was not the kind of community that offenders would find attractive, that the idea that convicted offenders would be likely to reoffend was based on “myths” about sex offenders, and that – with only a handful of communities adopting local sex offender regulations (and none of which abutted Plymouth) the town was not at all likely to be the preferred destination of sex offenders fleeing those communities.

The eight-member committee unanimously voted against recommending a sex offender bylaw with either a residency or a loitering restriction.

The Sex Offender Registry Board’s streamlining can come at a disadvantage for individuals facing sex offender classification in Massachusetts as it significantly reduces the amount of time you have to prepare for a hearing. If you are a facing sex offender classification in Massachusetts and have questions regarding your Massachusetts sex offender classification or want assistance in reviewing or seeking sex offender reclassification, you need a Boston sex offender attorney. Please contact Attorney Crouch at (617) 441-5111 or email him to set up a free, initial consultation. To request further information please contact us.

The audit noted that the Sex Offender Registry Board had reduced 71% of the backlog in classifying sex offenders by streamlining the classification process and increasing the amount of hearing sites in the state from 7 to 38. The SORB also cut the average time it takes to classify an offender from one year to 180 days and now re-registers 95% of classified offenders in the database.

“The Sex Offender Registry Board has made substantial strides in helping to protect communities by registering sex offenders quicker,” said Auditor Bump. “But SORB must continue to refine its systems and procedures to ensure better performance of this important public safety function,” said Auditor Suzanne Bump.

The audit found that the registry was currently not collecting the required $75 registration fee from more than 40 percent of offenders. But the report notes that five years ago virtually no money was being collected because the registry’s authority to collect the fees was in dispute.

The Sex Offender Registry Board’s streamlining can come at a disadvantage for individuals facing sex offender classification in Massachusetts as it significantly reduces the amount of time you have to prepare for a hearing. If you are a facing sex offender classification in Massachusetts and have questions regarding your Massachusetts sex offender classification or want assistance in reviewing or seeking sex offender reclassification, you need a Boston sex offender attorney. Please contact Attorney Crouch at (617) 441-5111 or email him to set up a free, initial consultation. To request further information please contact us.

Former state Sen. George Bachrach, a longtime friend of Marzilli’s who came to court to support the legislator, said, “Jim Marzilli made a mistake. He’s going to pay for it. Clearly, he became unglued. How else do you explain what happened?”

Kennedy predicted the Arlington Democrat, who is being treated for bipolar disorder and anxiety, will serve less than 55 days of the punishment superior court Judge Paul Chernoff handed down after Marzilli pleaded guilty to the accosting charges, disorderly conduct and resisting arrest.

With his wife looking on in tears, Marzilli also admitted there were sufficient facts for a jury to find him guilty of the felony charge of attempted indecent assault and battery for reaching for the crotch of a nurse’s assistant waiting on a bench for a patient.

That charge threatened up to five years in state prison, but because Chernoff continued it without a finding for one year — rather than declare Marzilli guilty, as assistant Middlesex District Attorney Elizabeth Dunigan pushed for — the disgraced pol will not have to register as a sex offender.

He is, however, on probation for five years effective immediately. Upon his release from jail, Chernoff ordered that Marzilli’s first year of release be spent on a GPS bracelet subject to exclusionary zones to be determined by prosecutors. He must also perform 200 hours of community service.

Unable to secure work for the past three years — “Look him up on the Internet. That’s the end of it,” Kennedy said of his employment possibilities — Marzilli has been doing volunteer work with at-risk Somali children and botanical gardening.

On Kennedy’s advice, Marzilli elected not to address Chernoff. Had he, Kennedy said, “I think he would have apologized — to everybody.”

None of the victims came to court, either, though Chernoff stressed each “should be recognized for courageously coming forward.” Authorities said Marzilli said to one victim: “The sex is sweet, the sex is sweet, you want it and you want to go with me.”

In the city on June 3, 2008, for a function at Federal Fabrics-Fibers, Marzilli approached the women both on foot and in a car over the course of four hours, making lewd remarks about their bodies. They, in return, called him a pervert and told him to spend $20 on a hooker.

The charge of indecent assault and battery is a serious crime in Massachusetts with devastating consequences. If you have questions regarding your case or are already a registered Massachusetts sex offender who wants assistance in reviewing or challenging his or her classification, or to request further information, you need a Boston sex offender attorney. Please contact Attorney Crouch at (617) 441-5111 or email him to set up a free, initial consultation. To request further information please contact us.

In August 2009, a Level-2 sex offender was accused of sexually assaulting a 16-year-old girl at Westford’s town beach.

The man, who moved from Florida to Westford, was listed on Florida’s online sex-offender registry, but not on Massachusetts’. The reason: Only Level-3 sex offenders are listed online in Massachusetts.

Some believe it is time to put the names, photos and addresses of Level-2 sex offenders on the Internet, as well. They say it is a simple, common-sense step to creating safer communities.

Leading the cause in the Legislature is state Rep. Jim Arciero, a Westford Democrat. Arciero recently filed a bill to put Level-2 sex offenders on the state’s Internet sex-offender database.

Arciero said he was contacted by dozens of Westford residents in the aftermath of the incident at the town beach who were outraged they did not have access to the same information about sex offenders as other states.

“This simple act will move us forward in protecting families and children in our neighborhoods,” said Arciero. “Level-2 offenders are dangerous people, and we need to have the tools to protect our communities.”

Information about Level-2 sex offenders is available to the public, but anyone interested in getting it must fill out a form and make the request to the state Sex Offender Registry Board or their local police department. Arciero calls this “cumbersome,” and many other lawmakers and public-safety officials agree.

Arciero’s bill has been co-sponsored by 36 fellow legislators in the House and Senate. It has also been endorsed by police chiefs in Littleton, Chelmsford and Westford, as well as Middlesex Sheriff Peter Koutoujian and Worcester County Sheriff Lew Evangelidis.

Littleton Police Chief John Kelly said the bill will help protect children who may be “victimized by sexually deviant perpetrators.

“The foremost proactive manner in which to do this is through information and education, and this proposed legislation will do just that,” said Kelly.

While state officials consider the crime when labeling sex offenders as Level 1, 2 or 3, the Sex Offender Registry Board decides how to classify offenders based on the likelihood that they will commit more sex crimes. That means those who have committed the most egregious crimes aren’t always categorized as Level-3 offenders.

Laurie Myers, a child-protection advocate from Chelmsford, has been pushing for more transparency within the sex-offender registry for years. She said offenders classified as Level 2 have been convicted of crimes such as rape of a child with force and indecent assault and battery on a child under 14.

“Because they are in a stable living environment or receiving counseling, these offenders are classified as Level 2,” said Myers. “Level-3 offenders are typically those who abuse alcohol or drugs or are homeless.”

Myers, a former rape-crisis counselor in Lowell and co-founder of Community Voices, a Chelmsford-based watch-dog group, said putting Level-2 sex offenders online will help parents keep their children safe.

To illustrate this, she uses a hypothetical example of a mother whose daughter is invited to a sleep-over party where the mother of her daughter’s friend has a live-in boyfriend who is a Level-2 sex offender. The mother could use the online database to decide whether to allow her daughter to spend the night at her friend’s house, said Myers.

“That’s what this tool is for,” said Myers. “When people go and see who these guys are, at least they can make an informed decision.”

Arciero is not the first legislator to get behind this cause. Several lawmakers, including Evangelidis before he was elected sheriff, filed a bill last year to change the law, but it was not enacted. During last year’s gubernatorial campaign, Republican Charlie Baker made it a campaign issue.

Arciero hopes the cause will be helped this year by the fact that if Massachusetts does not meet minimum sex-offender registration standards established by the federal Adam Walsh Act, it risks losing $600,000 in public-safety funding.

“I think we can get the necessary votes to make this happen,” he said.

Expanding the dissemination of information of Massachusetts Level 2 sex offenders would be devastating for many registered offenders. It would vastly expand the number of Massachusetts sex offenders whose home, work, and educational information is splashed across the Internet and will reduce the utility of the site run by the Sex Offender Registry Board, which presently only lists the highest risk Massachusetts Level 3 sex offenders.

If you are a Level 2 sex offender in Massachusetts a have questions regarding your Massachusetts sex offender classification or wants assistance in reviewing or seeking sex offender reclassification, you need a Boston sex offender attorney. Please contact Attorney Crouch at (617) 441-5111 or email him to set up a free, initial consultation. To request further information please contact us.

A Fitchburg man on the state police 10 most-wanted sex offender list was arrested Wednesday morning in Florida.

Robert H. Griggs Jr., 51, was arrested at the Green Wave Motel on Palm Beach Boulevard in Fort Myers.

Mr. Griggs is a Level 3 sex offender wanted by the Fitchburg Police Department for failure to register with the state as a sex offender. Mr. Griggs is a multistate offender with a lengthy criminal history in Massachusetts dating back more than 15 years, according to police.

In 1994, he was convicted in Massachusetts for open and gross misconduct and lewd and lascivious behavior, and in 1995, he was convicted in Texas for aggravated sexual assault on a child.

Deputies from the Lee County sheriff’s office in Florida found Mr. Griggs after Trooper Steve McDonald of the Massachusetts State Police violent fugitive apprehension section learned he might be staying at a motel on or near Palm Beach Boulevard, according to a news release.

The state police initially learned that Mr. Griggs had fled Fitchburg with his girlfriend for Cocoa, Fla., but later learned that he had left the Cocoa area about a month ago, and that he and his girlfriend were living at a series of motels. Mr. Griggs was booked at the Lee County jail and is being held pending his rendition to Worcester County.

Mr. Griggs is classified as at a high risk of re-offending by the Massachusetts Sex Offender Registry.

This is the second arrest in about a week of a Fitchburg man listed on the 10 most-wanted sex offender list.

Child rapist Franklin D. (Campbell) Miller, 33, with a listed address of 466 Kimball St., Apt. 3L, Fitchburg, was arrested Feb. 3.

State police said Mr. Miller was arrested at a shelter on Stanhope Street in Boston. He was eating lunch when state troopers found him shortly before 1 p.m.

State police said their information indicated that he spent the night of Feb. 2 at the home of a friend in Boston’s Back Bay. He was taken to Fitchburg District Court for arraignment.

Mr. Miller is charged with a subsequent offense of failing to register with the state’s sex offender registry.

He was convicted in 1997 of raping a child and has a five-page criminal history.

Fitchburg Police Officer Brian Rouleau, in charge of the sex offender registry for Fitchburg, called the state police violent fugitive apprehension unit July 14 when he discovered Mr. Miller had moved out of his apartment on Kimball Street a week before. He had not registered with the state’s sex offender registry at the time as required by state law and had not provided police with a valid phone number.

He is scheduled back in court March 3 for a pretrial hearing.

Mr. Griggs is the fourth member on the 10 most-wanted sex offender list to be captured since the list was updated by state police and the Sex Offender Registry Board last week.

Last week, Level 3 offenders Caesar J. Delgado and Steven M. Hescock were arrested.

Mr. Delgado was arrested last Friday in Central Falls, R.I., after Massachusetts State Police learned he was staying in an apartment there. He is wanted by state police and the Lowell Police Department on four counts each of rape of a child with force and indecent assault and battery on a child under 14, and failure to register as a sex offender. His registration is required by a 1999 conviction for indecent assault on a child. He was previously arrested in October, but fled a month later after cutting off his GPS monitoring bracelet.

Also last Friday, Mr. Hescock, 34, was captured by Massachusetts troopers at a relative’s house in Revere. He was wanted by Revere police for failure to register as a sex offender and larceny, and by Medford police for larceny. His registration as a sex offender is required by a 1994 conviction for rape.

The failure to register as a sex offender is a serious crime in Massachusetts with devastating consequences. If you have questions regarding your Massachusetts sex offender classification or are already a registered Massachusetts sex offender who wants assistance in reviewing or challenging his or her classification, or to request further information, you need a Boston sex offender attorney. Please contact Attorney Crouch at (617) 441-5111 or email him to set up a free, initial consultation. To request further information please contact us.