NH- Sex-offender limits to have day in court

4-1-2008 New Hampshire:

When then-Mayor Bernie Streeter vetoed an ordinance right before leaving office that would have established residency restrictions for registered sex offenders, one of the reasons he cited was the likelihood that it would be challenged in court.

It turns out he was right.

On Wednesday, the New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union filed suit in Strafford County Superior Court against the city of Dover, arguing that its residency ordinance was unconstitutional and subjected released sex offenders to "arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable restrictions."

Dover enacted an ordinance in 2005 that prohibited sex offenders from living within 2,500 feet of a school or day-care center. The ordinance carries penalties of a $500 fine for a first offense and $1,000 for each subsequent offense.

Barbara Keshen, a staff attorney for the union, claims in the suit that the 2,500-foot restriction places off limits all of the city's downtown, which is where "all of the affordable housing is located."

As a result, she said, the ordinance, in effect, prohibits registered sex offenders from living anywhere in the city.

The suit was filed on behalf of a 41-year-old man who pleaded guilty in 2000 to a felonious sexual assault charge involving a 15-year-old, which resulted in a two- to four-year sentence in state prison.

When he moved into a Dover apartment sometime after his release and registered with police at his new address, he was charged with violating the city's residency ordinance. A hearing on that violation has been scheduled for June 3 in Dover District Court.

As some may recall, a divided Nashua Board of Aldermen voted 7-6 in late December to approve a similar ordinance that would have restricted where certain convicted sex offenders could live in the city.

Under the ordinance, which was introduced by then-Alderman-at-Large Jim Tollner, convicted sex offenders would have been restricted from living within 1,000 feet of city day-care centers, schools and parks.

After being amended, the ordinance would have applied only to those offenders who had never lived in Nashua and whose victims were younger than 13.

But Streeter, in one of his final acts before leaving office, vetoed the ordinance Jan. 2. An attempt to override the veto three days later fell one short of the necessary 10 votes, 9-3.

At the time, we expressed several reservations about the ordinance, which we did not believe would prove to be particularly effective in meeting its intended goal: keeping the city's children safe.

We feared such an ordinance could have a detrimental effect on the registration process, driving more sex offenders underground and making it more difficult for law enforcement to track their whereabouts. In fact, that was one of the reasons why the Nashua Police Department took a position against the ordinance.

We also noted that studies show family members and acquaintances – not strangers – are responsible for about nine of every 10 sex assaults against children. Such an ordinance would do little, if anything, to address the larger problem.

Still, given the popularity of these types of ordinances here and around the country, the fact that the civil liberties union is challenging the issue in court might be a good thing.

A court ruling could go a long way in determining whether these kind of ordinances can pass constitutional muster. ..more.. by Editorial Nashua Telegraph

BACKGROUND: The New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union has gone to court to challenge the constitutionality of sex-offender residency restrictions in Dover.

CONCLUSION: Good. A court ruling might help to clarify the constitutional aspects of these kind of measures once for and for all.