Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Verrier v. Perrino

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division

January 18, 2018

PETER PERRINO, Agent and DIANE LAPAUL, Supervisor, Defendants.



         This matter comes before the Court on defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #147) filed on November 6, 2017. Plaintiff filed a Response (Doc. #149) on November 21, 2017.


         The undisputed facts are as follows:

         Joseph Verrier (plaintiff or Verrier) is a Sex Offender probationer following two convictions in the state of Wisconsin. (Doc. #147-1, pp. 1-7.) Specifically, on February 24, 2010, plaintiff pled no contest to count 1 “Child Enticement - Prostitution” in violation of Wisconsin State Statute section 948.07(2) and count 6 attempt of “Child Enticement - Prostitution” in violation of Wisconsin State Statute sections 939.32 and 948.07(2) in Outagamie County, case number 2009CF000232 (Outgamie case). (Id. at 1-4.) On July 21, 2010, plaintiff pled no contest to count 1 “Child Enticement - Sexual Contact” in violation of Wisconsin State Statute section 948.07(1) in Manitowoc County, case number 2009CF000153 (Manitowoc case). (Id. at 5-7.) In the Outagamie case, Plaintiff was sentenced to four years State Prison with “Extended Supervision 6 years” for count 1 and five years probation consecutive to count 1 for count 6. (Id. at 10.) In the Manitowoc case, plaintiff was sentenced to fourteen years probation. (Id.)

         Plaintiff's State of Wisconsin “Special Bulletin” dated October 30, 2013 states the following:

• “GPS REQUIRED? YES (2 STRIKES).” (Id. at 8.)
• Approved on December 23, 2013, for interstate transfer to Florida to reside with his mother and stepfather located in Saint James City, Florida. (Id. at 9.)
• Released from Oshkosh Correctional Institution to “Saint James City in Florida” on February 18, 2014. (Id.)
• “Mr. Verrier will be expected to obtain employment or enroll in school upon release.” (Id. at 12.)
• “It should be noted [VERRIER] used work telephone and work computers when committing these offenses . . . .” (Id. at 13.)
• “Mr. Verrier has two separate convictions which require registration with the Sex Offender Registry Program. Therefore, he is an automatic SBN subject to Lifetime GPS monitoring while residing in Wisconsin. Mr. Verrier's current plan is to reside in Florida, therefore, GPS is not required by law. However, should the plan change, or should Mr. Verrier return to Wisconsin, he will be placed on GPS and exclusion zones will be entered where appropriate. GPS points will be regularly reviewed to verify his whereabouts. Regardless of where he lives, he will be subject to sex offender rules and restricted from leaving the county area without agent approval. He will be limited in his use of a computer or any device which can access the internet, record or transmit images.” (Id.)
• “Mr. Verrier will be supervised by Florida parole staff through the interstate compact process and will be held accountable for all rules of the Wisconsin DOC in addition to any rules imposed by Florida corrections staff.” (Id.)
• “Mr. Verrier will be referred to Sex Offender Treatment as he did not complete it while incarcerated. Other treatment requirements will be assessed and discussed throughout supervision.” (Id.)
• “Mr. Verrier will be required to complete face-to-face contact with local law enforcement upon his release and for updates as needed.” (Id.)
• “Mr. Verrier's ex-wife, Phoebe Oakes, lives in Florida with their three children. She reported that Mr. Verrier has become obsessive of the children while incarcerated and she is fearful for their family. Notification will be provided to Florida Department of Corrections and to local law enforcement.” (Id.)

         On November 13, 2013, pursuant to the Interstate Compact for Adult Offender Supervision (“ICAOS”), plaintiff applied to have his supervision transferred to the state of Florida. (Id. at 15.) Plaintiff's application was received in Florida and defendant Peter Perrino (Perrino) was assigned to his case. (Id. at 16.) On December 6, 2013, Perrino attempted to establish contact with Verrier's mother and stepfather at the Saint James City address provided. (Id.) Upon attempting contact, Perrino reported, “There was no one home. I left my card and a copy of the sex offender conditions that could be placed on the DEF if he is accepted by Florida.” (Id.) On December 31, 2013, after initially rejecting the application because Perrino was unable to establish contact, plaintiff's application was accepted. (Id. 16-24.)

         Plaintiff's application for interstate transfer to Florida states:

• “I understand that this transfer of supervision will be subject to the rules of the Interstate Commission for Adult Offender Supervision.” (Id. at 15, 21.)
• “I understand that my supervision in another state may be different than the supervision I would be subject to in this state [Wisconsin]. I agree to accept any differences that may exist because I believe that transferring my supervision to Florida (receiving state) will improve my chances for making a good adjustment in the community.” (Id.)
• “I will comply with the terms and conditions of my supervision that have been placed on me, or that will be placed on me by Wisconsin (sending state) and Florida (receiving state).” (Id.)
• “I understand that if I do not comply with all of the terms and conditions that the sending state or the receiving state, or both, placed on me, that it will be considered a violation and I may be returned to the sending state.” (Id.)

         On February 18, 2014, plaintiff departed the state of Wisconsin and on February 24, 2014 he arrived in the state of Florida. (Id. at 29-30.) On his date of arrival, plaintiff was:

Instructed/delivered conditions of supervision; notified offender of expectation while on supervision & consequences of failing to comply with conditions of supervision; reviewed grievance process, after hours contact procedure, firearms/weapons/explosives, criminal registration, drug testing, employer notification, involvement in crime accounts; restoration of civil rights & HIPAA. S [subject] reported to intake, finger printed, photographed, and instructed to see CPO today for reporting instructions and to be instructed to SOP [sex offender policy/procedure] conditions. [initials] GS

(Id. at 16.) Perrier made an entry on the same day that:

Written monthly report receive for current month. DEF3 is an out of state case that is reporting for the first time. DEF was instructed in Florida sex offender orders. The A & B Form and GPS [“global position surveillance”] Rules. The DEF was also hooked up on GPS. DEF was given a list of sex offender treatment providers to pick one to attend treatment. P. [initial for PERRINO].

(Id.) On February 24, 2014, plaintiff was also fitted with a GPS monitor. (Id. 31.) He was given and acknowledged Florida's Standard Conditions of Supervision (id. at 32), Instructions to Offenders (id. at 33), and Notice of Offender Responsibilities as Required by Statute (id. at 34-35).

         On April 10, 2014, plaintiff met with Perrino's supervisor, defendant Diane LaPaugh (LaPaugh). (Id. at 36.) During this meeting, LaPaugh re-instructed plaintiff on the Florida and Wisconsin orders “-note, he has a 9pm to 7am curfew, no alcohol, no bar, etc. 5. Reinstr[uct] on no contact w/victim. . ., 6. needs to obtain employment . . . DML [initials].” (Id.) On June 23, 2014, Perrino conducted a home visit, during which plaintiff complained about his GPS monitor going off. (Id.) Perrino noted that plaintiff complained that it was “unreasonable to get calls from the monitoring center. He only mentioned two calls and that was unreasonable. He was being a jerk about it in front of his father and told him I was leaving now before something is sounded. P [initials].” (Id. at 37-38.)

         On July 17, 2014, another GPS alert went off. (Id. at 38.) “Unable to connect” was noted and plaintiff was contacted by a probation official, identified by initials BN. (Id.) BN noted “Contacted offender and instructed him to walk the unit outside. Mother, also on the line with attitude. This officer had to explain to her that her son could return to Wisconsin if she had a problem with this officer doing his job. BN [initials].” (Id. at 38-39.)

         On August 12, 2014, Perrino conducted a home visit and reported:

DEF and his parents at home. It was set up. The three have been going through the Interstate Compact rule they found online and have been looking for loop holes about his probation. They have concentrated on EM [electronic monitoring] and computer use. They made it sound like we were picking on her son by putting him on EM and we were keeping him from getting a job because we wouldn't let him use a computer. I told them I sent the conditions that Florida would put on him if he came down here and he agreed to follow them. I told them again if he doesn't like he could go back. They told I [sic] couldn't send him back unless he violated. They have too much time on there [sic] hands. This is the second time they all three have come at me with what they think they know. P [initials].

(Id. at 40.) On September 29, 2014, Perrino conducted a home visit and noted “DEF at home. DEF advised that he has a court date in family court about his wife not allowing him contact with his children. It appears that I am going to be ordered to come to the hearing and explain the probation orders. P [initials]” (Id. at 41.) On October 28, 2014, Perrino made the following entry in Verrier's case file:

I was subpoenaed to testify in [sic] at a family court hearing regarding the DEF and his ex-wife and being able to see his children. After being crossed examined by both parties I was excused from the court. I testified on DEF's orders from Wisconsin and Florida were being inforced [sic]. The Judge did not rule on the motion, which I am not sure what it was. I believe it was for visitation. The Judge was to make a ruling later. P [initials]

(Id. at 42, 44.) Plaintiff asserts that during and after Perrino's testimony, Perrino made comments indicating he was angry that he had to testify and threatening to send plaintiff back to Wisconsin. (Doc. #149-1, pp. 75, 77.)

         On October 28, 2014, following the Family Court hearing, plaintiff's ex-wife, Phoebe Oakes, sent an email to Ms. Donelson at the Fort Myers Probation Office. (Doc. #147-1, p. 46.) Ms. Oakes wrote:

I am currently writing for advice and concern in regards to Joseph Verrier who is my ex-husband and his supervising parole officer Peter Perrino. Mr. Verrier was released to Florida via interstate compact agreement with WI back in February of this year. I do have a lot of concerns in regards to my own children which he is obsessed with. I did have a few telephonic conversations with Mr Perrino who assured me that he would not b[e] seeing the kids anytime soon and that he had a "bracelet" and put our house in Charlotte county as well the th[e], children's school on a do not go to zone or area. Upon a recently family court case Mr Perrino stated under oath that basically he doesn't know some of Mr Verrier's restrictions and pretty much at this point Mr Verrier i[s] running around as is he never did anything wrong and appears to be calling the shots of his one probation.
Th[e] Wisconsin court states he should be following all their rules including Florida.
The areas I have concern with are contact with minors (including his own), use of the Internet and computer which apparently he's are [sic] already using (this is how his Crimes which he was convicted of started), congregating with other felons, and the fact that he has not obtained employment to this date. According to T[he] WI head supervisor even telephonic conversation have to be supervised.
I appreciate you taking the time to listen to my concerns and please advise since I am a concerned mother and looking to protect my children and others as well.

(Id. at 46.)

         On October 30, 2014, LaPaugh wrote the following in ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.