Judge finds sex offender ordinance unconstitutional

There’s Literally No Evidence That Restricting Where Sex Offenders Can Live Accomplishes Anything

4-18-17 Wisconsin:

Village has loosened restrictions in response to suit

MILWAUKEE — A federal judge Monday found unconstitutional Pleasant Prairie’s initial ordinance that largely banned registered child sex offenders from residing in the village.

The village amended its ordinance three months after the offenders filed suit in June 2016, but U.S. District Judge J.P. Stadtmueller ruled that did not make moot the issues the offenders raised with the first ordinance.

In granting summary judgment to the nine plaintiffs, Stadtmueller found the village imposed restrictions on where the offenders could live without considering any studies or data regarding the safety risk that posed to other residents.

“The village has admitted that the ordinance was based on its own conjecture about the dangers posed by sex offenders,” Stadtmueller wrote in the 19-page order.

Village Administrator Michael Pollocoff testified in a deposition that the ordinance’s goal was to reduce the number of child sex offenders living in the village.

The ordinance may be counterproductive to citizen safety, as Pollocoff admitted that turning child sex offenders into outcasts had “more deleterious (or harmful) impacts.”

The ordinance the Village Board passed in April 2016 prohibited child sex offenders from residing within:

— 3,000 feet of any school, day care center, park, playground, church or athletic field or place where minors congregate.

— The village unless they lived there at the time of their most recent offense.

The result of the ordinance made 90 percent of the village off-limits to offenders, with the remaining 10 percent largely non-residential. Most of the low-income housing, which was all the plaintiffs could afford, was excluded.

Stadtmueller rejected the village’s claim that the new ordinance made a suit challenging the old one moot, stating the plaintiffs’ claims that they suffered stress as a result of the threat posed by the initial ordinance, the fear of homelessness and the difficulties in attempting to find a new residence.

The plaintiffs can pursue damages on those claims at trial, which Stadtmueller set for May 15.

Important decision

Mark Weinberg, a Chicago attorney who filed the suit, called the decision uncommon and important.

“There are a lot of other communities in Kenosha County with similar ordinances. I hope this decision will encourage them to re-evaluate theirs,” he said.

Weinberg has a similar suit against the city of Kenosha ordinance pending in federal court, which he said “is more restrictive” than Pleasant Prairie’s initial ordinance. That suit is still in the discovery stage, he said.

Pollocoff said Monday afternoon that he had not seen the decision and referred questions about it to an attorney representing the village, who did not return a phone call by deadline.

Pollocoff acknowledged that the village amended its initial ordinance in response to the suit Weinberg brought and that no sex offenders had been cited under the ordinance.

The amended ordinance lowered the 3,000-foot prohibited zone to 1,500 feet, which still makes 60 percent of the village and 75 percent of the residences off limits to offenders.

The restriction on offenders living near each other was removed entirely, as was the limit on renewing leases for offenders living within a prohibited zone.

Also, the amended ordinance did not apply to an offender whose most recent conviction occurred 10 years or more prior to living in the village. ..Source.. by Kevin Murphy

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Hartford City sex offender ordinance unconstitutionally vague

See earlier post HERE

12-2-16 Indiana:

A 2008 Hartford City ordinance that restricted registered sex offenders from entering or loitering within 300 feet of broadly defined “child safety zones” is unconstitutionally vague, a federal judge has ruled.

Brian Valenti challenged a 2008 ordinance after he moved to the Blackford County community in 2014 with his wife and minor child. Valenti was required to register as a sex offender for his 1993 California conviction of a sex offense involving a child under the age of 14.

The Hartford City ordinance, which was amended in 2015, imposed a fine of up to $200 per offense for registered sex offenders who entered or loitered within 300 feet of parks, schools, public libraries, arcades, amusement centers, swimming pools, child care facilities, athletic complexes, crisis centers or shelters, skate parks or rinks, movie theaters, bowling alleys, scouting facilities or the office of protective services.

Valenti argued the local ordinance caused him to curtail activities with his child. He said he was given a citation while a passenger in his brother’s car while the car was parked at his brother’s house across the street from a school.

Judge Theresa Springmann in the District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division, granted Valenti summary judgment in part, finding the ordinance violates Indiana’s ex post facto law as applied to Valenti, and that it’s unconstitutionally vague.

The ordinance “encouraged arbitrary enforcement by failing to describe with sufficient particularity what activity violated the ordinance” and was “unconstitutionally vague on its face,” Springmann wrote in an order issued Thursday.

Though Springmann wrote that she was troubled by the amended ordinance that sought to clarify who could be subject to fines and further define prohibited loitering, she stopped short of striking the revised city code. She did forbid Hartford City, though, from ordering fines under the amended ordinance, finding its language also violates the 14th Amendment.

Springmann said a future conference will be set to consider Valenti’s damages. The case is Brian Valenti et al. v. Hartford City, Indiana, 1:15-cv-63. ..Source.. by IL Staff

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

11th Cir. Revives Sexual Predators' Housing Claim

9-27-16 Florida:

The 11th Circuit on Monday revived two sexual offenders' challenges to residency restrictions in Miami-Dade County.

In 2005, the county adopted the Lauren Book Child Safety Ordinance, which restricts sexual offenders and sexual predators from establishing temporary or permanent residence in areas where children regularly congregate, such as schools, parks and child care facilities.

Three Doe sexual offenders and the Florida Action Committee, a non-profit that advocates on behalf of sex offenders and their families, challenged a part of the ordinance that states any person who has been convicted of a sexual offense that involves a victim under the age of 16 years old is not allowed to reside within 2,500 feet of any school.

The distance is measured in a straight line rather than by an automobile or pedestrian route.

Miami-Dade County, the state Department of Corrections, and Sunny Ukenye, circuit administrator for the Miami Circuit Office and the corrections department convinced a federal judge to dismiss the claim against them.

The plaintiffs then turned to the 11th Circuit, where they argued the residency restriction is so punitive it violates the federal and Florida constitution ex post facto clauses since it makes large strips of housing unavailable to them.

Two of the three Doe plaintiffs had qualifying sexual offenses before the enactment of the ordinance, which has now been retroactively applied to them.

They contend they are homeless because the ordinance severely limits their freedom to select or change residences.

When Doe One could no longer live with his sister due to the residency restriction, his probation officer told him to go live in a homeless encampment.

Now, he lives at that crude homeless encampment near active railroad tracks where dozens of individuals create a space for themselves by setting up tents or tarps or simply lay down mats on nearby loading docks.

Likewise, Doe Three has to sleep in his car at the same encampment because he cannot find affordable housing that meets the restrictions of the county ordinance. the court documents say.

Neither of them has access to sanitary water nor do they feel safe.

Both argued the goal of public safety, when considering sexual offenders recidivism, could be met without the excessive restrictions of the county ordinance -- purportedly one of the strictest in the nation.

They also argued the ordinance undermines the goal of public safety since it impedes them from successfully re-entering society so they can gain secure housing and obtain employment.

Noting that a sexual offender is subject to the restriction without any regard to their risk of recidivism, the contenders pointed out that research has shown that sexual offender recidivism rates are among the lowest for any offenses and continues to decline over time.

Yet, even if the sexual offender no longer has to register as a sex offender under Florida law, the county's residency restriction applies to them for life.

The 11th Circuit agreed, reversing the lower court's ruling and allowing them to proceed with discovery.

Brandon Buskey, senior staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing the plaintiffs called the circuit's ruling "an important victory."

"Our plaintiffs set out to demonstrate that Miami-Dade County's excessive residency restriction unfairly punishes those affected by forcing them into homelessness. The 11th Circuit made clear that they deserve their day in court," Buskey said in a statement provided to Courthouse News. ..Source.. by JULIE BAKER-DENNIS

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Three sex offenders lose round in court

9-6-2016 Colorado:

First request to suspend residency restriction enforcement is denied

U.S. District Judge Raymond Moore on Aug. 30 denied a motion for a temporary restraining order, meaning Englewood can continue to enforce its sex-offender residency restrictions for now. However, he did agree to hear evidence in a Sept. 28 court session on the request for a preliminary injunction that would halt enforcement of the residency restriction.

At issue is the city’s 2006 ordinance (a law or regulation made by a city or town government) Merriam-Webster Dictionary that bans most registered sex offenders from living in Englewood. The restrictions bar most offenders from living within set distances of schools, day cares and other facilities, leaving only about 1 percent of the city (in areas without residences) open to such offenders.

Boulder attorney Alison Ruttenberg filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of Englewood residents who could be forced to move out of the city if the residency restrictions are enforced.

The City of Englewood is the defendant in the case and was represented in court by attorneys from the Colorado Intergovernmental Risk Sharing Agency, a member-owned self-insurance pool, and Dugan Comer, acting city attorney.

The court case seeks to overturn the 2006 ordinance restricting where registered sex offenders can live in Englewood. Also, the plaintiffs were not allowed to register with Englewood police as required by law. According to the court filing, they were also told the police department would soon begin sending out letters requiring them to leave the city within 30 days or face arrest.

Attorneys for both sides stated their cases and answered the judge’s questions. Ruttenberg spoke on behalf of the plaintiffs and Tom Rice represented the city’s position on the issues.

The first issue resolved concerned the fact that plaintiff Larry Cook is serving time in a halfway house near Englewood, and was able to register from that location and will be there for the next three to nine months. However, the attorney said he will face impact from the residency restriction when he is released, because Cook would be barred from living in the Englewood home he purchased in 1990.

The judge said that because of Cook’s current circumstances, the request for a temporary restraining order only applied to the two remaining plaintiffs, Brian Brockhausen and Allen Toner. A fourth plaintiff, identified as S.B. because he was adjudicated delinquent as a juvenile, is no longer part of the proceedings because the city has agreed not to seek residency restriction enforcement against him.

Rice, speaking for the city, said the residency restriction ordinance was passed in 2006. He said enforcement was put on hold while the American Civil Liberties Union filed a case on behalf of Englewood resident Stephen Ryals challenging the law’s constitutionality. Eventually the case was decided in July in the city’s favor and police resumed enforcement of the residency restriction.

He said sex offenders moved into the city while the ordinance wasn’t being enforced and now want to stay in Englewood.

Ruttenberg stated in her request for the restraining order that application of the residency restriction law means the plaintiffs will be effectively banished from the community.

She said she had an affidavit stating when sex offenders are told to leave the city they cannot visit or work in any location covered by the residency restriction, which is the entire city except the halfway house and, if the plaintiffs do violate the ban, they could be arrested for trespassing.

Moore said based on the materials he has, he has to abide by the recent 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling defining banishment, and he said the definition doesn’t apply to the two men.

The sides stated their cases for about 90 minutes and, at the conclusion of those discussions, the judge announced he was denying the request for a temporary restraining order.

“I am not asked to decide if the ordinance is right or wrong,” Moore said as he handed down his ruling. “I am must decide the issue according to the law. That said, I am denying the temporary restraining order request in totality.”

He then scheduled the hearing on the request for a preliminary injunction for 1 p.m. Sept. 28. He said it would be a hearing in which both parties could present evidence and have witnesses testify.

Rice said it is policy not to comment on issues in litigation.

Ruttenberg said she has her work cut out for her and it will be a challenge to be ready for the Sept. 28 hearing.

After the ruling, the attorney met with the plaintiffs, friends and family outside the courthouse.

She said the judge’s comments and rulings were a starting point for preparation for the preliminary injunction hearing.

“It is a challenge we have to meet,” she said. “It is just too bad the city used its authority to destroy the lives of these members of their community.” ..Source.. by Tom Munds

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Duane Moore, sex offender, to get $37G from Suffolk, Southampton for legal fees

1-14-16 New York:

Suffolk County and Southampton Town officials have agreed to reimburse a man for legal fees after he waged a seven-year battle to overturn local restrictions regarding where he and other sex offenders can live.

Federal court records show the case was dismissed Dec. 10 after the county and town agreed to each pay $18,750 — a total of $37,500 — to go toward Duane Moore’s attorney fees.

Moore, 56, of Southampton, sued Suffolk and Southampton in 2009, alleging that local laws dictating where sex offenders can live in relation to schools and playgrounds were so vague and restrictive they amounted to “banishment.”

Moore’s attorneys argued, among other claims, that New York State’s sex offender residency laws superseded the county’s and town’s restrictions.

They were proved right in February 2015, when the state’s highest court ruled in a separate case that local governments cannot impose their own conditions on where sex offenders reside. The decision effectively invalidated more than 100 local restrictions across the state, including those in Nassau, Suffolk and Southampton.

Michael Diack, a sex offender living in Nassau County, filed the case that led to that ruling, which prompted a federal judge to rule in Moore’s favor in April.

“I can tell you that the people who work with offenders almost uniformly despise these ordinances,” Bruce Barket, Moore’s Garden City-based attorney, said in an interview Wednesday.

“They do nothing to protect the public and they make it much more difficult for the offenders to reintegrate into society and live law-abiding lives.”

Southampton Supervisor Jay Schneiderman said he was not sure about the future of the town’s laws.

“The town’s law was stronger than the state’s law, and this is the resolution, basically,” Schneiderman said Thursday. “I think the question remains whether the town will take its law off the books or simply not enforce it. I don’t have an answer to that right now.” ..Source.. by Will James

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Convicted sex offender can stay in Merritt Island neighborhood, judge says

1-6-16 Florida:

MERRITT ISLAND, Fla. —Some angry Merritt Island residents attempted to get a sex offender kicked out of his own home, but a judge ruled that he could continue living there.

The residents did not want the man, Richard Vassallo, living in their neighborhood.

Residents argued that a private park and a school bus stop in their neighborhood meant the sex offender could not legally live there.

"I don't recall seeing a sign there. I have no idea," said Richard Vassallo, a convicted sex offender.

Vassallo insisted on the witness stand that he did not know anything about a school bus stop in his Merritt Island neighborhood, even though the stop is at the main intersection leading into the subdivision. A 13-year-old girl who uses the bus stop said Vassallo had been staring at her.

"After I got to the bus stop, he got into his car and drove up to me," said the teen.

Vassallo was convicted of lewd and lascivious molestation of a child under 12. Under state and county law, he can't live within 1,000 feet of a park or a place where children congregate, but he bought a house, paid with cash, in the upscale Sun Ridge subdivision on Merritt Island. The neighborhood not only has a bus stop, but also a private park, both of which locations children congregate. Vassallo got the approval of probation officials before moving in.

"We don't consider a bus stop to be a place where children congregate," said Rebecca Gabor, a probation officer.

"Our big concern is that we have a sexual predator living in our neighborhood and the probation office has allowed him to live within 1,000 feet of our private park," said neighborhood resident Michael Kruse. ..Source.. by WESH.com

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

City Council Rejects Sex Offender Residency Restrictions

1-5-16 Nebraska:

FALLS CITY – City council discussed and took action on whether or not to draft an ordinance restricting the distance a registered sex offender(s) can live to a school or a licensed daycare.

Joan Stoller, the resident that requested the agenda item, spoke again on how she believed this particular ordinance would protect children in the community. Stoller originally requested the agenda item after a registered sex offender had moved into a home on her street. A daycare provider, who also runs her business on the same street, also attended the meeting and spoke to the council. The daycare provider stated to the council that she has had no issues with the offender.

Police Chief Duane Armbruster said, in the December 7th council meeting, that the proposed ordinance would only restrict where sexual predators live. He clarified that a sexual predator is an individual who is required to register under the Sex Offender Registration Act, who has been classified as a high risk sexual offender by the State Patrol, and who has victimized a person 18 years of age or younger.

Armbruster stated at Monday night’s meeting that only 5 out of the 10 sexual offenders that live in Falls City would be considered a sexual predator. Armbruster also stated, to the best of his knowledge, none of the offenders that currently reside in Falls City have reoffended. Sexual offenders are required to register through the Sheriff’s office.

Armbruster stated many factors would need to be considered if the ordinance were to be put in place, such as a city survey would need to be conducted. He also warned council members of the possibility of law suits

The offender who has moved onto the street where Stoller also resides, did attend Monday night’s meeting. He stepped forward and spoke to council members on how, based off of his research, similar ordinances haven’t shown evidence of being effective. He also stated creating barriers on where sexual offenders reside could possibly increase the chance of homelessness and create multiple financial and personal burdens on the offender.

Councilmen Dougherty made the motion to request a draft of the ordinance be written by the City Attorney, Councilmen Scholl seconded the motion. Council members tied in voting for a draft to be written: 4 yay; 4 nay, Mayor Oliver then took action by placing his vote of nay. ..Source.. by Elise Waller

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Lawsuit: West Lake Hills’ sex offender ordinance too restrictive

12-29-15 Texas:

WEST LAKE HILLS, Texas (KXAN) — Texas Voices for Reason and Justice, Inc., has filed a lawsuit against the City of West Lake Hills for its “sex offender residency restriction ordinance” (SORRO) which prohibits where registered sex offenders can live.

The nonprofit organization’s primary organizational purpose, as described in the petition, “is to promote a more balanced, effective and rational criminal justice system… and support persons required to register for sex related offenses and their families.”

The lawsuit claims West Lake Hills’ SORRO is legally invalid because “general law” cities in Texas, those with populations less than 5,000, have no constitutional authority to enact ordinances which prohibit where registered sex offenders may reside. Texas Voices for Reason and Justice says because of the city’s additional restrictions, a registered sex offender is essentially banned from residing within the City of West Lake Hills.

“It’s a problem. We’re getting calls from people and their families, who are registered all over Texas, that simply cannot find a place to live,” Texas Voices for Reason and Justice’s Executive Director Mary Sue Molnar told KXAN. “It (ordinance) pretty much BANISHES people who are registered”

West Lake Hills’ City Council passed its SORRO nearly 9 years ago, which states anyone on the sex offender registry cannot live within 1,000 feet of any defined premises where children commonly gather, including a playground, school, video arcade facility, youth center, day care center, public swimming pool, or school bus stop. A violation can be punished with a fine of up to $500 for each day a violation exists.

According to the Texas Department of Public Safety’s website, the state sex offender registration program itself “does not prohibit registered sex offenders from living or going near places frequented by children. However, Texas community supervision and parole laws, as well as city ordinances, may require the imposition of a ‘child safety zone.’ A ‘child safety zone’ prohibits certain individuals from going in, on, or within a specified distance of a premise where children commonly gather (i.e. schools, day care facilities, or playgrounds). A violation of the ‘child safety zone’ can result in the revocation of the offender’s probation or parole, or a citation.”

According to the state sex offender registry, just four sex offenders currently reside within the West Lake Hills zip code.

“If people don’t have a place to live, they’re less likely to register. And then law enforcement doesn’t know where they are,” Molnar said.

West Lake Hills’ attorney tells us City Council has not yet decided whether the retain, amend, or repeal the ordinance.

Mary Ann Benson is a proud grandma and owner of Kinda Krazy Kids & Kompany, which opened in West Lake Hills 13 years ago.

“A children’s store or a baby’s store is a very happy place to be, and that was a goal,” Benson said, when thinking back to the motivation behind opening the shop.

The thing is, happiness, often hinges on safety. Something that paramount for parents, grandparents, and really, anyone.

“ANYONE, with any knowledge and love for people and relationships would want them to be safe. Anyone,” Benson said. “Especially our children, who are innocent and don’t have anyone necessarily to protect them.”

Pending lawsuits will determine just how far ordinances can go in the name of safety. Texas Voices for Reason and Justice has filed 14 lawsuits against Texas cities with a population of under 5,000 people that either did not repeal their sex offender ordinances, or did not respond to Texas Voices for Reason and Justice’s letters sent in early November.

KXAN’s Kylie McGivern asked, “For those who may listen tonight and say, well this is just an organization that’s looking to defend sex offenders, I mean – what would you say to that?”

Molnar responded saying, “It’s not that we’re trying to defend or minimize anything, we believe that people who break the law should be punished. But as some point we have to allow them the basic needs. Which IS a place to live.”

Molnar told KXAN that the following cities repealed their residency restrictions after the organization sent letters advising the claims that are now the basis of lawsuits against 14 cities: Orchard, Archer City, Oak Ridge, Justin, Cottonwood Shores, Winters, Hollywood Park, Pottsboro, Whitewright, Mount Enterprise, Van Horn, Woodville, Hubbard, Hamlin, and Shiner.

We’re told the following cities received notice today that they are being sued: Alvarado, Argyle, Brazoria, Bullard, Farmersville, Fulton, Hickory Creek, Meadows Place, Mount Vernon, Ponder, Oak Point, West Lake Hills, Westworth Village, and Winona.

“There may be a second round of lawsuits filed. We are still confirming information, and a few cities have asked for extensions until the middle of January,” Molnar explained.

It’s important to point out you can easily find out if a sex offender lives near you. The Texas Department of Public Safety lists the addresses of sex offenders on a statewide database. You can look at each zip code individually, or go through an online map to see who lives in your neighborhood. KXAN checked, and many of the sex offenders who live in Austin are located east of I-35.
Zip codes 78723, 78753 and 78741 have about 100 or more sex offenders. There are also several dozen registered in Downtown Austin. The majority are located at the ARCH Homeless Shelter. ..Source.. by Kylie McGivern

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Federal Judge Enjoins Enforcement of Sex Offender Premises Restriction

12-20-15 North Carolina:

A federal judge has permanently enjoined all North Carolina district attorneys from enforcing G.S. 14-208.18(a)(3), the law intended to prohibit certain sex offenders from being at places where minors gather for regularly scheduled educational, recreational, or social programs.

The case is Doe v. Cooper, No. 1:13CV711 (M.D.N.C. Dec. 7, 2015). In it, five registered sex offenders filed a lawsuit in the Middle District of North Carolina challenging the constitutionality of all three premises restrictions of G.S. 14-208.18. As many readers know, that law has three subdivisions that spell out three types of places certain registered sex offenders may not “knowingly be”: ..Continued.. by Jamie Markham

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Janice’s Journal: Tenacity Results in Victory in Carson

12-4-15 California:

Our tenacity paid off! More than 18 months, 3 lawsuits and 2 protests later, the City of Carson has repealed its presence restrictions.

In a vote of 3 to 0, the City Council decided to rid the City of Carson of its presence restrictions which both violated state law and denied the civil rights of more than 100,000 individuals.
This important vote was taken despite a proclamation in 2014 by a member of the City Council to “declare war” upon registered citizens.

This important vote was taken because we did not give up. Instead, we showed up, we stood up and we spoke up – in the courts and in the streets of Carson.

First, we challenged the city’s ordinance in federal court alleging that the ordinance violated the U.S. Constitution and was preempted by state law. In good faith, we later entered into a Settlement Agreement with the City that specified the City would revise its restrictions and we would dismiss the lawsuit. We dismissed the lawsuit, however, the City reneged and refused to revise its restrictions.

The City Council attempted to justify its position by claiming that the City Manager lacked authority to bind the City despite a provision in the agreement stating that he had such authority. The City Council subsequently fired the City Manager.

Members of the City Council replied to the second lawsuit in state court as well as in the court of public opinion. That is, they postured before city residents during Council meetings by speaking out loudly and angrily about the lawsuit as well as about appellate court decisions which determined that similar laws adopted by other local governments were preempted. During those meetings, Council members acknowledged they were aware of the courts’ decisions and proclaimed they would not abide by them because they disagreed. ..Continued.. by CA-RSOL

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Judge again blocks new R.I. sex offender residency restriction

UPDATED 11-9: Critics of new residency law say it’s dangerous to remove sex offenders from stable living situations

11-4-15 Rhode Island:

PROVIDENCE, R.I. — A federal judge has blocked until January enforcement of a Rhode Island law that bars certain sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of a school.

U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell Jr. on Wednesday ordered the state not to enforce the law until a hearing in January.

McConnell last week had issued a temporary restraining order for 10 days.

The law was enacted this year and applies to Level III sex offenders, considered the most likely to reoffend.

The state's affiliate to the American Civil Liberties Union had requested the temporary restraining order, and after the hearing Steven Brown, the executive director, said the ruling would give Level III sex offenders and their families "a great sense of relief."

Attorneys John E. MacDonald and Lynette Labinger argued for the restraining order, stating the law was not being implemented the same way everywhere — with sex offenders in some communities having 36 hours to move and in others 30 days — and that many would have to move to Harrington Hall, an all-male homeless shelter in Cranston.

Rebecca Partington of the attorney general's office pointed out in court that the 1,000 foot zone would give parents peace of mind and that zones, such as the proximity of liquor stores to schools, have been set in the past.

The temporary restraining order had barred the attorney general's office and the Department of Correction from enforcing the law.

The restraining order was issued in conjunction with a class action lawsuit filed by the ACLU asserting, among other things, that the law is unconstitutionally vague, violates due process and retroactively punishes those who already completed their sentences.

The state argued similar restrictions have been imposed elsewhere, and those affected can find other places to live. ..Source.. by Providence Journal

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

ACLU sues to stop new sex offender residency law

UPDATED 10-30: Judge to hear ACLU challenge to sex offender residency law

10-29-15 Rhode Island:

PROVIDENCE, R.I. (WPRI) — The new law forbidding Level 3 sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of a school in Rhode Island is not constitutional, the Rhode Island ACLU said in a lawsuit filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Providence.

The law is vague, violates due process, punishes people retroactively even when they’ve completed sentences, and interferes with “liberty and privacy interests while bearing no rational relationship to a legitimate purpose,” the ACLU’s Johanna Kaiser said.

Six people are named as plaintiffs in the lawsuit. One of them was given 36 hours to move; and has been forced to stay at hotels since then. Others have been unable to secure new housing in the short time they’ve been given. Most of them, the ACLU said, will be forced to move into a homeless shelter, the Harrington Hall facility in Cranston — the only homeless shelter in the state accepting sex offenders that is not within 1,000 feet of a school.

How does one measure that thousand feet distance? How does one appeal an order from law enforcement? And how do you define a school — determining which facilities should be considered a concern? All these issues are not addressed in the new law, the ACLU said.

It also says it applies to all Level 3 sex offenders even if their crime was committed against an adult.

Providence Journal: Law could backfire ( http://www.providencejournal.com/article/20151003/NEWS/151009727 )

Several local homeless advocacy groups support the ACLU’s lawsuit, including the Rhode Island Coalition for the Homeless. By limiting where people can live, the law encourages homelessness, the ACLU said — and rehabilitation and treatment is disrupted; and the law decreases public safety, rather than increasing it.

Level 3 sex offenders are determined to be more likely to reoffend and more dangerous to the public. Level 2 offenders are moderate risk, and level 1 offenders are not listed in public registries. ..Source.. by Bill Tomison

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Biddeford sex offender fights ordinance he's accused of violating

9-19-15 Maine:

BIDDEFORD (WGME) -- Four months after the city of Biddeford passed an ordinance that restricts where registered sex offenders can live, the first man to be charged is fighting it.

Charlie Rodriguez, 35, and his wife moved into their South Street apartment on August 1.

"We wanted our own space and then we found out the baby was coming, so we needed our own space," said Rodriguez.

Days later, Biddeford Police told him to move out.

Panicked, but not shocked, Rodriguez said that's when he learned about the city ordinance restricting where registered sex offenders can live. It applies to those moving to Biddeford after May 19, 2015 when it was enacted. Registered sex offenders who were there previously do not have to relocate.

Back in 2000, he was convicted of unlawful sexual contact with a person under 14 and spent 70 days behind bars.

"It's humiliating to live with this sort of stigma and have to hide," he said.

Now, he's stepping out of the shadows to challenge the rule that police say prohibits him from living within 750 feet of places like schools and parks. In his case, it's Williams Court Park.

The ordinance says restricted properties include schools, as well as parks, athletic fields or recreation facilities that are "open to the public where children are the primary users."

"I mean, it's in black and white," said Rodriguez.

Williams Court Park is a small one, and according to the sign it's for pedestrians only. It also says no balls, frisbees, rollerblades, rollerskates or skateboards.

"There's nothing about that park that says, 'This is a place for children to play,'" said Rodriguez.

"It's a neighborhood where there are a lot of underage people under 14 and they do frequent that park, so it qualifies," countered Police Chief Roger Beaupre.

Beaupre said Rodriguez failed to move within 30 days of being notified and has now been summonsed to court for a civil violation.

"The ordinance is written that each day that goes by he has not moved is a $500 fine," said Beaupre.

Rodriguez said he'll respect whatever the judge decides, whether he's forced to pay the fines or move, but isn't going down without a fight.

"At some point you have to stand up for yourself," he said.

Rodriguez is due in court on November 25. ..Source.. by WGME13.com

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

State Courts Strike Down Overbroad Residence Restrictions for People Convicted of Sex Offenses

9-11-15 National:

After two decades of imposing increasingly harsh residence restrictions on people convicted of sex offenses, several key states are rejecting blanket restrictions.

Since Congress passed Megan's Law in 1996, empowering states to create public sex offender registries, at least 30 states and hundreds of cities have enacted residence restrictions that limit where people convicted of sex offenses may legally live. These restrictions typically prevent the targeted individuals from living within 1000 to 2500 feet of schools, daycare centers, parks, and other places where children congregate, and have forced tens of thousands of people nationwide to live in motels, out of cars, under bridges, or even outside jails.

Politically popular blanket restrictions do not differentiate juvenile offenders or people convicted of offenses like public urination from people convicted of serious crimes against children. Instead, many laws impose lifetime restrictions on those least likely to pose any future risk. There is no evidence that these laws protect children, and by forcing so many people into homelessness and isolating them from their families and other supports, research shows that these policies actually increase risks to public safety.

Some state courts have begun to reign in overbroad and counterproductive residence restrictions. The California Supreme Court recently struck down blanket lifetime restrictions, ruling that a San Diego law that barred parolees from 97 percent of available housing violated the Constitution by limiting their access to housing, increasing homelessness, and depriving them of access to services like psychological counseling that are available to all parolees. The court found that blanket restrictions do not protect children and communities but instead create a greater safety risk by forcing more people into homelessness, which makes them harder to monitor.

"Blanket enforcement of the residency restrictions against these parolees has ... infringed their liberty and privacy interests, however limited, while bearing no rational relationship to advancing the state's legitimate goal of protecting children from sexual predators," the unanimous court ruled. The decision requires that residence restrictions be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

Earlier this year, New York's highest court unanimously struck down more than 130 local laws that exceeded state law by imposing lifetime residence restrictions. The court ruled that only the state has the power to impose residence restrictions, and that power is limited to restricting where people live only while they are on parole or supervised release. ..Continued.. by Equal Justice Initiative

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

The Pointless Banishment of Sex Offenders

9-8-15 National:

It’s a chilling image: the sex predator skulking in the shadows of a swing set, waiting to snatch a vulnerable child.

Over the past two decades, that scenario has led to a wave of laws around the country restricting where people convicted of sex offenses may live — in many cases, no closer than 2,500 feet from schools, playgrounds, parks or other areas where children gather. In some places, these “predator-free zones” put an entire town or county off limits, sometimes for life, even for those whose offenses had nothing to do with children.

Protecting children from sexual abuse is, of course, a paramount concern. But there is not a single piece of evidence that these laws actually do that. For one thing, the vast majority of child sexual abuse is committed not by strangers but by acquaintances or relatives. And residency laws drive tens of thousands of people to the fringes of society, forcing them to live in motels, out of cars or under bridges. The laws apply to many and sometimes all sex offenders, regardless of whether they were convicted for molesting a child or for public urination.

Lately, judges have been pushing back. So far in 2015, state supreme courts in California, Massachusetts and New York have struck down residency laws.

The Massachusetts ruling, issued on Aug. 28, invalidated a residency restriction in the town of Lynn — and by extension, similar restrictions in about 40 other communities statewide — in part because it swept up so many offenders, regardless of the actual risk they posed. Acting against a whole class presents “grave societal and constitutional implications,” the justices wrote. That unanimous ruling was based on the State Constitution.

The California Supreme Court went further, holding that a San Diego residency restriction, which effectively barred paroled sex offenders from 97 percent of available housing, violated the United States Constitution.

Far from protecting children and communities, the California court found, blanket restrictions in fact create a greater safety risk by driving more sex offenders into homelessness, which makes them both harder to monitor and less likely to get essential rehabilitative services like medical treatment, psychotherapy and job assistance.

Residency laws often lead people to live apart from their families, obliterating what is for many the most stabilizing part of their lives.

If the state wants to block someone from living in certain areas, the California court said, it must make that decision on a case-by-case basis.

The United States Supreme Court has not yet weighed in on residency restrictions, although a 2003 ruling upholding mandatory registration for sex offenders suggested that such laws may violate the Constitution.

It is understandable to want to do everything possible to protect children from being abused. But not all people who have been convicted of sex offenses pose a risk to children, if they pose any risk at all. Blanket residency-restriction laws disregard that reality — and the merits of an individualized approach to risk assessment — in favor of a comforting mirage of safety. ...Source.. by NYT Editorial Board

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Collateral damage: Harsh sex offender laws may put whole families at risk

8-27-15 National:

Research says that registries and residency bans leave children of sex offenders vulnerable to bullying, homelessness

When William Quarles, 38, bolts from his desk around 5:30 most weeknights, he’s up against his most important deadline of the day. Quarles is an audiovisual editor and social media manager at a Christian television studio in St. Petersburg, Florida. By the time he gets home, he and Ashley, his wife of nine years, have just over three hours to make dinner for their three children, squeeze in a half-hour of playtime, get the kids bathed and dressed for bed, and read to them for a few minutes.

At 9:30 sharp, William kisses Ashley, walks out the door and drives his van 12 miles to a spot at the end of a dirt road off Interstate 275. From there he calls her, and they read and pray together from the devotional Our Daily Bread before they fall asleep — Ashley at home and William in the back of the van. Every couple of hours, William wakes up sweating and turns on the engine to run the air conditioner.

William’s name and photo appear on Florida’s public sex offender registry. A state law bans him and most others on the list from living within 1,000 feet of schools, parks, playgrounds and child care facilities. The house the family rents lies inside a banned zone, so William can’t stay there between 10 at night and 6 in the morning.

With finances always tight and much of the city off limits, the Quarleses have struggled to find an affordable place to live. From May 2013 to May 2014, Ashley and the kids lived with Ashley’s sister in Lakeland, 60 miles from St. Petersburg. Ashley drove to the city every day for a job she had at the time. William stayed behind in St. Pete, sleeping in the van — a 2,500-foot residency ban for registrants in Lakeland and the surrounding county forbade him from living with the rest of the family.

When the commute became untenable, Ashley and the children moved back to the city into their current house, which belongs to their pastor. The pastor’s daughter lived there but was away on vacation for several months. That worked until October, when the daughter returned.

This time, the Quarleses wanted to find a place where William could live with them. They estimate that they researched 100 to 150 addresses. All either fell inside a forbidden zone or were rented by the time they applied. So after spending a week in a motel, from October to March of this year, they all became homeless. Ashley and the kids — ages, 7, 4 and 2 — camped out in the sanctuary of the church where William works, taking showers every other day at the YMCA.

They got a break in the spring when their pastor’s house again became available. He charges them only $800 a month, well below market. But because it’s inside a banned area, William still can’t live with them.

In 1996, Congress passed Megan’s Law, which allowed states to publicize the names of those convicted of sex offenses. A wave of federal and state laws followed that created online sex offender registries, broadened who is listed and restricted where registrants can live. ..Continued.. (Excellent article, loaded with statistics) by Steven Yoder

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Court backs sex offender ordinance in Palm Bay

8-7-15 Florida

Appellate court releases ruling saying ordinance does not violate offenders' constitutional rights

PALM BAY, Fla. - There is a major victory for a Central Florida city looking to impose tougher restrictions on sex offenders.

Palm Bay's sex offender ordinance has been debated many times at city hall. Some say it puts too many restrictions on sex offenders, but Friday an appellate court released a ruling saying the ordinance does not violate offenders' constitutional rights.

A 41-year-old Palm Bay man who didn't want to be identified said he was labeled a sex offender at 18. More than 20 years later, the label still haunts him.

"This one thing is going to be with me the rest of my life," he said. "I don't know why Palm Bay is so strict."

Florida law states a sex offender may not reside within 1,000 feet of any school, child care facility, park or playground if the victim was under 18.

Palm Bay's ordinance goes further and prohibits sex offenders from making deliveries or performing work at any residence, school or any place where children or vulnerable adults may reside.

A Local 6 investigation last fall found more than one sex offender working for a company delivering pizza's in Orange County. In Palm Bay, depending on who lived in those homes, they would have broken the law.

"They shouldn't be able to do that," Annette Huggins told Local 6.

Huggins lives in Palm Bay and doesn't believe the ordinance is too restrictive.

"It's not strict enough," she said.

A Palm Bay sex offender sued the city, saying the ordinance was unconstitutional, but an appellate court Friday shot down five of the six challenges.

The court did take issue with one word in the ordinance, when talking about where offenders are prohibited from making deliveries or doing work. It says any place where children or young adults may reside. The court said that could be virtually every residence in the city. As long as they remove that word, the ordinance remains. ..Source.. by ClickOrlando.com

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Appeals Court Backs Local Restrictions On Sex Offenders

Not only should the court NOT tell the legislature what changes are needed to make the law constitutional, violating separation of powers, but Sections 2A & 2B are over-broad and violates other constitutional provisions. ex: Equal protection (murderers and other serious crimes are allowed to work any job even those sex offenders may not) the prohibition provisions are banishment in nature from virtually any job except a factory type job. Finally, provisions 2A & 2B have other serious constitutional problems as written. i.e., Its not about protecting children, its about banishment. Hopefully this will be appealed.

7-17-15 Florida:

TALLAHASSEE (CBSMiami/NSF) – An appeals court has largely rejected a challenge from a plumber who argued that he had lost a substantial amount of income because of a Palm Bay ordinance placing restrictions on registered sexual predators and sex offenders.

The licensed plumber, identified in the case as John Doe 1, is a registered sex offender because of a no-contest plea in 1999 to a sexual-battery charge.

Palm Bay, which is in Brevard County, later passed an ordinance that prohibits sexual predators and sex offenders from making deliveries or doing work at homes, schools and a variety of other places “where children or vulnerable adults may reside or regularly congregate.”

The plumber challenged the ordinance on a number of constitutional grounds. A three-judge panel of the 5th District Court of Appeal (or here)on Friday rejected most of those arguments, though it found that part of the wording violated a constitutional ban on retroactive punishment. That wording involved the prohibition on sexual predators and sex offenders doing work where children or vulnerable adults “may” congregate.

“This language is broad enough to apply to virtually every residence in the city, as well as a vast number of businesses, regardless of whether children or vulnerable adults are likely to be present,” said the appeals-court opinion, written by Judge Kerry Evander.

Nevertheless, the court said the word “may” could be removed — or in legal parlance, “severed” — from the ordinance, which would make the restrictions constitutional. ..Source.. by CBS Local Miami

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Courts are reconsidering residency restrictions for sex offenders

7-1-15 California:

In 2006, California voters passed "Jessica's Law," a ballot initiative that prohibited registered sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a school or park. In 2011, crime analyst Julie Wartell of the San Diego County District Attorney's Office analyzed how much housing was left for those offenders. Consulting land-use files, she concluded that just 0.7 percent of multifamily parcels in the county were compliant.

That analysis came as part of a trial court’s hearing in In re Taylor, a habeas corpus case brought by four San Diego County parolees. All four planned to live with family or friends after leaving prison, but they couldn’t because the homes were not compliant with Jessica’s Law. Instead, they ended up living in the alley behind the parole office, in the bed of the (seasonally dry) San Diego River, in vehicles or in noncompliant homes. When plaintiff William Taylor ended up hospitalized, he was rearrested for failing to register the hospital’s address with police.

That’s part of why the California Supreme Court struck down the blanket application of Jessica’s Law in March’s In re Taylor (PDF). The justices noted that parole officers may impose residency restrictions on a case-by-case basis. But they unanimously agreed that universal application of the law violates offenders’ constitutional rights—and doesn’t keep children safe.

The law “has hampered efforts to monitor, supervise and rehabilitate such parolees in the interests of public safety, and as such, bears no rational relationship to advancing the state’s legitimate goal of protecting children from sexual predators,” now-retired Justice Marvin Baxter wrote.

Though the decision applied only to parolees in San Diego County, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation soon extended it to parolees statewide. CDCR spokesman Luis Patino says the state attorney general’s office believes courts would apply Taylor to every county.

California is not the only such state. Later in March, a Michigan federal court struck down application of that state’s “geographic exclusion zones” to six plaintiffs, saying the law is unconstitutionally vague. And in February, the New York Court of Appeals ruled that all local sex offender residency laws are pre-empted by state law, which does not include residency restrictions.

Courts weren’t always so friendly to these challenges. The highest court to rule on residency restrictions, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at St. Louis, ruled in 2005’s Doe v. Miller (PDF) that Iowa’s residency restrictions did not violate offenders’ constitutional rights. That’s an important case, says professor Wayne Logan of Florida State University College of Law. Most courts considering federal challenges on the issue have followed it.

But there are signs that things are changing. Responding to compelling personal stories and mounting evidence that residency restrictions don’t work—and might even hurt public safety—courts are casting a more critical eye on these laws.

“There’s a public appetite for [sex offender laws], but there’s no evidentiary support that either registries or exclusion zones work,” says Miriam Aukerman, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan who represented the plaintiffs in the Michigan case. “And as a result, you’re seeing judges starting to rethink this.”

The facts of Taylor point to one of the biggest criticisms of residency restrictions: They often eliminate so much housing that they force ex-offenders into homelessness. A 2011 report from the California Sex Offender Management Board expressly noted that “nearly 32 percent of sex offenders on parole are homeless due to Jessica’s Law.”

This causes multiple public safety problems, says Jill Levenson, an associate professor of social work at Barry University in Miami Shores, Florida. By barring offenders from living with family members in noncompliant homes, she says, the laws reduce their chances of stable housing, stable jobs and social support, all of which are known to lower the chance of recidivism.

When offenders are homeless—or can plausibly claim to be homeless, then move into non-compliant homes—it’s also harder for police to keep track of them. That’s why the New Hampshire state police supported a bid to eliminate the state’s residency restrictions this year, and it’s one reason Palm Beach County, Florida, relaxed its restrictions in 2014.

And perhaps most damning, Levenson says the consensus among social science researchers is that residency laws don’t reduce recidivism. “We know from decades of research that most child sex abuse victims are well-known to their perpetrators,” she says. “So a person’s residential proximity … is really irrelevant.”

AGAINST THE TRENDS

Those issues were part of the California Supreme Court’s rationale for finding that Jessica’s Law violates parolees’ fundamental rights under the 14th Amendment—rights to do things like establish a home, travel within the state and enjoy privacy and free association. Though parolees have limited constitutional rights, the court said, the law can’t survive even lowered scrutiny be-cause it has no rational relationship to its own goal.

Logan says the ruling bucks several trends. It’s not unusual for state high courts to strike down residency laws, he says, but they’re generally using state constitutions’ ex post facto clauses to nix retroactive application. And it is unusual for courts considering federal law to decide for plaintiffs, he says, because those courts generally follow Miller.

Professor J.J. Prescott of the University of Michigan Law School agrees that federal courts generally have been less friendly than state courts, but he notes that the Michigan decision, Doe v. Snyder (PDF), accepted vagueness arguments—which were rejected in Miller.

And, Prescott says, there’s some evidence that federal courts are compromising—not throwing out laws entirely, but voiding certain provisions. He points to a February decision from the Middle District of Alabama, McGuire v. Strange, which threw out requirements that offenders check in with two police agencies per week and get permission from two agencies before leaving the county. That judge denied other challenges to Alabama’s registration law but called it “the most comprehensive, debilitating sex offender scheme in the land.”

“The facts on the ground [are] changing, and that means the decisions are coming out differently than they otherwise would,” Prescott says. “They’re just not reflexively deciding in favor of the government, as they used to.”

Though Taylor was a victory for Californians subject to residency restrictions, it was paired with a less favorable case. People v. Mosley found that a judge may impose registration and residency requirements without violating the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2000 ruling in Apprendi v. New Jersey, which requires a jury to decide any facts that increase punishment.

BATTLING BANISHMENT

Janice Bellucci, president of California Reform Sex Offender Laws and an attorney in Santa Maria, says Mosley “ducked the issue entirely” of whether residency restrictions are punitive. She’s also not entirely happy with Taylor because it doesn’t affect residency requirements for people who have finished parole. As a result, she says, “we’re going to spend a long time in court trying to clarify the meaning of Taylor.” Her organization expects to file some of those claims.

Bellucci argues that residency restrictions are tantamount to banishment. For example, she says, ex-offenders cannot legally live anywhere in the dense city of San Francisco. And in one case she handled against the Orange County city of Cypress, the only parcels open to ex-offenders were a big-box retail area and a cemetery.

This hurts not only ex-offenders but also the spouses, children and parents who can’t live with them, she says.

“It’s one thing if in fact restrictions would achieve the purported goal, but they don’t,” Bellucci says. “When you have ineffective laws that are violating people’s constitutional rights, it’s time to get rid of them.” ..Source.. by Lorelei Laird

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Sex offender files lawsuit against Grover Beach

See also: For Registered Sex Offenders, An Uphill Civil Rights Battle

6-22-15 California:

A registered sex offender filed a federal lawsuit last week against the city of Grover Beach challenging an ordinance that makes it a crime for sex offenders to set up residency in most of the city. The law suit is the first filed against a city since the California Supreme Court’s decision declared such restrictions unconstitutional.

Frank Lindsay owns a home in Grover Beach were he has resided for 18 years. In 1979, the then 26-year-old Lindsay was convicted of lewd lascivious acts against a child under 14 years of age and released from jail the same year. Since then, his record has remained clean.

In 2010, Lindsay was seriously wounded during a violent vigilante attack at his Grover Beach home. David Griffin, 24, broke into Lindsay’s home and punched him, hit him with a hammer and kicked him. Shortly before the attack, Griffin was unable to enter another registered sex offenders home.

Because of that attack, Lindsay, 63, wants to move from his current residence and establish a new residence in Grover Beach.

However, the city modified a 2007 ordinance in 2014 that currently prohibits registered sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of any school, park, or day care center. And because of the layout of the city, the restriction effectively bars Lindsay from buying another home in Grover Beach.

In the lawsuit, civil rights attorney Janice Bellucci says the city’s residency restrictions effectively banish registrants from Grover Beach and violate the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments, the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution.

Bellucci says the city used false data including that “sex offenders have recidivism rates as high as forty-five percent,” to justify the ordinance. The information, Bellucci says, “is inconsistent with state and federal government statistics which state that registrants on parole re-offend at a rate of only 1.8 percent and 5.3 percent overall.”

In addition, Dr. Karl Hanson, a preeminent researcher of sex offenses, says in a recently released report that a registered citizen who has not re-offended in 17 years is no more likely to commit a sex offense than someone who has never been convicted of a sex offense. In Lindsay’s case, it has been 37 years since he offended and 35 years since the former alcoholic has had a drink.

City officials have not responded to questions about the lawsuit.

Penalties for violating the Grover Beach ordinance include “a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 or by imprisonment for up to one year in jail or both.”

Nevertheless, on March 2, the California Supreme Court decided that residency restrictions could not be applied to all registered sex offenders on parole because their blanket application violated the U.S. Constitution. Primarily because the limitations made it impossible for sex-offenders on parole to obtain housing. As a result, many were living on the streets making them difficult to track.

Following the court’s decision, Riverside County and the cities of Downey and El Monte have begun the repeal of their residency restrictions.

Bellucci said that the California Supreme Court ruling should be applied to those on parole as well as registered offenders who are no longer on parole.

“People not on parole have fewer rights than people who are on parole, Bellucci said. “The Supreme Court ruled the restrictions are unconstitutional for people on parole. It is only logical the restrictions are also unconstitutional for people not on parole.”

In the lawsuit, Lindsay is asking the court to rule that Grover Beach’s ordinance is null and void, compensation for legal costs and for the recovery of such relief the court deems just and proper. ..Source.. by KAREN VELIE

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...