John B. Doe challenges law

12-18-2007 Indiana:

A Tippecanoe County judge must decide whether a state law that ordered a sex offender to move from his Lafayette home provides protection for neighborhood children or punishes the offender.

It will be the key factor in whether a lawsuit filed by the man, a registered sex offender known only as John B. Doe in court documents, can proceed in Tippecanoe Superior Court 2.

Attorneys for the defendants, Tippecanoe County Prosecutor Pat Harrington and Sheriff Tracy Brown, requested a hearing to dismiss the complaint. The hearing was Monday morning.

The attorneys argued that a recent Indiana statute prohibiting those convicted of sex offenses against children from living within 1,000 feet of a school, youth program center or public park is in the community's best interest.

"If the law saves one, two or three children from being molested in a year, then that's rational," said Deputy State Attorney General Robert Wente, who represents Harrington.

John B. Doe -- convicted in 2000 of child seduction and released from near a church that offers programs for youths.

He has three more years until he no longer must be listed on Indiana's Sex and Violent Offender Registry.

His lawsuit is one of three complaints filed in Tippecanoe County questioning the law that forced 28 offenders here to move or be charged with a Class D felony. Deputy Prosecutor Laura Zeman said Monday that all the offenders have relocated.

A hearing for one of the other Tippecanoe County lawsuits, this one filed by the Indiana Civil Liberties Union under the alias John Doe, also was held Monday in Tippecanoe Circuit Court.

John B. Doe's attorney, Earl McCoy of Lafayette, questioned the logic of the law, which took effect July 1, 2006. His client is allowed to visit his home, where he had lived with his wife and stepchildren for about six years, any time of day.

That includes daytime hours when children are headed to school, and afternoon when they are coming home.

"He can be there all day. He just can't sleep there," McCoy said. "Nothing about this law is protecting the children."

He also argued that the law constitutes punishment because, if John B. Doe settles in a new home, nothing in Indiana's statute would prevent neighbors from hosting youth programs such as Boy Scout or Girl Scout meetings.

"They can create a situation to oust a neighbor if they want to," McCoy said. "There's no guarantee. That's our concern."

Judge Thomas Busch, who is presiding over the complaint, also questioned whether the law is a step too far.

"Of course, there's extreme punishment where we could banish all of them to Australia or if you were to cut off the hands of a thief," he said. "But isn't there some point where even though the motive is protection of children, the action is punishment?"

Another hearing is scheduled in January. ..more.. by SOPHIA VORAVONG




Sex offenders test housing restrictions
Lawsuits challenge restrictions on living within 1,000 feet of certain places
12-21-2007 Indiana:

LAFAYETTE, Ind. -- A judge will decide whether a state law that can force sex offenders to move protects children or unduly punishes offenders.

The issue is key to a lawsuit filed in Tippecanoe Superior Court by a registered sex offender identified in documents as John B. Doe.

Doe, who was convicted of child seduction in 2000 and released from probation the next year, was forced to move from his home near a church that offers youth programs. The move was dictated by a state law that prohibits convicted sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of a school, public park or youth program center.

His attorney, Earl McCoy of Lafayette, argued the law unfairly punishes sex offenders while doing little to protect children from molesters. McCoy said Doe is allowed to visit his home, where he had lived with his wife and stepchildren for about six years, any time of day.

"He can be there all day. He just can't sleep there," McCoy said. "Nothing about this law is protecting the children."

Attorneys for the defendants -- Tippecanoe County Prosecutor Pat Harrington and Sheriff Tracy Brown, who had moved to dismiss the lawsuit -- argued in a hearing this week that the law serves the community's best interest.

"If the law saves one, two or three children from being molested in a year, then that's rational," said Robert Wente, a deputy attorney general representing Harrington.

But McCoy argued the law is unfair because Doe could be forced to move again if his new neighbors decided to host youth programs such as Scout meetings.

Judge Thomas Busch, who will decide whether the lawsuit can proceed, asked during Monday's hearing where the line between punishing offenders and protecting children lies.

"Of course, there's extreme punishment where we could banish all of them to Australia or if you were to cut off the hands of a thief," he said. "But isn't there some point where even though the motive is protection of children, the action is punishment?"

Doe's lawsuit is one of three filed in Tippecanoe County challenging the law that forced 28 sex offenders there to move. Deputy Prosecutor Laura Zeman said all of them have relocated.

In a summary judgment hearing involving a different sex offender Monday in Tippecanoe Circuit Court, attorney Ken Falk of the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana said his client has become homeless since he was forced to leave the childhood home he had shared with his mother.

"Even if there is not a punitive purpose behind the statute, it does have a punitive effect," Falk said.

Neither judge ruled immediately on whether the respective lawsuits can proceed.
A month ago, the Georgia Supreme Court declared unconstitutional a state law restricting where convicted sex offenders may live.

It forbade offenders from living within 1,000 feet of a school, playground, church, school bus stop or other place where children might assemble. The court said the restrictions amounted to practical banishment. ..more.. by Associated Press