After allegedly trying to sneak a peek at a four-year-old girl in a bathroom stall, a Houston man has been taken into custody. UH alumna Tracey Harris Gabel was eating at Café Express in Meyerland with her daughter when the event took place.
It was a typical lunch between mother and daughter, and until she took her daughter to the restroom, Gabel was enjoying herself.
While in the restroom, Gabel’s daughter told her that a man was looking up at her. Gabel looked under the stall, saw nothing at first — the man was standing on the toilet — but finally did see the man in the next stall, along with what she described as a rape kit.
“He had a recording device, electrical tape, duct tape, a clear plastic bag (and) a sock with a pacifier inside of it,” Gabel told ABC-KTRK. “(It was) all indicative of intent to commit an act beyond voyeurism.”
The man in question, 59-year-old Lincoln Moreno, has been arrested nearly 20 times before, including his first conviction for sexually abusing a child in 1980 — but he’s not a registered sex offender.
Why? Because the transgressions took place before the current registration laws applying to sexually-based offenses were established.
Since 1980, criminal trespassing has been the only conviction he’s received. However, it’s important to note that he received multiple convictions — many involving voyeurism geared toward young children. That would seem like a serious enough offense to register someone as a sex offender, but it just isn’t so under current law.
The city’s Crime Victims’ Advocate Andy Kahan, State Representative Garnet Coleman and Gabel are working together to change the law.
“You can still have criminal trespassing but say, ‘if it’s for a sexual gratification, it is a sex crime, and the penalty is this, and they have to register,’” Coleman said.
In the meantime, watch your children closely, because Moreno will more than likely be released from jail before Coleman even gets to pitch the proposed bill in the next legislative session.
Are you people THAT stupid? All you want is laws by general descriptions. You want to vote on people's freedoms. Maybe your article isn't so accurate? Maybe you overstated his little "rape kit"? Because if a man is caught in a ladies room with those articles while "peeping" it can be reasonable inferred what his intention was and he can be charged with a very serious crime.
Why don't you take him to court under civil proceedings? The standard is a preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not that he is dangerous), and you can put many many restrictions upon him.
I understand, you hate courts. You want a law where you don't need reason and rationality. All you need is outrage and a bunch of people you can blame all your troubles and fears on and threaten legislatures with their jobs.
You people are pathetic and your freedom is going into the toilet. See, the registry takes away safety and/or security of the offender and doesn't protect the community, is passed ex-post facto and there is no way to petition to be removed from the registry. So, even if you put him on this bloated registry of yours it will not do anything but make your community MORE dangerous. But you are too stupid to see that and only love the shame and banishment that comes with the registry so much.
Don't worry, OUTRAGE is your test. And outrage is as transferable as a bank check. There will be more registries and they may just hate YOU for that thing YOU did and they will not want to hear anything from you again. I am talking to YOU dui offenders, drug offenders, and anyone else that has ever committed any crime.
Wait a second, that would be ALL OF YOU!
You are chip right off of Thomas Paine.
This is an impressive statement for someone who watched a few episodes off Law & Order..
Tell me boy, could you not get into law school or was it too expensive. I'm so glad you clarified all these fancy legal terms for the readers. Only a genius could think of a case cracking response like this. I will see to it every Justice in the country reads your opinion so they may admire you as much as I do.
I can see it now: "Rudy101/Moreno 2012." This is sure to be the winning presidential ticket assuming Moreno doesn't have a felony by then.
Hugs & Kisses
NB
Would you like to restate this sentence:
" See, the registry takes away safety and/or security of the offender and doesn't protect the community, is passed ex-post facto and there is no way to petition to be removed from the registry."
Are you THAT smart to come up with this all on your own?