Sex offender won’t face new charges

For lack of evidence, the Kootenai County Prosecutor’s Office on Friday dismissed allegations that a registered sex offender attempted to entice a 3-year-old with a lollipop at his wife’s Coeur d’Alene day care, violating terms of his probation.

Chief Deputy Prosecutor Lansing Haynes said it’s unlikely that his office will pursue criminal charges stemming from the accusation against Stephen Christopher Krous.

A complaint filed by the 3-year-old’s mother in July sparked an investigation and led to changes in Coeur d’Alene’s child-care licensing laws to close loopholes in the existing law. The new law requires day-care owners to disclose if their spouse or any other immediate family member is a sex offender.

To comply, the day care must post the sex offender’s information, including photo, by the facility’s door or give written notice to parents.

Because of loopholes in the city’s old child-care licensing laws, Krous’ wife, Misty, was able to get a license for her Coeur d’Alene day care in 2004 without revealing that he was a registered sex offender. The city was unable to do a background check on Stephen Krous because he wasn’t part of the limited liability corporation that Misty Krous had formed under the name of Happy Days Child Care and the day care wasn’t in the couple’s home.

The state had previously revoked Misty Krous’ license for Loving Hands, an in-home day care she ran in the couple’s former Post Falls home. That was in 2001, after Stephen Krous was convicted of fondling an 11-year-old staying overnight at their home.

Following the complaint filed in July, Stephen Krous’ probation officer ordered him to take a lie detector test. The lengthy polygraph session resulted in five different allegations that Krous had violated probation.

Though the most serious allegations against Krous were dismissed Friday, 1st District Judge John Luster ruled that Krous violated probation in other ways. One violation, Luster ruled, was a visit Krous made to the day care prior to November 2004, to do maintenance.

Even though no children were at the day care at the time, Luster said Krous shouldn’t have been there. Under his sex offender agreement of supervision, Krous had agreed not to “frequent, loiter or go near places where minors congregate.”

“It doesn’t say, ‘while used by children,’ ” Luster said. He said that condition of Krous’ probation was clear and not open to interpretation.

For the probation violations Luster found Friday, he ordered Krous to serve 14 days under the sheriff’s work labor program and extended his probation for an additional year.

Luster told Stephen Krous that having a day care operation as the family’s sole source of income was a “personal choice” that was “certainly problematic.”

He said Krous’ status as a registered sex offender and the fact that his wife has a day care “mix like oil and water.”