W.F. West High School
A Lewis County teen who pleaded guilty earlier this year in juvenile court to a what was described as a “sextortion” scheme was, from late April to mid-September, involved in a legal argument with county authorities after being classified as level 2 sex offender.
Most recently, Judge James Lawler signed off on an order denying the teen’s request that the court review how his classification was decided. The Lewis County Sheriff’s Office decided he would be classified a level 2 sex offender, while the teen’s legal counsel were arguing for a level 1 classification.
The teen’s attorney, Elissa Brine, said there are no plans to pursue legal action against the county, or to appeal Lawler’s decision.
“My client regrets the decisions he made. He is currently doing very well in treatment and in school, and hopes to put this behind him in the future, and there are no pending lawsuits against the county and we do not plan on pursuing any,” said Brine.
The Chronicle did not name the teen during his criminal case because he was under 18 and convicted in Lewis County Juvenile Court. He is still under 18.
Brine’s signature appeared on an application for Writ of Certiorari and Writ of Mandamus filed April 27 and asking for judicial review and revisiting of the classification process.
“Most juveniles are not level 2, and that’s the only reason we pursued that,” said Brine. “He’s doing very well in treatment and wants to move on with his life, and is actually very excited about treatment and trying to just get things together.”
While the process of registering as an offender doesn’t differ from one person convicted of a sex crime to another, law enforcement agencies publicly distribute more information about the person depending on their level. If a person is a level 1 offender, law enforcement agencies are more limited in how and to whom they may release case information.
Washington law states: “For offenders classified as risk level 1, the agency shall share information with other appropriate law enforcement agencies and, if the offender is a student, the public or private school regulated under Title 28A RCW or chapter 72.40 RCW which the offender is attending, or planning to attend.”
The stakes are raised for someone falling under the level 2 category — the second most severe level — with law stating: “the agency may disclose relevant, necessary, and accurate information to public and private schools, child care centers, family day care providers, public libraries, businesses and organizations that serve primarily children, women, or vulnerable adults, and neighbors and community groups near the residence where the offender resides, expects to reside, or is regularly found.”
The teen, currently 17, was 16 when he was accused of extorting victims, some of them his classmates at W.F. West High School, with nude and sexually explicit photos and videos. The accusation came following an investigation helmed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and local police agencies.
The teen had in his possession around 900 explicit images, and victims possibly numbering in the hundreds. Authorities said he presented himself on multiple social media accounts as a female alter ego, and exchanged nude photos of women he found in the internet with images his male victims sent him in return. A number of victims were reportedly classmates at W.F. West High School.
If the victims would try to stop, the teen would threaten to send their explicit images to family and friends — a threat authorities say he followed through on more than once.
He pleaded guilty to 12 counts, including three counts of first-degree dealing in depictions of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct, one count of possession of such depictions and eight counts of second-degree extortion. He was subsequently sentenced to counseling and probation under the Special Sex Offender Disposition Alternatives (SSODA), a program for juvenile sex offenders. He was also required to register as a sex offender.
The issue at odds in the petition filed by the teen’s attorneys — listing Lewis County, Sheriff Robert Snaza and LCSO Detective James McGinty as defendants — is a notice from the sheriff’s office that he would be registered as a level 2 sex offender, while the Department of Corrections’ End of Sentencing Review Committee recommended a level 1 classification. Additionally, two sex-offender specialists who recommended the teen’s sentence said chances of him reoffending were low.
The ultimate decision rested on the sheriff’s office and McGinty who presides over sex offender management for the department.
In 2008, McGinty created the Lewis County Sex Offender Review Board (LCORB), an advisory board devised to vote on mitigating or aggravating sex offender classification recommendations from the state. The board voted for a level 2 classification, and McGinty took the advice.
In a letter sent to the teen from the sheriff’s office, McGinty explained why he was receiving the harsher designation.
“When confronted by law enforcement, you admitted your behavior was predatory, you knew what you were doing was wrong, and you were not sorry. You admitted to having between 25-30 victims and hundreds of images and videos of your victims. You knew several of your victims were minors under the age of 18 and this behavior gave you a ‘rush,’” McGinty wrote.
The teen’s attorneys argued authorities “arbitrarily and irrationally (overturned) the recommendations of the state board which makes offender registration decisions,” and ignored the advice of sex offender experts. They also argued the teen should have been given the right to appear in person to argue the classification. In a later document, the argument shifted, focusing instead on determining that the county erroneously allowed the LCORB to make sex offender classification decisions when state law gives policing agencies that job, and that officials inaccurately determined his sex offender level.
The county, represented in this case by Chief Civil Deputy Prosecutor Eric Eisenberg, countered in their own filings, saying the LCORB is not a decision-making board. Rather, it’s an assortment of people involved in the justice system who hear the facts of a case and make a recommendation. McGinty uses the board’s recommendation to formulate a decision, which then must be agreed to and signed by Chief Dusty Breen.
In his order denying the application for both writs, Lawler notes: “LCSO did not abdicate its statutory duty to classify (the teen). The record reflects that LCSO made the decision. It did so through a process involving more than one person, and inviting opinions from those outside its agency, but LCSO ultimately made the decision.”
Additionally, Lawler said the LCSO officials used proper risk assessment tools when they were deciding the teen’s sex offender classification, and were also permitted to take their own analysis and investigation into consideration when determining the classification.
“LCSO was not limited to considering only facts charged and proven in the criminal case when classifying (the teen),” the order reads. “… The conduct (the teen) admitted to during the investigation was a reasonable consideration.”
