Free Sealed Document - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:01-cr-00238-WDM
PROB 12M (10/01-D/CO)

Document 74

Filed 02/13/2006

Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for DISTRICT OF COLORADO

U. S. A. vs. Thomas P. Ormsby

Docket No. 01-cr-00238-WDM

Petition for Issuance of Arrest Warrant because of Violation of Probation and/or Supervised Release COMES NOW, John G. Marshall, PROBATION OFFICER OF THE COURT presenting an official report upon the conduct and attitude of Thomas P. Ormsby who was placed on supervision by the Honorable Walker D. Miller sitting in the court at Denver, on the 17th day of January, 2002, who fixed the period of supervision at 3 years, commencing March 17, 2004 , and imposed the general terms and conditions theretofore adopted by the court and also imposed special conditions and terms as follows: The defendant shall participate in an approved program of sex offender evaluation and treatment, which may include polygraph and plethysmograph examinations, as directed by the probation officer. The defendant will be required to pay the cost of treatment as directed by the probation officer. The Court authorizes the probation officer to release psychological reports and/or the presentence report to the treatment agency for continuity of treatment. The defendant shall not access any Internet sites that contain child pornography, i.e. sexually explicit material depicting minors. The defendant shall not communicate via computer, or otherwise, with any person that defendant has reason to believe is a minor concerning anything related to child pornography or sexual activity involving minors. The defendant shall allow the probation officer to make periodic, unannounced examinations at any reasonable time of any computer or Internet access device used by him, except a computer owned by the defendant' employer and not located at s the defendant' residence. Defendant shall, upon demand, immediately provide the probation officer with any password s required to access data or programs on such computers or devices and shall allow the probation officer to copy information which the probation officer believes may be evidence of a law violation or a technical violation of a condition of supervised release. The defendant shall allow the probation officer to install site-blocking software deemed appropriate by the probation officer on any computer used by him, except a computer owned by his employer and not located at the defendant' residence. The s defendant shall not attempt to remove or otherwise defeat the site-blocking system installed by the probation officer. The defendant shall not have any unsupervised contact with any person under the age of 18. On March 1, 2004, the Court modified the defendant' supervised release to include the following special condition: s The defendant shall reside in a community corrections center for a period not to exceed 150 days to commence at the direction of the probation officer. The probation officer shall have the discretion to authorize the defendant' early release s from the community corrections center after it has been determined that the defendant has obtained stable employment and has arranged a stable residence. The defendant shall follow the rules and regulations of the community corrections center. On August 10, 2004, the Court modified the defendant' supervised release to include the following special condition: s

The defendant shall reside in a community corrections center for a period not to exceed 120 days to commence consecutively to the previous 150-day community corrections term imposed by the Court on March 1, 2004. The probation

Case 1:01-cr-00238-WDM

Document 74

Filed 02/13/2006

Page 2 of 5

officer shall have the discretion to authorize the defendant' early release from the community corrections center after it has s been determined that the defendant has obtained stable employment and has arranged a stable residence. The defendant shall follow the rules and regulations of the community corrections center. On November 11, 2004, the defendant' supervised release was revoked and he was sentenced to 20 months custody s of the Bureau of Prisons with 16 months supervised release to follow. This sentenced was later modified to 11 months custody with 16 months supervised release to follow. Two additional special conditions were added at this sentencing: The defendant shall participate in a program of mental health treatment, as directed by the probation officer, until he is released from the program by the probation officer. The defendant shall pay the cost of treatment as directed by the probation officer. The Court authorizes the probation officer to release psychological reports and/or the presentence report to the treatment agency for continuity of treatment. The defendant shall reside in a community corrections center for a period of six (6) months, to commence upon his release from custody, and shall follow the rules and regulations of that facility.

RESPECTFULLY PRESENTING PETITION FOR ACTION OF COURT FOR CAUSE AS FOLLOWS: Petitioner states there is probable cause to believe that the Defendant has violated conditions of his supervised release as more particularly described in the attachment which is incorporated by reference. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3606, Petitioner requests that the Court issue a warrant for the arrest of the Defendant who violated a condition of his supervised release and that this petition and the warrant be sealed until after Defendant' arrest. s I state under penalty of perjury that the foregoing matters are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Executed this ___9th_______ day of ___February_____, 2006_. /s/ John G. Marshall John G. Marshall, Probation Officer ORDER OF THE COURT Based upon the foregoing, I find probable cause exists to believe the Defendant has violated a condition of his supervised release. I order that a warrant for Defendant' arrest be issued and that this Petition and Order, as well as the s warrant, be sealed until Defendant' arrest. s Dated this 13th day February, 2006 s/ Walker D. Miller ___________________________________________ WALKER D. MILLER, United States District Judge

Case 1:01-cr-00238-WDM

Document 74 ATTACHMENT

Filed 02/13/2006

Page 3 of 5

Attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by reference, is a true copy of the conditions of supervised release which was signed by the defendant on November 12, 2005. His signature on this occasion acknowledges that the conditions had been read to him, that he fully understood the conditions, and that he was provided a copy of them. The term of supervised release recommenced on November 9, 2005. The defendant was not accepted into community corrections center placement due to his previous violations while at the Independence House. The defendant has committed the following violations of supervised release: 1. FAILURE TO PARTICIPATE IN SEX OFFENDER TREATMENT, AS DIRECTED BY THE PROBATION OFFICER:

The defendant was terminated from sex offender treatment due to noncompliance, which constitutes a Grade C violation of supervised release. This charge is based on the following facts: On February 8, 2006, the defendant was unsuccessfully discharged from sex offender treatment at The Offenders Group, due to noncompliance with The Offenders Group Treatment Program requirements. The defendant' history of noncompliance/relapse is as follows: s October 6, 2005: The defendant signed a treatment contract at The Offenders Group and began sex offender treatment at this agency. January 9, 2006: The defendant took and failed a polygraph examination, which focused on three questions regarding the defendant' sexual contact with a minor, masturbating in public, and s exposing his genitals in public. The defendant tested deceptive on all three questions. The defendant also made several disclosures during the polygraph that he either failed to make in group or minimized when reporting them to the group. These included: 1)Seeing a woman' breast while living at the shelter; s 2)Seeing two men fondling a woman' breast while living at the shelter; s 3)Viewing pornography in the portable bathroom at the shelter; 4)Lying to his probation officer regarding where he was sleeping at night; and 5)Masturbation while at the shelter. January 16, 2006: The defendant was issued a " Warning Letter"from The Offenders Group which highlighted 4 areas of noncompliance: 1) Failure to Progress in Treatment; 2) Failure to Complete Assignments; 3) Failure to Take Personal Responsibility; and 4) Continuing Inappropriate Behavior.

Case 1:01-cr-00238-WDM

Document 74

Filed 02/13/2006

Page 4 of 5

The letter advised the defendant that he needed to take corrective actions to address these issues in order to remain in the program. The defendant was given the following instructions needed to continue in treatment at The Offenders Group: 1) Immediately begin and successfully complete the Failed Polygraph Group; 2) Reschedule and take the polygraph; 3) Secure living arrangements outside the homeless shelter; 4) Discontinue any masturbation acts; 5) Discontinue any use of the internet; 6) Remove digital camera from access/possession; 7) Disclose any deception to the Treatment Team and Probation Officer; and 8) Complete all Red Flags and Safety Plans assigned . On February 8, 2006: The defendant received an unsatisfactory discharge from The Offenders Group sex offender treatment program due to: 1) Repeated violations of his Treatment Contract; and 2) Failure to Progress in Treatment Of the nine instructions listed in the defendant' warning letter noted above, the defendant failed s to comply with the following: 1) Discontinue any masturbation acts (seven times since); 2) Disclose any questionable behavior to your treatment groups (disregarded by defendant); 3) Discontinue any deception to your Treatment Team and Probation (disregarded by defendant); 4) Complete all Red Flags and Safety Plans assigned (not completed) Additionally, on February 6, 2006, on the advice of his attorney, the defendant made the following new disclosures during an individual sex offender treatment session: 1) Upon release from prison, he purchased pornographic material; 2) On a weekly basis, since his release from prison, (approximately 15-20 occasions) he visited an adult bookstore and on several occasions purchased pornographic material; 3) He went to a local Greyhound Bus station and masturbated in the bathroom on approximately 30 occasions; 4) He went to and masturbated at a local park on two occasions; 5) While living at the homeless shelter, he paid a woman at the homeless shelter $7.00 to touch her breast as a prelude to masturbation; 6) In October 2005, at a location near the homeless shelter, he had sexual intercourse with a woman who was intoxicated at the time. He failed to inform her he was a sex offender, and he continues to visually see her almost daily; and 7) On February 5, 2006, he became sexually aroused by watching a commercial on television and went to an adult bookstore and masturbated in a viewing room. The treatment providers have concluded the following: The defendant has been given ample opportunity to participate in sex offender treatment at the Sex Offender Program. He continues to fail to accept/understand the seriousness of his sexually assaultive behavior and its impact on his victims, and hold himself accountable and responsible for his behavior. His continued violation of his treatment contract, continued deviant sexual behavior, and failure to complete the requirements necessary to remain in treatment indicate the defendant is not willing to do the work necessary to remain and progress in treatment. His continued violations indicate he is more interested in himself than in the needs and safety of the community and his victims. As a result, he continues to exhibit the same distorted thought patterns which made him a threat to the community at the time of his offense and is at risk for re-offending currently and in the future. It

Case 1:01-cr-00238-WDM

Document 74

Filed 02/13/2006

Page 5 of 5

is recommended that his monitoring and supervision be increased and that the defendant be viewed as an untreated sex offender living in the community. On February 8, 2006, the offender met with this officer and Supervising Probation Officer Sena at the probation office, per the offender' request. The defendant made the following additional s disclosures and/or admissions: 1) He engaged in a second sexual encounter with the same adult female with whom he had intercourse. The second sexual contact involved him masturbating to ejaculation on her breasts in a public alley during the day. He was aware she was under the influence of both drugs and alcohol at the time of both encounters; 2) On approximately ten occasions, he viewed pornographic materials with other adult men in public. This took place in plain view of others, including children in some cases; 3) Once in October 2005 and once in January 2006, he masturbated underneath a blanket during the daytime. He was not exposed, however it would have been clear to someone walking by what he was doing; 4) Regarding contact with children, he has had physical contact on two occasions. In December and while on the bus, a child touched his hand while grabbing for the railing. In January, on his way to a bus stop, a child swung his arm without looking and hit the defendant in the thigh; 5) He has had a blatant disregard for treatment and the probation department since his release from prison. It is the fear of returning to prison that is now motivating him to cooperate. He deserves to go to jail for his behaviors, but he is now more positive towards treatment and hopes he will succeed once he is released; and 6) He continued to stay at the shelter, as it exposed him to a larger variety of potential victims to feed into his predatory nature. 2. FAILURE TO FOLLOW INSTRUCTIONS OF THE PROBATION OFFICER:

The defendant failed to comply with verbal instructions of the probation officer, which constitutes a Grade C violation of supervised release. This charge is based on the following facts: The defendant failed to report to the probation office as instructed on November 21, 2005. The defendant failed to meet with this officer for a scheduled residence contact on January 19, 2006.