Offender won't wear monitor, cites religion
A hearing will determine whether Scott Smith's stance sends him to prison.
By TOM ALEX
REGISTER STAFF WRITER
February 22, 2006
A convicted sex offender in southern Iowa with ties to a doomsday commune has refused to wear an electronic monitor, saying the device conflicts with his religious beliefs.
A hearing Thursday in Decatur County will determine whether Scott Smith, 36, will go to prison over his refusal to wear the monitor as ordered under a statewide effort to track the movements of sex offenders who committed crimes against children.
Smith, of Davis City, has been a member of the Brotherhood of Christ Church, whose believers once claimed the Soviet Union would unleash a weapon to wipe out the Kansas City, Mo., area and everything else within 50 miles.
Smith's current status with the organization could not be confirmed, and he could not be reached Tuesday for comment.
Smith was convicted in 2004 of third-degree sex abuse and indecent contact with a child. He could have faced 10 years in prison on the sex abuse charges but was put on probation for five years. He was sentenced to one year on the indecent-contact charge but was released after 210 days on work release and put on two years' probation.
Records show Smith's victims were females, one between the ages of 14 and 17 and the other younger than 13.
State lawmakers last year approved a sweeping package of get-tough laws aimed at child molesters, including a requirement of electronic monitoring for hundreds of offenders who go on parole or probation.
Stan Devore, regional supervisor for the 5th Judicial District Department of Corrections, said that there are several types of monitors for ankles and wrists, but that Smith refused to wear any of them.
Lamoni Police Chief Dale Killpack said 50 or 60 members of the Brotherhood of Christ Church live together on about 520 acres east of Lamoni.
Killpack said an investigation of the sex abuse complaint turned up a letter that said Smith was expelled from the group for at least a year beginning in 2003. The letter set out rules he would have to follow to be reinstated.
http://www.dmregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060222/NEWS01/602220375/1001I wonder what I could claim as religious reasons, hmmm... a need to carry a firearm at 24/7 in all locations?