NJ- N.J. court rejects sex-offender residency bans

Folks, I could not resist. The NJ high court said "local residency ordinances frustrate the purpose of Megan's law" invalidating all local residency ordinances.

So lawmakers say, "OK, we will give the power to local authorities to enact local residency laws (read article below), or state lawmakers will create a statewide residency law."

Am I missing something here? What makes lawmakers think that the high court -after new local ordinaces are enacted- by whatever means, will not declare those ordinances illegal?

Hence, my grapic as applied to lawmakers.

5-10-2009 New Jersey:

The New Jersey Supreme Court yesterday invalidated about 120 municipal ordinances that restricted where convicted sex offenders could live.
In its four-page opinion, the court merely upheld a lower court ruling that nullified sex-offender residency laws in Cherry Hill and Galloway Township, Atlantic County.

But the unanimous decision was seen as the last word in a four-year battle over whether towns have the right to ban sex offenders from living in certain areas.

State politicians on both sides of the aisle quickly responded to the court's ruling, noting that four bills with bipartisan support are pending in the Legislature to give towns the ability to create "pedophile-free zones."

Sen. Bill Baroni (R., Mercer) said the court's ruling "prevents towns from defending their most vulnerable citizens from predators."

Courts have consistently held that the local ordinances do more harm than good because they interfere with the statewide Megan's Law, a complex scheme established to handle paroled sex offenders.

Under that law - named for Megan Kanka, a 7-year-old Mercer County girl raped and murdered in 1994 by a neighbor who was a convicted sex offender - those with sex-crime records must register with local authorities.

The information in the registry cannot be used to deny housing to offenders, but the courts found that is what the local ordinances did.

The Cherry Hill ordinance made virtually the entire township off-limits to those convicted of a sex offense.

The courts found that local ordinances could frustrate sex offenders' attempts to find stable housing and employment, and could increase the risk of reoffending.

Severely restricting where sex offenders can live has not been shown to deter them from committing similar crimes, said Frank Corrado, who represented the offender who challenged the Galloway ordinance.

"The net impact is to drive them underground," he said.

Dan Keashen, an aide to Cherry Hill Mayor Bernie Platt, said giving municipalities the right to make their own rules regarding sex offenders is "common-sense legislation."

"Local elected officials are the ones on the ground. They're the ones who hold public safety as a core mission," he said.

When arguing before the Supreme Court, Cherry Hill's attorney asked the justices to provide guidance on how the township could modify its ordinance to satisfy the court.

In their written opinion, the justices refused to "answer hypothetical questions about un-enacted ordinances."

In 2005, Cherry Hill and Galloway passed nearly identical laws that banned convicted sex offenders from living within 2,500 feet of schools, parks, churches, or other places where children might congregate.

Two sex offenders in Cherry Hill and one in Galloway - a Richard Stockton College freshman who violated the law when he moved into his dorm - quickly challenged.

The offenders in Cherry Hill, James Barclay and Jeffrey Finguerra, were living in the Hillside Motel on Route 38 with the approval of their parole officers.

The challenges became test cases for municipalities across the state that had enacted or were considering similar restrictions on sex offenders.

In a March interview, Richard Kanka, the father of Megan Kanka, said he thought some townships had gone "to the extreme" in limiting where sex offenders could live.

"No one wants them, but they have to live somewhere," he said. "My main concern is, we don't want them hanging around schools and bus stops. That would be like having an alcoholic living next to a liquor store. It's too tempting."

Keashen said Cherry Hill leaders now would turn their attention to getting a law passed in the Legislature, but he said he recognized that questions would remain about how far municipalities could go without clashing with Megan's Law.

"The issue isn't going to go away," he said. "We're going to continue the public discourse." ..News Source.. by Troy Graham, Inquirer Staff Writer