GA- Shop owner not allowed to work at his store because it is too close to building used as a church

Ah yes, the vindictive Georgia Gov. is at work again. Hummm, as I have read the law and find nothing in it that prevents a person from going to church or any other prohibited place mentioned in the law, then I see no problem with this BUSINESS OWNER from going to his business every day. All he must do is, not take a salary, and in so doing he is not working within the prohibited distance.

In addition, given that the legislature recinded the old law, rendered it a nullity, then enacted a new law, then business ownership -likened to home ownership- should be excluded from the new law under the ruling of the Georgia Supreme court. Since the intent of the legislature is supposed to be first in a court case, and we all know that the legislature here is just vindictive to this class, then the real governmental interest being protected, is not children, instead, its the controlling personalities of the legislature, children is thrown in as a mere pretext. Their interest should fail and he shoulg get to opeate his business.

5-24-2008 Georgia:

Less than a week after Gov. Sonny Perdue signed a revamped version of a law limiting where convicted sex offenders may live and work, a challenge has been filed asking the Fulton County Superior Court to declare the law unconstitutional.

According to a complaint filed May 19, Jefferson shopkeeper Narinder Chahal, whose business is within 1,000 feet of a church, has been ordered by the Jackson County sheriff not to mind his store unless he's ready to go to jail.

According to the complaint filed by his attorney, L. David Wolfe, Chahal pleaded guilty in 2003 to one count of transporting obscene matter to a minor in federal court in Atlanta. He served 21 months in prison and three years of supervised release, and was required to sign up with the Georgia's Sex Offender Registry.

The conviction involved “e-mailing a picture over the Internet,” said Wolfe.

Chahal and his wife subsequently acquired Chicken King, a convenience store across the street from a building that hosts church services on Sundays and Wednesday nights, according to the suit.

According to public notices and the secretary of state's office, the business was chartered in February 2007.

“They didn't know about the quote-unquote church at the time,” said Wolfe. But a few months ago, he said, Jackson County Sheriff Stan Evans notified Chahal that he was not permitted to work in the store under Georgia law.

Under a 2003 law, sex offenders are barred from living within 1,000 feet of a school, playground, gym or other site where children are likely to gather. In 2006, the Georgia Legislature passed a new law adding swimming pools, school-bus stops and churches to the list and—for the first time—barring such individuals from working within 1,000 feet of a church, school or child-care center.

Challenged in a federal class action by the Southern Center for Human Rights and the American Civil Liberties Union, some of the residency provisions pertaining to bus stops and churches were temporarily halted in 2006, but were then allowed to resume.

Lawsuits were also filed around the state by people who had been forced out of their homes and jobs by the law, and last November the Georgia Supreme Court struck down the residency restrictions regarding property owners. But the court left in place the business restrictions, ruling in Mann v. Georgia Department of Corrections, 282 Ga. 754, that a person can own a business and still not be in violation of actually working within 1,000 feet of the prohibited sites.

The General Assembly this year re-wrote the law, exempting property owners or workers who already lived or worked within a restricted area but prohibiting any offenders from moving into or taking a job at a business within the off-limits areas.

But the legislation, Senate Bill 1, only grandfathers in such individuals who worked or lived in the restricted areas prior to July 1, 2006—which places Chahal in violation.

“I had been waiting to see what the governor would do,” said Wolfe, who said he had prepared the suit “a while back” but refrained from filing until Perdue's May 13 signing of the bill.

According to the complaint, the Chahals have two hired employees to operate the Chicken King from 5 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. Monday through Saturday; afterward—until the sheriff issued his warning—Chahal would take over until the store's 8 p.m. closing time. His wife works another full-time job and is unable to work at the store, which is closed on Sundays.

The early-shift employees cannot work past 2:30 p.m., writes Wolfe, and Chahal and his wife cannot afford to hire another employee to work in the afternoons.

Since it has had to close in the afternoons, says the complaint, the store has lost a “substantial portion of its income,” and the wife's income cannot meet the household's expenses.

Chahal has also recently undergone heart surgery and is “unable to find other suitable employment,” is says.

Wolfe's filing challenges the law on two grounds. Because, he says, the store is closed during the times the nearby building is serving as a church, his client should not be considered in violation because the building is not a “church” for the purposes of the law.

And, he writes, Chahal has been deprived of his right to “possess, use, enjoy and dispose of” his property, in violation of the Georgia Constitution.

Chahal was unaware that the store was near a church when he bought it, said Wolfe, and the business was up and running before the sheriff contacted him. Chahal's federal probation officer also tried to intercede on Chahal's behalf, said Wolfe, and has spoken to the sheriff's office about the case, but had been unable to resolve the issue.

“It's like those mandatory minimum cases where the judge really can't decide based on the facts of an individual case,” he said.

A call to the Jackson County Sheriff's Department was referred to Maj. David Cochran, who did not respond to a detailed message left on his voice-mail.

Chahal's is the only case Wolfe has handled challenging the law, he said. But Sarah Geraghty, an attorney with the Southern Center, reviewed the suit at the Daily Report's request and said is seemed to raise convincing arguments.

“I'm impressed,” she said. “This is a very well-written brief, and I'd say it has a good chance of succeeding.”

Geraghty and the Southern Center filed an amended complaint in federal court challenging the new law moments after it was passed, arguing that the legislation discriminates against renters who can be forced to move, and are not grandfathered in; that it treats all sex offenders the same, whether they are serious threats to children or simply teenagers who engage in consensual sex; and that it unduly burdens nursing home residents or other aged or ill individuals who may pose no threat to the community.

The Chahal case, she said, illustrates another problem area with the law.

“Here's a man, gainfully employed, owns his own business, who can't work because he's near a church that's not even open when his business is,” she said.

“It's further evidence of a poorly drafted, overly restrictive law,” said Geraghty.

The case is Chahal v. Georgia Department of Corrections, No. 2008CV150901. ..more.. by Staff Reporter Greg Land can be reached at gland@alm.com