Cominus.com :: Detention Of Robin Albrecht

In the past, God overlooked mans' ignorance, but now He commands all
people everywhere to repent. For He has set a day when He will judge
the world with justice by the Man, Jesus Christ; the One He has appointed.
He has given proof of this to all men by raising Him from the dead.
                                                                                        -Acts 17:30-31

Detention of Robin Albrecht :: 147 Wn2d 1

Category: Sexual Predators

This case involves a sex predator released from confinement after serving his sentence and put in community placement, constitutes a sexual “recent overt act manifesting dangerousness” or violating a community placement order when he allegedly offered two boys fifty cents to follow him. He was arrested for violating the terms of his community placement order. This case seems to be walking a fine line trying to determine what constitutes a sexually “recent overt act” or violating a “community placement” order.

Robin G. Albrecht has a long history of sexual offenses against children dating back to 1976. At that time he pleaded guilty to indecent liberties with three children after befriending their families and luring them into his apartment. His sentence was deferred and he was committed for evaluation as a sexual psychopath.

In 1992 he entered a guilty plea to second degree child molestation charge of a six year old girl he was baby sitting. He served 48 months of confinement, followed by a period of community supervision and then released to community placement on Aug. 20, 1996. The terms of the original sentencing order included “avoiding any contact with victim, obtaining prior approval of residence locations and living arrangements, and participation in sexual deviance treatment and mental health counseling.” The order also stated, “you shall comply with any crime related prohibitions as follows: not to go to parks, playgrounds or any other area designed primarily for children.” Within 30 days he broke the violation by allegedly offering two boys fifty cents to follow him and he was again arrested for violating the terms of his community placement order.

In September 1996 the Department of Corrections referred Albrecht for potential civil commitment as a “sexually violent predator” alleging that the August 1996 with the two boys constituted a “recent overt act,” violating his community placement order making it a more serious charge. At the time the Department of Corrections was making their charge, they were unaware that Albrecht had already plea bargained and had accepted a 120 day jail sentence with credit for time served since August 20, 1996. Albrecht did not know of the “sexual violent predator petition” ordered by the state so he agreed to the terms of a proposed order and waived his right to a full hearing.

On November 7, 1996, while Albrecht was still in jail for the community placement violation, the State filed a petition to determine the existence of probable cause that Albrecht was a sexually violent predator. The psychologist retained by the state stated “that to a reasonable psychological certainty, Albrecht met the criteria for a sexually violent predator” and an arrest warrant was signed for Albrecht’s continued detention as a sexually violent predator. He remained incarcerated. The defense counsel indicated to the Attorney General that the boys' testimony regarding the incident was inadequate to prove a recent overt act since Albrecht was confined at the time the petition was filed The State then filed an amended petition to remove the recent overt act violation.

The question was whether the State should have been required to prove a recent overt act, or whether the file should be sealed. The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the trial court holding that the State should have required proof of a recent overt act contending that since Albrecht was incarcerated at the time of the filing so he couldn’t have committed the act. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case back to the trial court.

We disagreed with the Court's decision since Robin Albrecht has a long history of sexual deviance and should be considered a predator and treated as such. When an individual is incarcerated for any sexual offense, due process does not require the state to prove a further “recent overt act” between arrest and incarceration, especially when the individual's record has already proven his intentions.

Rating the Usual Suspects:
passBridge, Bobbe  
passIreland, Faith  
passMadsen, Barbara  
passOwens, Susan  
failAlexander, Gerry  
failBowers, Todd R 
failBrown, Stephen  
failChambers, Tom  
failGasch, Susan M 
failJohnson, Charles  
failKato, Kenneth  
failKurtz, Frank  
failSanders, Richard  
failSchultheis, John  
failSmith, Charles  
failSweeney, Dennis  
failSypolt, Gregory D 

«« Back To Case Reviews


Welcome Guest

MAL 2:13-16 [NIV] :: Another thing you do: You flood the LORD’s altar with tears. You weep and wail because He no longer pays attention to your offerings or accepts them with pleasure from your hands. You ask, "Why?" It is because the LORD is acting as the witness between you and the wife of your youth, because you have broken faith with her, though she is your partner, the wife of your marriage covenant. Has not the LORD made them one? In flesh and spirit they are His. And why one? Because He was seeking Godly offspring. So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith with the wife of your youth. “I hate divorce,” says the LORD.

Our Products:
Content Management
Domains For Lease
Diesel Database
For Sale File
Fun Feed
Bargain Patrol

Our Clients:
Extreme Coatings
KMSGC Pr Wash
Jack Case Cowboy
RP Truck Repair
Import Profile
Const'l Income
Truth In Taxation

Our Businesses:
Cougar Gulch Group
Idaho Contractor