October 31, 2008

MO- Court: Sex offender activities ban can go forward

This is such a blatant violation of civil rights of ALL Americans that there has got to be a political taint to this decision, someone is up for re-election, but who?

The ACLU had this to say: "ACLU lawyer Tony Rothert, who has been battling the law, said, “No one's turned us down on the merits, but I think procedurally we've run out of things to do.”" A PROCEDURAL BLOCK, not on the merits of the claims? Hummm...


10-31-2008 Missouri:

The American Civil Liberties Union failed once again today to block a new Missouri law that regulates the behavior of registered sex offenders on Halloween.

A Cole County judge this afternoon rejected a last-ditch effort to block the law, turning down the ACLU's request for a temporary restraining order, the Missouri Attorney General's office said.

ACLU lawyer Tony Rothert, who has been battling the law, said, “No one's turned us down on the merits, but I think procedurally we've run out of things to do.”

The four sex offenders suing to block implementation of the law won a temporary victory Monday, when a federal judge said that the parts of the law barring “Halloween-related contact” with children by offenders and requiring them to stay inside from 5-10:30 p.m. “unless required to be elsewhere for just cause” were too vague to be enforced.

Offenders were still required to turn off outside lights and post a sign that says “no candy or treats at this residence.”

But an appeals court stayed Jackson's ruling Thursday after Attorney General Jay Nixon, representing his office and that of Gov. Matt Blunt, appealed.

Rothert said they were unable to stop the law Friday. He said the ACLU was advising sex offenders in the state to check with local law enforcement to see how they would enforce the law. Some law enforcement officials have questioned whether it can be used against those who were convicted before the law went into effect. ..News Source.. by Robert Patrick, ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH

The Missouri law in question SB 714 s. 589.426 text, PDF

No comments: