NH- Sexual offender denied motion for injunction in Franklin

4-17-2009 New Hampshire:

FRANKLIN - The city of Franklin's restrictions on where registered sex offenders can live remains in force, at least until its challenger gets his day in court.

A Merrimack County Superior Court judge ruled against Frank Singleton III's request to stop the city from enforcing its residency restrictions until his challenge to Code 247 is decided.

"The Court finds that the public interest will be adversely affected if the preliminary injunction is granted," writes Judge David B. Sullivan in a three -page ruling.

Singleton, who is in jail after being convicted twice of failing to register as a sex offender in both Tilton and Northfield, had asked to be released while his suit wends it way through the state court system.

Singleton's lawyer, Barbara Keshen of the N.H. Civil Liberties Union, had filed for temporary relief, stating that Singleton has been "stigmatized" in prison as a sex offender and the "conditions of his confinement have deteriorated."

Eligible for parole in January, Singleton remains in the N.H. State Prison because his only choice of residences is with his fiancee and their three children at 50 West Bow St. — an apartment closer to Franklin High School that the 2,500-foot distance mandated in Code 247.

(eAdvocate Post)

Franklin City Attorney Paul Fitzgerald successfully argued that any harm that comes to Singleton while he is in prison "goes directly to his conviction" and his alleged suffering "is not the fault of the city of Franklin."

Judge Sullivan said four conditions must be met in order for the Court to grant an injunction that would stop the city from enforcing its ordinance. His ruling addressed all four separately.

The first is that Singleton establish a likelihood of success on the merits, to which Sullivan said the case in its entirety would need to be decided first.

Secondly, Singleton needed to prove "immediate danger of irreparable harm" that outweighs any harm that could come to residents of the city.

"...the [city] has introduced evidence that even if the court enjoined the enforcement of the ordinance [Singleton's] parole officer might not allow him to live where he wishes in Franklin," Sullivan ruled, referring to an additional parole stipulation that Singleton not be around minor females unattended.

The third requirement for enjoinment is that there is no adequate remedy at law, to which Sullivan agrees, writing "the court finds that [Singleton] has no adequate remedy..." and "will remain in prison so long as the city of Franklin's sex offender ordinance is in place, or until he and his fiancee find alternative housing."

Finally, Singleton had to show the public interest would not be adversely affected if he were allowed to live at 50 West Bow St.

"The public interest in protecting children from sexual predators will be undermined if the petitioner is released from prison and allowed to reside on West Bow Street in Franklin, well within 2,500 feet of a school," concluded Sullivan. ..News Source.. by GAIL OBER