Georgia will try again to ban where sex offenders may live

12-10-2007 Georgia:

ATLANTA --Georgia will try again to limit where sex offenders may live, after the state's top court declared unconstitutional the strict residency requirements state lawmakers approved two years ago.

The Georgia Supreme Court last month overturned a portion of the tough law that banned sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of schools, churches and other areas where children congregate. In its unanimous ruling, the justices said there is nothing to prevent a sex offender from buying a home then being forced to move if a facility catering to children later pops up nearby.

Under the new bill being pushed by House Republicans, a sex offender who owns his or her home would no longer have to vacate it if a center where children gather later opens up in the neighborhood. The bill would carve out a similar exception for sex offenders who have established employment, allowing them to keep their job if they had it first.

"I think this addresses the court's concerns," said Rep. David Ralston, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee that will take up the bill.

Ralston said the bill would be a top priority in order to keep Georgia children safe from the state's more than 14,500 registered sex offenders.

"We're concerned that Georgia without this is going to become a dumping ground for these people that we have tried to protect our children from in the bill that we passed two years ago," the Republican from Blue Ridge said.

House Majority Leader Jerry Keen echoed that sentiment, arguing that sex offenders from states that continue to impose strict residency rules might look to relocate to Georgia in the aftermath of the court's ruling.

"We basically, in my opinion, have opened the borders and invited them to come to Georgia and live anywhere they want to," Keen said.

The residency portion of the new bill would apply only to homeowners. Renters would still have to relocate if a childcare center, church or school moves into the neighborhood after they do.

House Republicans said they took their direction from the court's own ruling, which hinged on home ownership. The court said that to force a homeowner to abandon his property or be in violation of the law amounts to an illegal taking of property.

Whether the ruling applies only to homeowners - such as the plaintiff in the case that the justices acted on - or more broadly to all sex offenders has become a matter of some dispute.

Attorney General Thurbert Baker first said the residency law was unenforceable for all sex offenders. But several days later his office asked the state Supreme Court for a clarification because the ruling's scope was unclear. The court has not yet ruled on the request.

Sarah Geraghty, an attorney with the Southern Center for Human Rights, said the new bill is flawed.

"The Georgia Supreme Court has held in a number of cases that renters have interests that are protected by the takings clause," Geraghty said. "So, I think there are constitutional problems."

She also said the bill continues to promote a one-size fits all approach that has prompted even enforcement officials to voice concerns.

Geraghty's organization has a challenge pending in federal court against the existing law. ..more.. by SHANNON McCAFFREY - Associated Press Writer