CO- Greeley leaders to vote on sex offender residency law

2-1-2009 Colorado:

We’re taught the signs from a young age.

If a stranger offers you candy, you decline and run away.

In fact, there’s a whole tradition of people telling their children how to deal with sex offenders. The tales are filled with men who live in vans, preying on young children, and ones who prowl playgrounds, lollipops in hand.

In reality, sex offenders are also a real problem.

But there’s no handbook on how adults should deal with sex offenders, particularly those who have seemingly already paid their debt to society.

So this week, when Greeley officials meet to decide if they should stop sex offenders in the city from living near schools or parks, the council will have a lot to weigh — public safety and individual civil liberties chief among them.

A few other communities already have decided, and three cities in Colorado — Englewood, Commerce City and Greenwood Village — already ban sex offenders from living or loitering near schools, playgrounds, day cares or other places children frequent.

Greeley considering keeping sex offenders from schools

Greeley City Council will consider two ordinances when it meets Tuesday night. One would stop sex offenders from loitering near schools, parks, pools and playgrounds. Another ordinance would stop sex offenders from living within 750 feet — about one block — of Greeley’s school, parks, pools and playgrounds. The ordinances are meant to be companion pieces, to be passed together, said Greeley City Attorney Rick Brady, but the council can also pass one, the other or neither.

Brady said his staff, when crafting the ordinances, recommended that the minimum distance sex offenders would be allowed to be from schools and other places where kids gather would be 500 feet to be most effective. He added that the maximum distance, in order to allow sex offenders some place in Greeley to live and likely preserve the ordinance’s constitutionality, would be 1,000 feet.

Brady said he and his staff have pored over 1,000 pages of background on similar types of laws around the United States to come up with the best solution.

“The people in Greeley are no better and no worse than anywhere in the country,” Brady said, saying there is no special need for Greeley to have an ordinance while others do not.

The law — if passed by the city council — would not be retroactive for sex offenders in Greeley. In other words, sex offenders living in Greeley, even those who already live near schools, would be able to stay in their homes as long as they don’t re-offend or move.

“It’s always a balancing act,” Brady said of the rights of sex offenders, who have paid their debt to society and the public safety need. “It’s where that balance is ... (those rights) are not perpetually guaranteed.”

Indeed, many in law enforcement are of the opinion that restricting sex offender residency near children is crucial to keeping kids safe.

“We have got currently over 250 registered sex offenders in Greeley, which I think is way too many,” Greeley police chief Jerry Garner said. “My very honest, forthright goal is to make Greeley a less comfortable place for sex offenders. I want to make it less pleasant for them to live in Greeley.”

Garner said the ordinances are aimed at reducing the number of victims of sex crimes.

“I’m very aware of the arguments against it, and that’s why I don’t make the claim that it’s going to wipe out sex crimes in Greeley,” he said. “But if I can wipe out a few, I’m happy.”

Commerce City: A case study

“There is a sense of, ‘how long do these people have to pay for their crime?’ ” said Commerce City Police Chief Phil Baca.

A law in Commerce City that prohibits offenders from living within 1,000 feet of schools, parks, playgrounds, recreation centers and public trails has been effective in keeping sex offenders away from schools, Baca said.

“It helps allay the fears of the community,” he said. “We know where they live and work.”

Baca said he is of the opinion, one he said most residents share, that most sex offenders — up to 80 percent — will re-offend. Commerce City also has a loitering law.

But though some may question the constitutionality of such laws, Baca said generally reasonable rules regarding where sex offenders may live have been upheld by courts. In the meantime, no one has challenged Commerce City’s law, and Baca said he’s never heard of sex offenders themselves raising their voices.

“I don’t think they’d get much support,” Baca said. “I don’t think they want the confrontation.”

Englewood law broader

At least one city in Colorado, however, has been the target of threats of lawsuits from sex offenders and civil liberty organizations: Englewood.

Englewood’s law is broader than both Commerce City’s and the one proposed in Greeley. Englewood prevents sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of schools, parks and playgrounds and 1,000 feet from recreation centers, swimming pools and day cares.

Their law leaves almost no place in Englewood where sex offenders can live, said Englewood police Sgt. Tim Englert.

“I think (Englewood) city council wants to limit people of that type in the city,” Englert said.

Indeed, Englewood will also only allow sex offenders to live in their community if they have only a single, misdemeanor offense on their records. Sex offenders who are felons or multiple misdemeanor offenders need not apply, Englert said.

Since adopting the law 1 1/2 years ago, the number of sex offenders in Englewood has dropped from around 70 to about 60, he said.

“We’re reducing it by attrition,” Englert said.

Greeley law meant to fill the gaps

Greeley’s law is aimed at filling the gaps that sex offenders off probation or parole may fall through, law enforcement authorities said.

Greeley Police Department Sex Offender Unit investigator Terry Moore said the laws won’t affect all sex offenders, as many are already prohibited from living near schools, parks or other premises where children gather.

“It has to be approved by their probation officer or parole before they can do that,” he said.

However, if offenders serve their sentences and complete their probation and parole terms, current law allows them to live wherever they want.

The proposed law “is basically going to cover people that aren’t under supervision of probation or parole,” Moore said.

Are these legal?

More than 25 states in the United States have adopted statewide laws dealing with where sex offenders can live. Colorado is not one of them.

But a 2004 study by Colorado’s Department of Public Safety says placing restrictions on where sex offenders can live may not deter reoffense and shouldn’t be considered a method to control sex offenders.

Often, however, the more prohibitive the law is for restricting where sex offenders can live, the more likely it is a judge will strike it down in court.

On Jan. 23, for instance, a judge overturned a local law that prevented sex offenders from being within 100 feet of schools and other places where children gather, according to the Associated Press.

New York state law says only local probation officers can decide where sex offenders can live.

And in 2007, Georgia’s supreme court overturned a law that kept sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of schools, churches and places where children gather.

But as some states overturn or scale the laws back, communities keep passing these kinds of laws, and it may give some residents a false sense of security.

Alienation a bigger worry?

Dr. Jill Levenson, a assistant professor with Lynn University in Florida, said new research indicates that there is no relation between sex offenders re-offending and their proximity to a school.

“I think that what happens is these laws sound good in theory,” Levenson said. But there’s no real empirical evidence backing up the claim that it stops sexual offenses, she said.

About 80 percent of sex offenders are first-time offenders, she said.

What would help children more, Levenson said, is for parents to help each other notice suspicious behaviors like giving children money or presents or allowing children to drink or smoke.

In fact, Levenson said, factors such as housing instability and unemployment make it more likely an offender will commit another crime, and laws restricting their residency could simply be putting other children at danger — children in rural communities.

As communities create these laws and push people out of their cities or towns, they are moving into rural communities, where support is far less and supervision is harder to regulate, Levenson said.

“Most of us don’t want any criminals in our backyard,” Levenson said. “Criminals have always lived among us.” ..News Source.. by Andrew Villegas