NJ- Secaucus law sex offenders voided

One way to interpret this ruling is, since initilly Megan's law merely required the publishing of name and address, is everything beyond that, also illegal? Think about that....

5-17-2009 New Jersey:

Supreme Court rules Megan’s Law is enough

The New Jersey Supreme Court has ruled that a 1994 state law to protect children from sex offenders is sufficient and that stricter municipal laws are unnecessary. The decision voids at least 120 municipal laws across New Jersey, including one in Secaucus, which restricted where sex offenders can live.

Under the Secaucus ordinance, first passed in 1995 and amended in 2005, sex offenders were barred from living within 2,500 feet of a school, park, playground, or daycare center.

Secaucus was not alone in limiting where sex offenders could live. Similar ordinances were passed throughout the state, with some towns also banning offenders from living near places of worship. In small municipalities, sex offenders were essentially barred from living in the town completely because there were so many places they could not live near.

The court ruling, handed down on May 7, now jeopardizes the future of offender residency restrictions.

Laws stemmed from landmark case

The municipal laws were intended to strengthen Megan’s Law, the landmark 1994 New Jersey law that requires sex offenders to register with local police after being released from prison. Offenders are required to give police their address, Social Security number, offender classification, a photo, details of the crimes, the ages of their victims, and other pertinent information.

Some of this information is then made available to the public online or at local police stations.

The law was passed after the murder of 7-year-old Megan Kanka of Hamilton, N.J. Kanka was kidnapped, raped, and killed by a neighbor, Jesse Timmendequas, a repeat sex offender who had been released from prison. After New Jersey passed the original Megan’s Law other states enacted their own versions of the law. There is also a national Megan’s Law.

Children’s and victim’s rights groups believed, however, that Megan’s Law didn’t go far enough to protect kids from predators, and began lobbying municipal governments to place further restrictions on sex offenders.

Case fought on behalf of college student

The Supreme Court ruling was unanimous, 6-0. While it voids the town ordinances, it has no impact on Megan’s Law itself, which remains in effect.

The decision stems from G.H. v. Galloway Township, a case filed in 2007 by Frank Corrado, a cooperating attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey. Corrado argued that municipalities had overreached their authority by enacting these ordinances.

“These laws were adopted with the best of intentions,” Corrado said. “But they’re ineffective because they tend to either force [offenders] to go underground, meaning people don’t register with local authorities, or they make it impossible for them to live in supportive environments that can help them lead productive lives within the bounds of the law. So they end up actually being counterproductive.”

The case was filed on behalf of G.H., now a senior at Richard Stockton College in Galloway, N.J. When G.H. was 15, he was caught having sexual relations with a 13-year-old girl and was convicted as a minor for improper sexual contact. Years later, after enrolling in college, police told G.H. that Galloway’s predator ordinance banned him from campus.

“One of the problems with these municipal ordinances is that they make no differentiation between Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III offenders,” Corrado said. “So even if you are the lowest level of offender, you’re still covered without regard for the risk of recidivism.”

Tier III offenders are considered to be the most dangerous predators who are most likely to reoffend, while Tier I offenders are considered the least dangerous. Under the state Megan’s Law, G.H. is classified as a Tier I offender and is not subject to lifetime parole like most sex offenders.

Looking to legislature

Local government leaders who still want tougher residency restrictions may now turn their attention to the state legislature.

“It’s too premature to comment fully on the decision,” said Town Attorney David Drumeler last week. “We’ll need to analyze what the Supreme Court said. My hope is the legislature will put something together that essentially says Megan’s Law is the floor and anything municipalities want to enact in addition to that is permissible.” ..News Source.. by E. Assata Wright