April 25, 2008
Panty raid involving a sex offender
This local story provides a little (perverted?) levity at the end of a long work week:
Petaluma police officers seeking an explanation for why women's panties were discovered during a routine search of a male sex offender's home learned the underwear had been acquired from a surprising source. Larry Allen Riebli, 45, is believed to have taken the garments from homes for sale during open houses, police said.
Riebli, who is on probation for a conviction for annoying or molesting a child, admitted taking the underwear during a search Tuesday of his Baywood Drive home, police said. The panties were part of a cache of 25 to 30 pairs, about 20 of them purchased from stores, a handful bought from prostitutes and the remainder allegedly taken from houses up for sale, Deputy Sonoma County District Attorney James Patrick Casey said.
April 25, 2008 at 08:55 AM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Panty raid involving a sex offender:
so they routinely search sex offender's homes?
Another thing is, why is it that this guy was so stupid as to tell them he stole them. He should just have said he has a fetish for women underwear.
Another thing is, You can get become a sex offender for annoying a child? that is just insane. It's as bad as the Maine legislature trying to pass a law making it it a felony to visually molest a child. Basicly when the law passes, it would be a crime to look at children.
Posted by: EJ | Apr 25, 2008 10:22:51 AM
Would merely possessing the women's panties be a probation violation without the theft? I think there might be some due process problems even for sex offenders to such a provision - but since they are trying to restrict everything else for sex offenders, it wouldn't surprise me if they'd try to bar possessing women's underwear. Also interestingly enough, not only was this guy stupid enough to tell the police he stole some of the panties, he told the police he bought others of them from prostitutes (presumably used, EEEEWWWWW!!!).
It's often the case that one on probation "voluntarily" gives up their 4th Amendment right to be free from search and seizure.
Posted by: Zack | Apr 25, 2008 5:48:35 PM
If treatment is a condition of probation, it could be a violation of a treatment contract and therefore of probation. Virtually any "deviant" or objectifying behavior (e.g. masturbating to pictures of women, even clothed) can be prohibited as part of treatment.
Posted by: | Apr 25, 2008 7:47:17 PM