OH- Ruling could change where offenders live

2-23-2008 Ohio:

MOUNT VERNON — The Ohio Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the law prohibiting sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of a school does not apply retroactively. It will be up to local officials to interpret the ruling and decide whether or not some registered sex offenders in Knox County are now allowed to live within that 1,000-foot radius.

In a 6-to-1 decision, the court ruled that any registered sex offender who bought a home and committed the offense before July 31, 2003, is not bound by the 1,000-foot barrier.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Thomas Moyer said that because the law did not specifically say it was meant to be enforced retroactively, it could not constitutionally be applied to those who had already committed their offenses before 2003.

Knox County Prosecutor John Thatcher said that this decision is the binding authority and “the prosecutors office will not file legal action against registered offenders who bought their home and committed their offenses before 2003.”

Thatcher added, “I personally disagree with the majorities conclusion that the statute doesn’t include a declaration that the law was meant to be retroactive.”

A review of the sexual offender registry reveals that there are 32 registered sex offenders in Knox County who committed their offenses before the 2003 cutoff date. It is unknown how many, if any, of those offenders bought a home before 2003 that lies within 1,000 feet of school property.

The Supreme Court case involved a Hamilton County man convicted of sexual imposition in 1995 and sexual battery in 1999. Gerry R. Porter Jr., had owned his home for 14 years, when after passage of the 1,000-foot barrier law, local prosecutors forced him to leave the home he and his wife and two children lived in.

Margie Slagle of the Ohio Justice and Police Center, the Cincinnati based organization who represented Porter, told the News that Porter was “delighted” by the decision and has already moved back in with his family.

“I expect to see an awful lot of offenders go back to their homes and their families,” said Slagle.

Slagle said that an “amicus curiae” (Latin for “friend of court”) brief was filed by several independent organizations on Porter’s behalf. She said the brief “had a real effect on the decision because the justices mentioned it several times during the argument.”

The brief was endorsed by the University of Cincinnati College of Law, the Iowa County Attorneys Association, the Iowa Coalition Against Sexual Assault, the Iowa State Sheriffs and Deputies Association, and several other victim’s rights organizations.

In it, the brief argues that Ohio’s law banning offenders from living within 1,000 feet of a school “may significantly increase the danger that sex offenders will [re-offend] by depriving them of housing and decreasing their access to social services and support networks.”

The brief cited a widely reported study conducted by the State of Minnesota that found that residential restrictions “would not reduce sex offender recidivism.”

The Minnesota Department of Corrections released a report in April, 2007 which examined 224 cases of recidivism (repeat offenses) among sex offenders and concluded that “not one of the 224 sex offenders would likely have been deterred by a residency restrictions law.”

The amicus brief says that residence restrictions laws are “driven by fear, not facts.”

“A 2000 Department of Justice study found that 93 percent of child sexual abuse victims knew their abuser, 34.2 percent were family members, and 58.7 percent were acquaintances. In the 2007 Minnesota study, the vast majority (79 percent) of [repeat offenders] selected victims with whom they had a previous relationship — whether social or biological.”

Currently, the Ohio Justice and Policy Center has filed a class action lawsuit in Hamilton County on the behalf of local registered offenders and is arguing that sex offender residency laws are actually doing more harm than good to Ohio communities. While the case is still pending, the OJPC suit intends to prove that the retroactive portions are unconstitutional and should be overturned.

Slagle said that no date has yet been set for courts to review the case. ..more.. by Anton Hepler, News Staff Reporter