Groves raised several issues on appeal but failed to bring all of them to his Supreme court appeal. Therefore, there still may be other grounds that possibly could be raised in another proper case. All constitutional grounds raised were not considered by the Iowa Supreme court.
12-7-2007 Iowa:
DES MOINES — The Iowa Supreme Court today once again upheld the controversial state law that requires convicted sex offenders to live at least 2,000 feet away from a school or child care center.
In ruling on a Polk County case involving Benjamin David Groves, the court said the state law does not violate his constitutional due process rights.
Court documents said Groves, 29, was convicted of lascivious acts with a child in 1997. In 2002, the Iowa Legislature passed a law prohibiting sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a school or child care facility.
In January 2006 Groves was charged with violating the law for living too close to a school.
He filed a motion to dismiss the charge claiming the residency law severely restricted his liberty rights, which he defined as the ``right to reside somewhere that meets basic 21st century living standards.''
District Court Judge Carol Egly dismissed the charge saying Groves' rights to substantive due process were violated by the statute and the ``residency restrictions are a severe restriction of the defendant's liberty rights.'' She defined one of those rights as the right to live somewhere with heat, electricity, sewer or septic and running water.
Opponents of the 2,000 foot rule have said the law has forced many sex offenders to move out of their homes and sometimes live under bridges or in rest stops, where it becomes more difficult to monitor them.
The Iowa attorney general's office and the Polk County attorney appealed.
The Supreme Court said it and the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals have previously reviewed the due process challenges to the state law. Both courts found in separate cases that no fundamental right exists for a person to choose where they live.
``In the present case, we find the right to reside somewhere that meets basic 21st century living standards is no different from the right to choose where and under what conditions one lives,'' the court said.
The court said Groves presented no evidence regarding the impact the statute had on him.
``Without such evidence, we are unable to determine whether the statute precludes him from residing somewhere that meets basic 21st century living standards,'' the court said. ``Therefore, we must conclude Groves has failed to establish the statute does not rationally advance some legitimate government purpose.''
The court reversed the district court dismissal of the charge and sent the case back to Polk County for trial.
The state's 2,000-foot rule was passed after 10-year-old Jetseta Gage was kidnapped from her Cedar Rapids home in March 2005 and sexually abused and killed by a convicted sex offender.
It has become controversial with many law enforcement officials and some prosecutors saying it should be thrown out. Many say the state instead should create safe zones around schools and child care centers that convicted sex offenders could not enter without permission.
One of the biggest reasons many law enforcement and prevention advocates believe the current law doesn't work is that it does little to stop perpetrators of abuse.
Democratic leaders in the Legislature have said they may consider toughening the state's sex offender laws next year. A plan crafted in the Senate earlier this year would have retained the 2,000 foot rule and created additional ``safe zones'' where offenders would be banned.
About 22 states and hundreds of cities and counties nationwide have residency requirements for sex offenders.
Human Rights Watch, a group dedicated to protecting the human rights of people around the world, released a report in September which called for repeal of all broad-based residency restrictions, saying traditional parole and probation laws can restrict individual high-risk offenders.
The residency laws often cover offenders who did not victimize children and sometimes deter them from getting treatment or maintaining supportive family contacts, the report said. ..more.. by Associated Press
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
No. 123 / 06-1233
Filed December 7, 2007
STATE OF IOWA, Appellant,
vs.
BENJAMIN DAVID GROVES, Appellee.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Carol Egly,
Judge.
The State appeals the dismissal of the trial information charging a
defendant with violating section 692A.2A of the Iowa Code (2005).
REVERSED AND CASE REMANDED.
WIGGINS, Justice.
Benjamin Groves challenges the constitutionality of the statute that prohibits a sex offender from residing “within two thousand feet of the real property comprising a public or nonpublic elementary or secondary school, or a child care facility.” Iowa Code § 692A.2A (2005). The district court dismissed the trial information finding section 692A.2A violated Groves’ due process rights. Because Groves failed to establish the application of section 692A.2A violates his due process rights, we reverse the decision of the district court and remand the case for trial.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
On March 27, 1997, Groves was convicted of lascivious acts with a child in Polk County. In 2002, the legislature passed a statute prohibiting registered sex offenders, such as Groves, from residing “within two thousand feet of the real property comprising a public or nonpublic elementary or secondary school, or a child care facility.” 2002 Iowa Acts ch. 1157, § 1. On January 24, 2006, the State charged Groves with violating the residency restriction contained in section 692A.2A, alleging he lived within 2000 feet of a school.
Groves filed a motion to dismiss raising several constitutional challenges to section 692A.2A. The district court held a hearing on Groves’ motion to dismiss. The parties did not call any witnesses or present any evidence.
The district court overruled all but one of Groves’ constitutional challenges to the statute. In dismissing the trial information the court concluded, “the defendant’s rights to substantive due process have been violated by the application of this statute to him.” The court further found the “residency restrictions are a severe restriction of the defendant’s liberty rights” and characterized his liberty right as the “right to reside somewhere that meets basic 21st century living standards,” which includes “shelter from the elements with heat, electricity, sewer or septic and running water
. . . .”
The State filed its notice of appeal. In response to the State’s brief, Groves only argued the statute violated his substantive due process rights. He failed to argue any of the other constitutional grounds raised in his motion to dismiss. Therefore, we will only consider his substantive due process argument. See State v. Seering, 701 N.W.2d 655, 661 (Iowa 2005) (deeming certain constitutional arguments waived that had been raised in Seering’s motion to dismiss but not on appeal). ..more..
No comments:
Post a Comment