If a prosecutor already has some he will no longer prosecute b/c of the unconstitutional ruling, we are left to wonder how many have already been prosecuted and are languishing in jails/prisons or having previously been prosecuted and completed a sentence? Hopefully they can afford a lawyer to resolve these issues, I doubt the state will say OPPS and let them out of jail/prison..4-10-15 Michigan:
Calhoun County’s prosecutor won’t issue charges in some sex offender cases after a federal judge’s ruling that parts of the law are vague.
“We have a number of cases involving safety zone violations that will have to be dismissed because that part of the statute is unconstitutional,” Prosecutor David Gilbert said Thursday. “It really will affect very few. I can only think of one or two, one actually that is pending.”
But Gilbert said he doesn’t expect to issue any charges in new cases where sex offenders are charged with violating the geographic exclusion provisions of the law.
U.S. District Judge Robert Cleland of the Eastern District of Michigan ruled March 31 that some provisions of the 1994 law are vague and therefore not constitutional.
That included restrictions for those on the sex offender registry to live at least 1,000 feet from any school or property owned by school districts and used by students in kindergarten through 12th grade.
The judge ruled that under the law offenders are left to guess where the zones were and are not provided with enough information to abide by the restriction.
Also unconstitutional, the judge said, are requirements that offenders report all phone or electronic messaging systems they routinely use. Local police said they now will only require phones and electronic communication that is in the offender’s name.
Gilbert said most violations by local residents are failure to properly register and living within school zones.
“The two primary cases we get are failure to report and violation of the geographic restrictions,” Gilbert said. “They are still required to register, but the geographic exclusions, those have to be dismissed because this court found them unconstitutional. Most of the other violations we don’t have.”
Gilbert said he doesn’t expect to authorize charges for someone in apparent violation of the school zone restrictions.
“I am not going to enforce something that appears to be unconstitutional.”
Officer Kim Tuyls of the Battle Creek Police Department oversees nearly 400 sex offenders registered in Battle Creek and Bedford Township.
She said a few have called asking about the ruling.
“School zones seem to be the big ones,” she said. “They ask can they live in a school zone.”
She said the city has devised a computer map measuring 1,000 foot distances from all school buildings and she can tell offenders from that if a piece of property is approved as a residence.
But two lawyers said determining the proper distances has been a problem for some of their clients.
“You have to be 1,000 feet but where do you start counting that?” attorney Ken Marks said. “It is totally vague.
Richard Stevens said he represented a client who bought a house. A couple years later a resident complained and police determined he was 30 feet inside the 1,000-foot restricted area of a school. He had to move.
“They are technical violations and it’s imprecise,” Stevens said.
Marks said registering can be a problem for some clients, as they forget or don’t update changes such as new jobs or phone numbers or email addresses.
And he said the law can violate someone for loitering in a school zone.
“But how do you define loitering? Marks said.
Gilbert said that provision also is vague and can be difficult to enforce because the law does not prevent an offender from being on school grounds for events or sports games or to pick up their children from class, as examples.
Gilbert said his office, like others across the state, will now await any appeal and further rulings. ..Source.. by Trace Christenson
No comments:
Post a Comment