1-24-16 Texas:
The town of Hickory Creek is among four small Denton County towns that have been hit with a lawsuit over their sex offender ordinances.
Texas Voices for Reason and Justice (TVRJ), a nonprofit organization advocating for a more balanced, effective and rational criminal justice system, filed a lawsuit against the towns of Hickory Creek, Argyle, Ponder and Oak Point. According to the organization’s attorney, Richard Gladden, the lawsuit is related to the towns’ sex offender ordinances.
Hickory Creek is one of 14 cities that have been sued across the state in this matter.
All the towns in the lawsuit are ‘general law’ cities, meaning they have a population of less than 5,000 residents and may only exercise powers granted by the state or federal law. Cities that have more than 5,000 residents are considered “home rule” cities and have the ability to create their own charter that governs the city, provided that it does not specifically violate state or federal law.
Home rule cities have the power to enact city ordinances on anything unless state law prohibits it. Because Hickory Creek is a general law city, they cannot set in place an ordinance that specifies where a sex offender must live.
“They cannot enact any ordinance unless the Texas legislatures have expressly delegated power to them to do that in a statute,” Gladden said.
In 2007, Sen. Jane Nelson made a request to then-Attorney General Greg Abbott about the legality of cities to enact sex offender registry ordinances. Abbott responded with an opinion, stating that the office “found no law authorizing a general-law municipality to adopt this type of residence restriction.”
The opinion went on to say that unless the state legislature gives authorization, general law cities cannot issue ordinances restricting registered sex offenders.
Hickory Creek’s ordinance states that a sex offender, who has committed a violation involving a victim 16 years of age or younger, is not able to establish a permanent or temporary residence within 2,000 feet of any place that children commonly gather, such as playgrounds, schools, public swimming pools, video arcade facilities or youth centers.
They are also prohibited to go in, on or within 2,000 feet of the same premises.
Gladden said these towns violated Texas law by enacting sex offender ordinances. He said there have been several bills that have been proposed to the state’s house of representatives that would enact a statute to give that power to general law cities but have all failed.
“Because these general law cities were frustrated, they went ahead and enacted resident restricted ordinances,” Gladden said.
On Nov. 4, Gladden, on behalf of the TVRJ, sent out a notice to 46 cities throughout the state, giving each city 45 days to repeal their ordinances or face legal action. Gladden said roughly half of those that received a notice repealed their ordinances.
Both Gladden and the TVRJ said they are not in any way condoning sexual abuse but are attempting to educate the public on the view of registered sex offenders and the criminal justice system.
The organization argues that current laws and policies place all persons registered as sex offenders under the same category when only a small portion of those registered truly pose a danger to a community. They contend that each offense must be judged individually with punishments that fit the particular crime.
Gladden said the most important part of this is education. He reiterated that many believe that because someone is registered as a sex offender, they are considered a pedophile and must have a higher risk of offending again. He said that is a myth, and that idea simply does not apply to every person who registers.
“You have people who are not necessarily sexual predators nor have issues with sexual desires, but have to register as such, and because of that, they can’t live anywhere,” Gladden said. “These ordinances need to be focused on an individual case-by-case basis. They want common sense based regulations.”
Gladden said there are many situations where a person must register as a sex offender even if their crime was not sexually abusive in nature. For example, if a person is 17 years of age and is having consensual sex with someone who is 16 years of age, who is a minor, if convicted, would be required to register as a sex offender. Another example is if a person is caught for urinating in public, they must register as a sex offender.
One case in Connecticut in 2004 involved a substitute teacher checking her personal emails in a classroom. According to a story by ABC News, the teacher opened one email that contained spam, resulting in an array of pornographic images being displayed on the computer. Though she attempted to rid her laptop of the images, she claims they wouldn’t go away and continued popping up.
Charges were filed against the teacher, and she was forced to register as a sex offender following her case.
Gladden argued that ordinances like Hickory Creek’s have nothing to do with whether a person has posed an actual threat for lack of sexual control.
Hickory Creek council members discussed the lawsuit during executive session Tuesday, however no decision was made on the case.
Gladden said the organization is not asking for any damages, other than expenses for legal fees, but rather that the towns follow state law. ..Source.. by Ashley O’Bannon-McClain
January 24, 2016
Hickory Creek hit with lawsuit
November 9, 2015
46 Texas cities face challenge to sex-offender residency laws
See also: Residency restrictions on sex offenders come under fire and Group seeks to repeal ordinances regulating where registered sex offenders can live and Lawsuit: West Lake Hills’ sex offender ordinance too restrictive11-9-15 Texas:
AUSTIN -- Forty-six small cities across Texas are facing a new legal challenge to their ordinances that regulate where registered sex offenders can live, including several in the Houston area.
Texas Voices for Reason and Justice, a statewide criminal-justice advocacy group, announced Monday it has" initiated action to compel, through litigation if necessary," the repeal of the ordinances in so-called "general law" cities -- the latest challenge to the residency limitations in Texas and across the country.
In 2007, then-Attorney General Greg Abbott clarified that under a state law that "general law" cities with a population of 5,000 residents or less from enacting local ordinances that regulate where registered sex offenders can live, according to the group.
"These cities are attempting to justify violating the Texas Constitution by relying on a universally discredited myth that residency restrictions will actually improve public safety," said Mary Sue Molnar, the group's executive director.
"We know from experience in other states that residency restrictions do absolutely nothing to make children safer, that they have forced thousands of registrants into homelessness, that they have forced entire families to relocate, and that they have wasted an enormous amount of public resources that could have been appropriately expended elsewhere," said Mary Sue Molnar, the group's executive director.
"Research conducted by law enforcement and criminologists has established that, without exception, sex offender residency restriction ordinances do much more harm than good when it comes to making local communities safer for children."
Krum, a city near Denton, already has been sued and has asked the Second Court of Appeals to allow it to keep its ordinance intact, and Alvarado near Fort Worth is considering a repeal of its ordinance after a separate challenge.
Acccording to the organization,the 46 Texas "general law" cities that have received the group's notice are: Archer City (Archer Co.); Argyle (Denton Co.); Balcones Heights (Bexar Co.); Brazoria (Brazoria Co.); Bullard (Cherokee Co.); Chandler (Henderson Co.); Clear Lake Shores (Galveston Co.); Cottonwood Shores (Burnet Co.); Eagle Lake (Colorado Co.); El Lago (Harris Co.); Farmersville (Collin Co.); Fulton (Aransas Co.); Goliad (Goliad Co.); Gunter (Grayson Co.); Hamlin (Jones Co.); Henrietta (Clay Co.); Hickory Creek (Denton Co.); Hollywood Park (Bexar Co.); Hubbard (Hill Co.); Jamaica Beach (Galveston Co.); Justin (Denton Co.); Maypearl (Ellis Co.); Meadows Place (Fort Bend Co.); Milano (Milam Co.); Mount Enterprise (Rusk Co.); Mount Vernon (Franklin Co.); Oak Point (Denton Co.); Oak Ridge (Cooke Co.); Orchard (Fort Bend Co.); Ponder (Denton Co.); Pottsboro (Grayson Co.); Rhome (Wise Co.); Saint Jo (Montague Co.); San Saba (San Saba Co.); Shiner (Lavaca Co.); Springtown (Parker Co.); Sunnyvale (Dallas Co.); Van Horn (Culberson Co.); West (McLennan Co.); West Lake Hills (Travis Co.); Westworth Village (Tarrant Co.); Whitewright (Grayson Co.); Whitney (Hill Co.); Winona (Smith Co.); Winters (Runnels Co.), and Woodville (Tyler Co.). ..Source.. by Mike Ward.
February 12, 2014
Dallas man says he was wrongly included in sex offender database
2-12-2014 Texas:
DALLAS — Lonnie Chalmers says the City of Dallas wrongfully made him register as a sex offender for 13 years. Now he wants the city to pay up.
"I just feel like I deserve to be recompensed for what's done happen in all this," said Chalmers, 43. "I just feel like it's wrong."
Chalmers filed a $3 million federal lawsuit early last month, saying police violated his civil rights by refusing to recognize that he did not have a legal obligation to register. He filed the lawsuit after the city ultimately agreed that he did not have to register as a sex offender.
In Chalmers' case, a judge set aside his conviction for sexual assault in 2000. But the City of Dallas long contended that he had to register as a sex offender.
City officials did not respond to a request for comment.
"A lawsuit over this is extremely rare, and success is probably even more rare," said Scott Smith, an Austin attorney with extensive expertise in the state’s sex registration laws.
That Chalmers was successful in his effort deeply concerns Courtney Underwood, a rape victim’s advocate. She believes that state laws needs to be revised so Chalmers and those like him would be required to register.
"[It's] the entire reason for having the sex offender registry and required reporting; and having that last over a long period of time; so that even once someone finishes probation or once they finish their jail time, then there's still a way for the community to track them," Underwood said.
Chalmers’ legal problems began in 1995 when he said he picked up a 15-year-old teenager from a bus stop and had sex with her. He was soon arrested.
In 1996, Chalmers pleaded guilty to sexual assault.
A judge ordered that he serve five years' probation. As part of the deal, he agreed to register as a sex offender for 10 years upon completion of his probation.
Chalmers went into sex offender treatment and "accepted full responsibility for his sex crime," his therapist wrote in 1999. "Mr. Chalmers has been an active participant in-group and gives constructive feedback to the other members. His performance has been excellent."
At the time of Chalmers' sentencing, state law let judges set aside convictions in cases like his.
That is no longer permitted under state law. In 1999, legislators amended the statute to preclude judges from setting aside convictions in cases for "a defendant convicted of an offense for which on conviction registration as a sex offender is required."
But since he was sentenced under pre-1999 laws, the judge was able to set aside Chalmers' conviction in 2000.
Chalmers said he repeatedly showed his court paperwork to Dallas officials, telling them that he was not required to register.
A detective told him that "that he didn’t care what a judge said; I was his for life,” Chalmers said. “I was going to have to register."
Chalmers started studying the law. He earned several bachelor’s and master’s degrees from the University of Texas at Arlington and the University of Texas at Dallas. He wanted to go into social work, but hasn’t been able to find a steady work.
He thinks it’s because he was having to register.
"It’s going to make anybody say, 'He’s convicted. He’s a rapist,'" Chalmers said.
Smith said he represented two clients in the last year who were in a similar situation as Chalmers in that they were being forced to register even though they were not legally obligated to do so. He succeeded in getting the Texas Department of Public Safety to remove them from the registry.
“I am sure that I have not just happened to find the only two cases here that that has ever happened,” he said.
But Smith said the Chalmers case points to another longstanding problem.
"The idea of the sex offender registry is to provide a helpful list to the public and law enforcement of people who are high-risk," Smith said. "The problem is that registration requires those people and many, many people who are very low-risk."
Chalmers filed a lawsuit against the city in 2010. He contended that he was not legally obligated to register.
In court filings, the city cited court rulings that sex offender registration is not punishment; can be extended; and can be made retroactive. The city argued that imposing a lifetime registration on Chalmers was legal.
Attorney General Greg Abbott intervened in the case, filing a brief in support of Dallas’ position.
The case wound its way through the courts for several years.
In December 2013, Chalmers won when the city agreed that he was right and settled with him.
"It is further ordered, adjudged and decreed that Chalmers has no duty or obligation arising from his former conviction … to register as a sex offender,” the final order stated.
These days, Chalmers works odd jobs and drives trucks. He lives with his common-law life and twin nine-year-old girls.
Chalmers agrees that there’s a need for sex offender registration laws, but believes he has simply been done wrong and that's why he's filed his latest lawsuit.
"I've never hid the fact that I've had my offense to nobody who knows me, and I’ve never made no complaint and crying about it," he said. "It's just the fact that I don’t have a conviction and I haven’t had a conviction for 13 years, and I just think that’s fundamentally unfair." ..Source.. by TANYA EISERER
