WI- AG Van Hollen: Dane County Circuit Court upholds constitutionality of Wisconsin's sex offender registration statute

Throughout the nation there are homeless people, homelessness is not something new. One would think lawmakers would have the mindset to address such a status specifically within these laws; it seems due process would require it. However, there is not one word addressing it in Wisconsin statutes. Given the judge said "registration is harder on homeless folks" I take that to mean they have to register more frequently than registrants with a fixed address.

The only difference between a fixed address and a non fixed address, is that police know where a registrant can be contacted. However, with a fixed address the registrant may or may not be there when the police wish to contact them. Apparently with a non fixed address Wisconsin wants those registrants to contact police more frequently. So the real issue is contact with police. What happens with homeless persons when they do contact police, this cannot be ascertained from the laws as written and the laws do not address a homeless situation.

Accordingly I cannot see how the judge could consider the law, as applied to a homeless person, constitutional; what basis, mere technicality of some sort? It appears clear that due process rights have been violated. i.e., the heart of due process is notice and here it is totally lacking on the part of the state.

Finally, it is well recognized that presence on the registry denies registrants all sort of opportunities to support oneself and comply with laws is included in that, is the omission of lawmakers purposeful, the real intent being to make as many registrants as possible INMATES and in Wisconsin subject to civil commitment (Internment a SMART Office Mission goal)?

5-28-2009 Wisconsin:

Yesterday, the Dane County Circuit Court, Judge Sarah O’Brien, presiding, issued a decision upholding the constitutionality of Wisconsin’s sex offender registration statute, Wis. Stat. § 301.45.

The defendant in this matter, Joseph M. Larue, is a registered sex offender. As a registered sex offender, Larue is required to register his home address with the Wisconsin Department of Corrections Sex Offender Registration Program. The State charged Larue with failing to keep an accurate address on file. In his defense, Larue claimed that he was homeless at the time of the alleged offense, and that his homeless status made the Sex Offender Registration statute unconstitutional as applied to him.

Judge O’Brien disagreed. She ruled that although the Sex Offender Registration statute may bear harder on homeless sex offenders, that effect is an unintentional consequence of the statute, and one that is backed by an important governmental purpose: protecting the public and helping law enforcement by keeping track of where sex offenders reside within the community.

“This decision validates the crucial importance of monitoring and tracking the whereabouts of sex offenders in the community," said Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen, whose office participated in the case along with the Dane County District Attorney’s Office. “Although the effect of this decision is limited to this individual case, it serves as a strong affirmation of the Department’s commitment to public safety,” said Van Hollen. ..News Source.. by WI DOJ




Judge: Sex Offender Registry Can Cover Homeless

Law Requires Offenders To Register Their Addresses

A judge said Wisconsin's sex offender registry law does not discriminate against homeless offenders.

Dane County Circuit Court Judge Sarah O'Brien said the law requiring offenders to register their addresses might be harder to follow for the homeless.

But she said that's an unintended consequence and outweighed by the government's interest in letting police and residents know where sex offenders live.

The ruling came in a case involving Joseph Larue, who is charged with failing to report his address to the registry between July and January.

The 43-year-old said he was sleeping outside of a Madison homeless shelter and the law is unconstitutional as applied to him and other homeless offenders. ..Source.. by Channel3000.com