The case, State of Missouri v. Charles A. Raynor, doesn’t really center on the constitutionality of the Halloween restrictions, but on whether they are being applied retrospectively to Charles Raynor, who had to register as a sex offender when he moved to Missouri, because of a 1988 conviction in the state of Washington. (Briefs are available at the above link)
12-3-2009 Missouri:
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. -- A central Missouri prosecutor urged the state Supreme Court on Wednesday to let him prosecute a man accused of violating restrictions on sex offenders' Halloween activities.
Charles Raynor of Mexico, Mo., was charged with a misdemeanor after police saw a woman handing out candy on Halloween from his house. Raynor was convicted about two decades ago in Washington state for indecent liberties with a child who was younger than 14.
A Missouri trial judge dismissed the misdemeanor charge against Raynor for violating the state's Halloween restrictions because the rules were established after the initial sex crime conviction.
A 2008 state law requires sex offenders to avoid all Halloween-related contact with children, remain at home, leave outdoor house lights off and post a sign stating: "No candy or treats at this residence." Violators can face up to one year in jail and a $1,000 fine.
Audrain County prosecutor Jacob Shellabarger argued Wednesday the Halloween requirements are "collateral consequences" that can be imposed for prior convictions.
But public defender Ellen Flottman said the Halloween restrictions cannot be applied to Raynor because they impose duties and restrictions that did not exist when he was initially convicted.
The case was the most recent in which the court is faced with deciding how to implement new policies for people convicted of sex offenses.
At issue is a provision in the Missouri Constitution that bars lawmakers from passing "retrospective" laws.
That part of the constitution has factored into several cases, such as whether sex offenders are required to register and if sex offenders can be forced to live more than 1,000 feet away from schools and child care centers.
Several judges Wednesday asked about the point at which additional restrictions for sex offenders becomes new punishment. Judge Laura Denvir Stith, for example, proposed the hypothetical of a more extreme version of the Halloween rules that restricts sex offenders from going outside during summer evenings because children would be playing.
Missouri's Halloween restrictions also have been challenged in federal court by the American Civil Liberties Union of Eastern Missouri on behalf of several sex offenders. A federal district judge sided against the state in that case but those proceedings have been stalled.
The ACLU, in a written argument submitted to the court in support of Raynor, said there is no evidence suggesting children are at greater risk on Halloween, and no proof that the restrictions on sex offenders will protect anyone. The ACLU also contends that requiring people to remain in their homes on a specific day amounts to house arrest, which qualifies as a punishment. ..Source.. CHRIS BLANK
1 comment:
By stating the new restrictions requirements are "collateral consequences" that can be imposed for prior convictions, the prosecution is admitting that they are aware that these restrictions passed in 2008 are added punishment after the fact and therefore violate both the U.S. and Missouri Constitutions ban on retroactive punishments. Perhaps he would be better served to choose his words more carefully?
Post a Comment