ACLU calls proposed child safety zones 'unlawful'

6-10-2010 Connecticut:

A proposal to establish “child safety zones” in town that would bar registered sex offenders from places like playgrounds and sports facilities has been called a violation of civil rights by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

The proposed ordinance is currently in limbo before the Representative Town Meeting (RTM), though two previous attempts to get it through were met with resistance from inside the body over concerns that it could leave the town vulnerable to a legal challenge.

In its current form, the ordinance would bar people who are registered sex offenders from entering places such as public playgrounds, recreation or teen centers, sports facilities, playing fields and schools. Those who violate the ordinance would be subject to a $100 fine.

In an earlier draft of the proposal, entire areas like schools and town beaches were included. Exceptions were later added to allow sex offenders to enter these places if, for instance, they were the site for voting. Registered offenders with children of their own would be allowed to enter schools for situations involving their children, such as early dismissal or a parent teacher conference. Public libraries, which were initially considered for inclusion among the safety zones, are now removed from the list as are beaches, except around the playgrounds.

Once people are no longer listed as sex offenders on the state registry, they would no longer be subject to the ordinance. The RTM has twice rejected this ordinance due to concerns it was too broadly written. But with new, revised language from the town attorney’s office, it will be reconsidered by the RTM.

However, even with the changes to the proposed ordinance, concerns from the ACLU continue. Andrew Schneider, executive director of the ACLU’s Connecticut chapter, said he was “deeply concerned” about both the constitutional issues and what he termed as the “likely ineffectiveness” of protecting children from predators. In a letter to Douglas Wells, chairman of the RTM’s Legislative and Rules Committee, he wrote: “We believe that the proposed ordinance not only violates state and federal law, but is also poor public policy.”

The ordinance has also come under fire in town, and not just from people who feel it goes too far. There are also those who think it doesn’t go far enough. When first introduced, community activist and local radio host Sam Romeo was one of the ordinance’s biggest proponents. Now, however, he feels it’s been “watered down” and he isn’t even optimistic the current version will pass.

“I suppose that half a law is better than no law, but I’m not optimistic that the RTM will see the light,” Mr. Romeo told the Post on Monday. “People are too concerned that we’re going to be sued, but no one has ever been able to make a case on how this ordinance hurts people.”

The ACLU said that because the ordinance would affect areas that are commonly used for free speech and congregation, it would have a “chilling effect on free speech and association rights,” which would be in violation of the Constitution.

Additionally, Mr. Schneider said the ordinance would violate the rights of those who register to travel freely within the state by not allowing them to go where the public is allowed. However, those rights are already curtailed since people who have had to register as sex offenders cannot change their places of residence without first notifying police. Supporters of the ordinance say that it would not curtail the rights any more than existing law already does, it would just provide safer areas for children.

Mr. Wells has reviewed the letter and said that he believed steps have been taken throughout the process of adjusting the ordinance’s language to address possible legal challenges to it.

Mr. Wells didn’t indicate how much of an impact the letter will have on future deliberations.

“I would never ignore anything from the ACLU,” Mr. Wells said. “The RTM should know that the ACLU has taken an interest in the ordinance that is being considered. I will make sure this letter is discussed as part of the introductory remarks for the RTM’s call when this is introduced again.”

Mr. Romeo said the timing of the ACLU’s concerns are fishy, saying it could well be another case of Greenwich being seen as an easy target for legal challenges.

“There are five other communities with laws like this and not one of them has been challenged in court,” Mr. Romeo said. “Why all of a sudden is Greenwich a lightning rod for these people? These other towns all have laws that go even further than ours but instead they want to come after us.”

Mr. Romeo pointed to this month’s U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding a law that can keep sex offenders imprisoned past the time of their sentence if they are deemed dangerous. He said the Greenwich law has never gone that far and predicted it would survive any court challenge.

Critics of the ordinance, both locally and in the ACLU, have questioned how it can be effectively be enforced. While the language of the proposal originated from the police department, questions have persisted. Mr. Schneider gave a new voice to those concerns, wondering in the letter how a police officer would be able to reasonably believe an individual in a protected zone is a sex offender. He compared the ordinance to the controversial Arizona law where people suspected of being illegal immigrants may be stopped by law enforcement without any additional probable cause.

“Under the ordinance, every individual in a child safety zone will be subject to baseless police stops and questioning,” Mr. Schneider said.

He later added, “Laws that infringe the rights of registrants to not necessarily create greater safety and therefore create a false sense of security. Sex offenders have one of the lowest recidivism rates of all offenders and the vast majority of crimes against children are caused by acquaintances, not strangers.”

It is possible that the ordinance could be heard at the RTM’s July meeting, but the September meeting is considered far more likely. Currently the ordinance is in draft form after being reviewed by Town Attorney Wayne Fox. ..Source.. Ken Borsuk, Staff Reporter