FL- Judge rules Miami-Dade sex-offender residency law is valid

No shock here, tourism is income for the area, income controls what decisions are made by LOCAL courts and LOCAL judges. The ACLU is pressuring the wrong people here, as I have mentioned before.

9-17-2009 Florida:

The American Civil Liberties Union of Florida failed to persuade a Miami-Dade circuit court judge to undo strict local ordinances that forced a group of convicted sex offenders to live under the Julia Tuttle Causeway.

In the suit, filed against Miami-Dade County, the ACLU argued Thursday the county's ordinance banning sex predators from living within 2,500 feet of schools conflicts with a state statute that sets the boundary at 1,000 feet.

Essentially, the ACLU claimed there was an ``implied preemption'' by the Legislature that local municipalities' ordinances would fall in line with the state's law.

But Miami-Dade Attorney Tom Logue countered that, if that were true, the Legislature would have clearly inserted the preemption into the statute.

In fact, Logue pointed out, over the past few years, various lawmakers have tried and failed to change the sex offender residency restrictions to make local ordinances more consistent with state law.

That effort -- and its repeated failure to pass snuff in the Legislature -- demonstrates there was nothing in the original statute -- even intended -- that would prohibit municipalities from drawing up their own restrictions.

The ACLU, however, implored Judge Pedro P. Encharte Jr. to consider one intent expressed in the statute: that the law was designed to protect children from convicted sex offenders and predators.

They and others have long claimed that by forcing the molesters to abide by the 2,500-foot rule -- which has been passed across South Florida -- it makes it impossible for the predators to find a decent place to live. By doing so, it fails to protect children because it forces the molesters to disappear and abscond so law enforcement and the public can't track them at all.

``This is a terrible policy and cannot be what the Legislature intended,'' said Maria Kayanan, who argued the ACLU case on behalf of two residents who lived under the bridge.

She said the recent efforts by state lawmakers shows they realize the state's 2005 statue needs to be fixed.

``The statute could not have intended to push sex offenders under a bridge,'' she told the judge.

Logue, in turn, told the judge the ACLU's arguments rely upon a lot of ``mind reading.'' In the end, Encharte agreed.

``The county's ordinance is a valid exercise of its local power,'' he said.

The ACLU, which already anticipated an appeal, said they would take their case to a higher court.

``This is a classic story of unintended consequences,'' said Howard Simon, executive director of the ACLU of Florida.

Ron Book, a state lobbyist who fought for the stringent local ordinances, applauded the judge's decision, saying the ACLU's argument was fundamentally flawed.

``There is no provision in the law that prohibits local municipalities from enacting their own ordinances,'' he said. ..Source.. by JULIE BROWN