IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION
DIVISION OF COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS

Probation and Parole, District 2
316 N. Main Street
Moscow, Idaho 83843
(208) 883-3547

 

REPORT OF PROBATION VIOLATION

DATE: June 18, 2007
TO: Honorable John R. Stegner
District Judge
Latah County Courthouse
Moscow, Idaho 83843

NAME: Steven James Sitler
COURT CASE: CR05-2027
ADDRESS: 801 Residence, Moscow, Idaho 83843
OFFENSE: Lewd Conduct With a Minor Under Sixteen Years of Age
DATE OF SENTENCE: September 26, 2005
SENTENCE: Life
DATE OF PROBATION: May 4, 2006
COUNTY: Latah
JUDICIAL DISTRICT: 2

RULE VIOLATED
CONDITION #4, of the Idaho Department of Correction Sexual Offender Agreement of Supervision, which states: I will not engage in any deviant behaviors including but not limited to: sado/masochism, bestiality, phone sex, cross dressing, clothing fetish, voyeurism, exhibitionism, public masturbation, or frottage.

SUMMARY #1: On June 5, 2007, Mr. Sitler informed me that he had participated in an incident of voyeurism the previous Saturday, May 26, 2007. Mr. Sitler stated he had used binoculars and looked into the window of a neighbor. Mr. Sitler stated he then masturbated.

Mr. Sitler provided a written statement regarding his actions in this violation. He also provided a hand-drawn map to illustrate where he had seen the first neighbor, and then where he had voyeured the other neighbor. Those documents, as well as a letter from Dalton Lombard, Mr. Sitler’s primary counselor at Valley Treatment Specialties, are attached to this report.

INTERMEDIATE SANCTIONS
None.

RECOMMENDATION
Mr. Sitler had been out of jail for less than a month, having been incarcerated from September 2005, until May 2007, when he committed the current violation. When Mr. Sitler initially reported this violation to me, he indicated that in passing, he had seen a neighbor in his or her house just south of his apartment, prior to this incident. While that “viewing” of the neighbor did not involve sexual acting-out on Mr. Sitler’s part at that moment, he stated that having seen that neighbor in the house, he thought to himself that voyeuring on the neighbors might be something he could do later. Had he contacted me, his counselor or anyone in his support network at that time, he could have been directed toward alternative thinking patterns that would dissuade him from ultimately acting on an acknowledged paraphilia he has engaged in previously. However, he elected not to intervene in his thinking patterns and allowed himself to commit this violation.

Taking that notion a bit farther, Mr. Sitler also failed to assert himself and make sure his father knew the exact reason he had declined his father’s offer of a pair of binoculars. He explained that when he had been allowed to travel with his parents to Colville, WA, to obtain his personal belongings, his father had offered to give him a pair of binoculars. Mr. Sitler said he told his father no, but he didn’t explain why (that he had previously engaged in voyeurism). He said he doesn’t remember whether he eventually accepted the binoculars, or whether they just ended up in a box he brought to his local apartment. Certainly Mr. Sitler’s father would have ensured Mr. Sitler did not end up with the binoculars under any circumstances had Mr. Sitler been up front about why he had declined the offer. However, Mr. Sitler allowed himself to think that the binoculars could be useful at some time, and ignored the obvious temptation they would present.

To Mr. Sitler’s benefit, he did report this violation to me. He provided lists of issues he had already developed regarding how he allowed his thought processes to lapse and the “red flags” he ignored. He developed a “contract” with himself, which lists what he will do when he has urges or fantasies of opportunities to reoffend. Although his honesty and his efforts to ensure no further lapses occur are commendable, the fact remains that those safeguards should have been in place prior to his release into the community. I believe the Court was under the impression that such progress had been made, which made the decision to release Mr. Sitler seem logical. However, given that either those safeguards were not in place, or Mr. Sitler chose to ignore them, he has shown that he remains a risk to the community.

Respectfully submitted,

Jackye Squire Leonard
Sr. Probation/Parole Officer

APPROVED:
Scott Douglass, District Manager
Community Corrections, District #2

THE ABOVE DOCUMENTED INFORMATION, WHICH IS IN WRITING, IS KNOWN BY ME TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE.

Jackye Squire Leonard