San Antonio's sex offender ban takes effect Saturday

2-28-2014 Texas:

A city ordinance banning registered sex offenders from parks and part of the River Walk goes into effect Saturday.

The ordinance prohibits registered sex offenders from entering a city park, living 1,000 feet from a park or loitering within 300 feet of a park. Current residents are “grandfathered in” and are not being asked to relocate.

The lower level of the River Walk between Lexington Avenue and South Alamo Street is included in the ban.

Texas law allows judges and parole boards to impose similar restrictions on offenders that are on parole or probation. State law, however, does not give judges or parole boards the same authority once the offender is off parole or probation.

San Antonio's ordinance would apply to registered sex offenders after their probation and parole restrictions have expired.

Violating the ordinance is a misdemeanor with a fine of up to $500 per offense.

Sex offenders are exempted if they were minors when the offense was committed, or if a court of pre-eminent jurisdiction or parole board issues an order permitting the person to enter the zone. The chief of police can also grant special exemptions.

Golf courses, cemeteries and official meeting or polling places located in parks are not included in the ban.

Police Chief William McManus has said the new law will make parks safer.

City Council adopted the law in December over the objections of some, who cited studies showing such restrictions do not improve safety. ..Source.. by Alia Malik

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

City to vote on sex offender park ban

See Also: You're Outta Here! Sex Offenders Get the Boot from SA Parks

12-4-2013 Texas:

Police chief to decide which offenders are exempt

The San Antonio City Council will vote Thursday on an ordinance that bans adult registered sex offenders from entering into city parks.

Registrants would not be allowed to loiter within 300 feet of a park or live within 1,000 feet of a park unless they already do. The ban will not apply to juvenile offenders.

“Common sense is that you're always aware of your surroundings, but at the same time, if we know there’s a potentially dangerous individual in the park and we can remove that person, that improves safety,” said District 10 Councilman Carlton Soules. “I'm sure police are going to know the worst-case offenders by sight and at that point they'll be able to remove them.”

The portion of the River Walk between Lexington Avenue and Alamo Street will be included in the ban, but only at the river level, not the street level.

Critics of the ban argue that it will have unintended consequences.

“We know from research and statistics that these type of restrictions don’t work,” said Mary Sue Mulnar, executive director of Texas Voices for Reason and Justice.

Mulnar’s organization advocates for the promotion of common-sense and research-based laws involving registered sex offenders.

“We are receiving calls from registrants. They’re inquiring about waiting at bus stops for their busses. They're asking about taking their children to the park. They’re asking about working near a park. It’s already created a lot of confusion,” she said.

Exemptions from the ordinance will be offered on a case-by-case basis. Registered offenders must write a letter explaining why the policy will cause unnecessary hardship and ask for an exemption.

The policy’s current draft says the chief of the San Antonio Police Department will determine who receives an exemption.

A public hearing is not mandatory and the decision is final.

“I don’t believe I’ve ever seen a situation where the police chief also acted as judge and jury,” Mulnar said. “I don't see how anything can be determined by a letter. So it could come down to who is the better letter writer.”

The law will not go into effect until the first quarter of 2014 and Soules said that should give the city enough time to iron out the details surrounding the exemption process.

“We’re going through the process over the next 90 days to look at, specifically, if there's a more detailed way to look at (exemptions),” he said.

Soules said the time between the vote and when the law goes into effect will also allow the city to determine the proper park signage and work on a public education campaign to inform offenders of the new law.

Soules said more than 100 municipalities in Texas have similar laws, but San Antonio would by far be the largest to do so.

Mulnar believes much more research is needed before a vote, but she said city council members haves been unresponsive to the information her organization has sent to them.

“They have a responsibility to fully inform every registrant,” she said.

The city will vote on the issue during their regularly scheduled A-Session meeting on Thursday at 9 a.m. inside City Hall. ..Source.. by Cory Smith

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Arkansas governor signs sex offender restrictions into law

2-6-2013 Arkansas:

Gov. Mike Beebe has signed into law legislation banning certain sex offenders from swimming areas and playgrounds in state parks and another bill imposing a fee on sex offenders who move to Arkansas from another state.

The measures are among 28 bills Beebe signed into law Wednesday. One that he signed would make it a Class D felony for Level 3 and 4 sex offenders — the highest level — to be present at swimming areas or playgrounds within a state park and it takes effect immediately.

The other bill levies a $250 fee on new Arkansas residents who are required to register as sex offenders. ..Source.. by SFGate.com

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Sex Offenders Banned from County Recreation Areas

Unfortunately "Area Banishments" have been the law in other areas, and upheld by their state courts: see North Carolina's "STANDLEY v. TOWN OF WOODFIN -and Indiana's "DOE v. TOWN OF PLAINFIELD, INDIANA"

4-9-2011 California:

The Orange County Board of Supervisors, on April 5 voted unanimously to adopt a new law banning registered sex offenders from county parks, harbors, beaches and playgrounds.

According to an Orange County District Attorney’s Office press release, the ordinance, developed and proposed by District Attorney Tony Rackauckas and Fourth District Supervisor Shawn Nelson, makes it a misdemeanor for registered sex offenders to enter county recreational areas where children regularly gather without permission from the OC Sheriff's Department.

"Orange County has taken a huge step in creating a safety zone for our children," said Rackauckas. "Parks, harbors and beaches belong to families and children, not registered sex offenders."

The ordinance is set to take effect Thursday, May 5. Enforcement in parks and harbors will be entrusted to the OCSD. Violators could face up to six months in jail and/or a $500 fine. ..Source.. by Andrea Swayne (Ordinance found at link)

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Jeffersonville City Council Approves Sex Offender Ordinance

The difference between the old and the new ordinance is?

12-8-2009 Indiana:

Registered Sex Offenders Banned From City Parks

JEFFERSONVILLE, Ind. -- The Jeffersonville City Council unanimously approved a new sex offender ordinance Monday night.

The city had to change a law that banned sex offenders from entering city parks after it was ruled unconstitutional by the state court of appeals.

The previous ordinance banned all past and present sex offenders from parks, however they were allowed to apply for an exemption if they had a good reason.

The new ban now allows offenders that are no longer required to register with the sex offender registry to visit any city park, however those who are on the registry must stay out. ..Source.. WLKY.com

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

IN- ACLU wants court to review Indiana sex offender bans

8-18-2009 Indiana:

Indianapolis - The American Civil Liberties Union is asking the Indiana Supreme Court to overturn a local ordinance banning sex offenders from public parks.

Such a decision would expand a series of recent rulings finding constitutional problems with various restrictions on convicted sex offenders.

The ACLU appealed after the state appeals court last year upheld the Plainfield ordinance. So far the high court hasn't said whether it will hear the case. The ACLU says unless the Supreme Court clarifies the law, more lawsuits could result from similar ordinances in other communities.

Plainfield's attorney says town officials were just trying to keep parks safe when they passed the ban. ..Source.. by WTHR.com

=== Other News Reports on Topic ===

Indiana Supreme Court asked for clarity on local sex offender restrictions

INDIANAPOLIS — The Indiana Supreme Court has been asked to prevent an Indianapolis suburb from banning sex offenders from public parks in a case that could expand a trend of state court rulings finding constitutional problems with restrictions on sex offenders.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana appealed a state Court of Appeals ruling that upheld Plainfield's ban last September. So far the high court hasn't said whether it will hear the case brought by a sex offender listed only as John Doe in court documents.

The case could join a handful of recent Indiana rulings on laws that restrict sex offenders' activities after they've done their time, including one in Jeffersonville.

Last month, the Supreme Court ruled that a state law that prohibits convicted sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of a school, public park or youth program center could not be used to force a sex offender to move from a home where he had lived for 20 years. In April, the high court overturned a man's conviction for not registering as a sex offender because he had already completed a sentence for child molestation before the state's Sex Offender Registration Act was passed.

And in the Jeffersonville case, the Supreme Court has been asked to review a Court of Appeals ruling in June that found Jeffersonville officials unconstitutionally applied a park ban against a man who no longer was required to register as an offender.

Joel Schumm, a professor at the Indiana University School of Law in Indianapolis, said Indiana appears to be more willing to consider such cases than other states where similar bans are generally upheld.

“The court's shown a willingness to take a hard and thoughtful look at these kinds of cases,” he said.

Schumm said the ACLU of Indiana is simply asking the court to take the “next step” in restricting such ordinances by finding that Plainfield's ban also violates a state constitutional prohibition on excessive punishment.

Besides arguing that the ordinance retroactively increased the penalty for the plaintiff's original offense, the ACLU contends that the use of public parks is a constitutionally protected “core value” that all citizens have the right to enjoy unless they forfeit that right by committing a crime in a park.

“I think parks are a special place. I think parks exist for a specific reason, not just recreation, but it's a place where people are free to go and free to exist without undue government restriction without cause,” said Ken Falk, legal director of the ACLU of Indiana.

Attorney Mel Daniel, who handled the appeal for Plainfield, said officials were just trying to keep parks safe in the Indianapolis suburb of about 28,000 when they passed the ordinance in 2002. The rule bans people listed on the state sex offender registry from the town's extensive park system.

Daniel said the sex offender ban was among several restrictions included in the ordinance, including prohibitions on weapons and alcohol. Registered sex offenders who visit the parks are subject to fines of $100 to $200.

“They have really taken safety in those parks seriously,” Daniel said.

Supporters of similar bans argue the ordinances are needed to protect children because sex offenders have a high risk of repeat offenses. Opponents like the ACLU argue that the bans often unconstitutionally continue to punish individuals who already have served prison sentences and probation.

The plaintiff in the ACLU case was convicted in 2001 for child exploitation and possession of child pornography. He was released from probation in August 2004. He was visiting the Splash Island water park with his young son in June 2005, when police warned him not to return because he was listed on the sex offender registry.

“Our view is you can go anywhere you want to go, just not the park,” Daniel said.

Falk countered: “There are lots of public places. Do we ban people from sidewalks? Do we ban people from public buildings?”

The Supreme Court's decision in the case could affect other Indiana communities. Officials in Lebanon, about 25 miles northwest of Indianapolis, are contemplating a park ban, and the ACLU has put its lawsuit on hold against the Indianapolis suburb of Greenwood, which bans people convicted of certain sex-related and drug-related offenses from its parks.

More litigation will likely ensue until the high court clarifies the law, and it should “settle the law so that every community in Indiana will understand that the law is settled,” the ACLU said in court documents.

The Plainfield case has been awaiting transfer to the high court for nine months, which is unusually long, said Schumm, the university professor. That might indicate the court is preparing an opinion or having trouble agreeing on what to do, he said.

If the Supreme Court doesn't hear the case, the Court of Appeals ruling upholding Plainfield's ordinance stands. If it does hear the case, the Supreme Court could reverse, uphold or modify the decision. ..Source.. by Charles Wilson

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

CA- Molesters beware

1-23-2009 California:

Murrieta hopes to have made parks and other places where children hang out a little bit safer.

It joined 25 other cities in California when the City Council unanimously approved a law banning registered sex offenders from child-friendly parks and venues.

In staff reports, the need for a law exists because of the “high recidivism rate of sexual offenders.”

--Note: This is nonsense dozens of studies including the Dep't of Justice show low recidivism rates, claims of high recidivism rates are myths.

The city law mirrors others, including one passed by Canyon Lake, which create “child safety zones” in about 80 areas throughout the city.

If officers find a registered sex offender in those zones, the offender can be found guilty of a misdemeanor, fined between $500 and $1,000 and ordered to serve up to six months in county jail.

Officers would have to prove the offenders were within 300 feet of the safety zone and were there with the intent to watch or solicit children, according to a staff report.

Safety zone locations include all parks and schools within the city limits and recreation centers such as Brunswick California Oaks Bowl and Mulligan Family Fun Center.

While the county’s Megan’s Law Web site shows about 35 sex offenders living in the city zip code, the police believe about 290 sex offenders live within driving distance, according to staff reports.

Small posted signs with a cartoon character would alert the public of the new law.

For those who were visiting an area park during a recent weekend the law made them feel safer.

According to the Megan’s Law site, three sexual offenders may be living near the park.

“I came to Murrieta because people said it was about the community,” Miriam Chavez, 29, said as she pushed her 2-year-old on a swing. “What’s wrong with a little more protection? Who is going to get mad about that?”

Chavez moved from Northern San Diego to rent a home in Murrieta.

She said she once called the police in San Diego about a guy hanging out near a park. The police said they couldn’t do anything to a man who was sitting there.

“He was a really creepy dude,” she recalled. “I kept thinking, he has no kids, he doesn’t have a dog, why is this guy here? What if he was a molester?” ..News Source.. by Rocky Salmon

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

NC- Council puts sex offender ban on hold

11-18-2008 North Carolina:

HIGH POINT — High Point’s parks will stay open to sex offenders. For now.

City Council members said they were uncomfortable with a ban proposed Monday night by the city’s parks and recreation department.

The proposed ordinance was sent back to the council’s public safety committee when council members said they needed more information.

“At this point I have a lot of unanswered questions about this,” said Councilman Latimer Alexander. “I’d like to look at the state laws that already cover our parks and rec facilities.”

Greensboro banned registered sex offenders from its parks in a unanimous City Council vote in September. It was one of a number of N.C. cities to create such an ordinance after the state Supreme Court upheld a similar law in Woodfin.

But many on the High Point council said they weren’t sure about approving such a law simply because they could.

“We have not had a case of a sex offender problem in our parks to this point,” Alexander said. He was cut off by Councilman Mike Pugh, who asked, “And why would we want to?”

-Note, there isn't a single report or study anywhere showing that, crimes committed by registered sex offenders in parks are reduced or eliminated by a parks ban. Apparently Councilman Pugh ignores research for some personal reasons, if such is hatred of RSOs, then that is an incorrect -if not illegal- reason for passing such a law. Public safety issues are resolved based on valid research not personal hatreds.

Pugh was the only councilman who pushed for the ordinance to be passed as written and the only one to vote against sending it back to committee.

“I think if this prevents one child from being molested and one life from being ruined, then it’s worth our every effort,” Pugh said. “This should be a no-brainer. If we won’t take some measure we are basically saying we don’t give a flip.”

Others on the council said it wasn’t that simple. While the ordinance would allow sex offenders to attend public meetings or go to polling places in public parks, Councilman Ron Wilkins said it could prevent registered sex offenders from doing community service work.

Alexander said that unless police or city workers asked for identification from everyone entering a parks and rec facility, the ordinance was basically unenforceable. Parks and recreation officials were present to support the proposal but didn’t have answers for many questions about it. When asked how many sex offenders lived in High Point or in Guilford County, no one knew.

According to the Guilford County Sheriff’s Office, High Point has about 100,000 residents and 134 registered sex offenders. Greensboro has about 250,000 residents and 313 registered sex offenders, according to the office.

“I am not saying I don’t care about this issue,” Wilkins said. “I’m just saying we need to know more before we pass something like this and we need to be careful.” ..News Source.. by Joe Killian, Staff Writer

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

IN- Judge upholds park ban ordinance

11-11-2008 Indiana:

JEFFERSONVILLE, Ind. (AP) - A judge has ruled that an ordinance preventing a convicted sex offender from watching his son play baseball in a Jeffersonville park does not violate the Constitution.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana had argued that the ordinance violated Eric Dowdell's right to use public parks. But Clark Superior Court 1 Judge Vicki Carmichael ruled that use of parks is not a fundamental right.

Thee 36-year-old Dowdell had filed a lawsuit seeking to overturn the ordinance. He twice has been denied exemptions that would have allowed him to watch his son play baseball in a city park.

Court records show Dowdell was put on the state sex-offender registry after admitting that he engaged in sexual activity with a 13-year-old girl when he was 21. ..News Source.. by AP




Sex offender ban stands in Jeffersonville

11-11-2008 Indiana:

The ordinance in question was passed by the Jeffersonville City Council in January 2007. Authored by Jeffersonville Councilman Keith Fetz, the ordinance prohibits convicted sex offenders from entering Jeffersonville’s municipally-owned parks. Offenders have the right to petition the court for admission, but so far only one person has done so and that request was denied.


A judge has ruled that a Jeffersonville ordinance banning convicted sex offenders from city parks is not unconstitutional.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana had challenged the constitutionality of the ordinance on behalf of Eric Dowdell, a convicted sex offender who wanted to watch his son play baseball in Jeffersonville.

Ken Falk, legal director of the ACLU of Indiana, argued at an Aug. 25 hearing that the ban violated his right to use the park. Falk said it is not rational to ban someone from going to a park when he or she has not committed an offense there. The city’s attorney, Larry Wilder, argued that using the city’s parks is not a “fundamental right.”

Wilder said in an interview after the ruling that Clark County Superior Court No. 1 Judge Vicki Carmichael realized that convicted sex offenders have effective means to apply for an exemption to the ban and that the ban is not unfair because it does not apply in all public places.

“Individuals are not banned from every place in Jeffersonville, and they’re not banned from every park in Clark County or the state,” Wilder said.

Wilder said the ordinance, which was passed by the city council in January 2007, was created to withstand constitutional challenges.

“The effect (of the ordinance) has been very positive, but it was put together with the idea that people have rights,” Wilder said.

In July 1996, Dowdell was convicted of class D felony sexual battery against a 13-year-old girl and was sentenced to three years in prison. He has to register as a sex offender for 10 years. Dowdell was denied an exemption which would have allowed him to attend his 11-year-old son’s baseball games because he has multiple unrelated convictions.

In August of this year, Clark Circuit Court Judge Abe Navarro agreed that Dowdell did not meet the requirements for an exemption because of his criminal history. In 2001, he pled guilty to domestic battery, and in 2002, he pled guilty to battery. He also has new charges from this year.

On its Web site, the ACLU says it will not appeal the decision to deny Dowdell’s request for exemption. It does not say whether they will appeal the newest decision to uphold the ban.

Falk did not immediately return calls for comment. Wilder said he expects the ACLU to appeal the decision. ..News Source.. by MATT THACKER

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

IN- Sex offender seeks (State) Supreme Court ruling on park ban

10-30-2008 Indiana:

Attorneys for the American Civil Liberties Union warn that if Plainfield's ban on convicted sex offenders in the town parks is allowed to stand, similar bans and permanent punishment could spread across the state.

The ACLU, representing a Marion County man identified only as John Doe, have asked the state's highest court to review a September ruling by the Indiana Court of Appeals that upheld Plainfield's ban.

The state's high court is expected to decide by mid-November whether to accept the case or allow the appeals court decision to stand.

Plainfield's Town Council adopted an ordinance in 2000 that prohibits anyone on the Indiana registry of sex offenders from being in the town parks or recreation center.

In 2005, Plainfield police saw an Indianapolis man they recognized as a convicted sex offender in one of the town park facilities. He was with his young son. Police later told the man about the town's ordinance and told him not to return.

Court rulings have allowed Doe to remain anonymous even though his real name and criminal history are public and listed on the registry online. He has completed a prison term and probation.

The ACLU sued Plainfield in November 2005. Since then, the town's ordinance banning convicted sex offenders from town parks has been upheld in Hendricks Superior Court and the state Court of Appeals. So Doe and other sex offenders are still prohibited from Plainfield parks.

ACLU Legal Director Kenneth J. Falk said in the recent 19-page filing with the Supreme Court that Plainfield's ordinance, if allowed to stand, has the potential for far-reaching and statewide impact.

Greenwood, Lafayette and Michigan City have enacted similar bans. The ACLU has a suit pending against a Jeffersonville ordinance.

An Indianapolis ordinance passed two years ago was struck down in court as being too broad because the geographic areas of the ban covered most of the city.

Falk said the central issue in the appeal of the Plainfield lawsuit is whether access to the parks and recreational facilities is a legally defined "core value" for everyone in a community.

Plainfield claims convicted sex offenders do not have that right.

The ACLU claims that a permanent ban, even after an offender has completed prison and probation, is excessive punishment. ..News Source.. by Bruce C. Smith

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

IN- Who's right when it comes to laws for sex offenders?

This is a interesting opinion, albeit biased (see last sentence). Given that last sentence comment I'll add, it cannot be "continuing" unless it comes from the sentencing court and would have to be in that court's sentencing order. Here, with parks, it is not, and as to other issues mentioned, the ex post facto clauses have no exceptions written into them, except what judges have read into them.

9-26-2008 Indiana:

Answer depends on if our focus is on punishment or safety.

The Indiana Court of Appeals has upheld Plainfield's law that bans sex offenders from parks. Child-safety advocates are elated, but the American Civil Liberties Union says enjoyment of parks is a “core value” under the Indiana constitution and that banishment amounts to a second punishment for a crime.

So who's right? The question is being debated in several communities that have laws similar to Plainfield's. The bans in Lafayette and Michigan City have also withstood court challenges. A suit over a similar law in Greenwood has been on hold pending an outcome in the Plainfield case. A federal judge overturned Indianapolis' law as overly broad. It banned offenders from being within 1,000 feet of a park or school. There are very few such places in the city.

An answer to the question depends on our focus.

If we just concentrate on the punishment aspect, it can seem to be too unfair to the offenders. We tend to have a “punish and move on” attitude about crime in this country. Once people have paid the debt for their crimes, they are allowed the benefit of the doubt and given a chance to learn from their mistakes.

We especially have to be careful not to deny a whole class of offenders constitutional rights that belong to everybody. The Fourth Amendment does not make an exception for sex offenders when it says “the people” have a right to be secure from “unreasonable searches and seizures,” for example. Indiana was not mindful of that blanket right when it tried to require registered sex offenders to “volunteer” for on-demand searches of their computers.

But there is a safety aspect to be considered. The man at the heart of the Plainfield case - identified only as John Doe - was not someone who was arrested for having sex at 18 with his 16-year-old girlfriend. He was convicted on child exploitation and possession of child pornography. It is not unreasonable to worry about him being in a park where children congregate.

It is now well-known that sex offenders have to register with the state and that many communities are trying to restrict their movements, so such treatment can be no great surprise to anyone. Certain things, therefore, can be seen as a continuation of the punishment, not a second round of it. ..Source.. Opinion by News Sentenial

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

IN- Judge to rule on park ban ordinance

While it is likely true that use of a park is not a fundamental right, it is not true that constitutional protections do not apply. A park is a place that is made available to the general public and restrictions on its use or entry into them are probably valid. However, there is a constitutional right to equal access to the park on grounds that are applied equally to everyone that uses them. The court denies Dowell based on criminal record but there is nothing posted in the park which makes that known to anyone, nor does the city strive to find out if anyone else has a criminal record and therefore should also be banned. Hopefully the ACLU will take such a tack when arguing this case. See earlier articles.

8-27-2008 Indiana:

JEFFERSONVILLE, Ind. — An ordinance that prevents a convicted sex offender from watching his son play baseball in a city park is unconstitutional, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union argued.

But the attorney who wrote Jeffersonville's sex offender ordinance said that use of parks is not a fundamental right and constitutional protections don't apply.

Eric Dowdell, 36, is contesting the ordinance in Clark Superior Court. He twice has been denied exemptions from the ordinance to allow him to watch his son play baseball in a park in the Ohio River city near Louisville, Ky.

Dowdell was put on the state sex-offender registry after admitting that he engaged in sexual activity with a 13-year-old girl when he was 21, according to court records. He was given a three-year suspended sentence. He completed a 10-year term on the registry in 2006.

Ken Falk, legal director of the ACLU of Indiana, argued during a hearing Monday that the park rule "bans people who have had no offense in a park" and violates Dowdell's "rights to personal autonomy." He also told Judge Vicki Carmichael there is no evidence that Dowdell presents a particular risk to children in the park.

Attorney Larry Wilder, who wrote the ordinance, argued that cities have the authority to make laws protecting their citizens in city parks.

Carmichael said she would issue a decision after Sept. 12, the deadline for both sides to submit final documents.

Dowdell has previously sought exemptions from the ordinance. In 2007, a waiver was denied because he had not provided all the required documents. A judge denied an exemption earlier this year due to three battery charges against Dowdell since his 1996 sex offense.

Falk said those offenses have no bearing on whether the parks ordinance is constitutional. ..News Source.. by Fort Mills Times

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

IN- Registered sex offender challenging ordinance to allow him to see his son play baseball

It appears he is being excluded, not because he is a RSO, but because of other unrelated acts (maybe criminal). The problem is the ordinance doesn't permit excluding folks based on any other acts, so there is a good likelihood the judge will rule in his favor, IF, the ordinace has a construction which has permitted him to come to court again.

8-8-2008 Indiana:

(WHAS11) - A registered sex offender is challenging an ordinance to allow him to see his son play baseball.

Eric Dowdell was found guilty in 1996 off sexual battery of a 13-year-old who is mentally disabled and because of that he can’t go to public parks in Jeffersonville.

Thursday a judge heard his plea in court.

Eric Dowdell used to coach his son’s little league team but now he’s walking into court, instead of on the little league field.

That’s because he’s a registered sex offender.

A Jeffersonville ordinance passed last year prohibits sex offenders from entering any city parks.

The city says since Dowdell has been convicted twice since that initial conviction for domestic battery charges and was arrested as recently as this March on other battery charges, he shouldn’t be exempt from the ordinance.

“It goes to someone’s ability to understand the law is the law and violating the law causes you to give up certain privileges,” says Larry Wilder, the prosecuting attorney.

The city says Dowdell can watch his son play sports just from outside the fence that surrounds the parks. But Dowdell’s attorney says some people with similar convictions can already walk inside.

“If he wanted to prohibit someone like that, he could’ve said anyone convicted of domestic violence can’t come into the parks... Anyone convicted of jaywalking or speeding cannot walk into Jeffersonville parks,” says Gavin Rose, Dowdell’s attorney.

And since none of Dowdell’s other convictions involved children, his attorney says he should be allowed on park grounds. But most local parents disagree.

“When we go to the parks, we intend it to be a safe, family friendly place to go. I think that’s the intention of the parks,” says parent Amy Preston.

A judge will make a decision in the case Friday.

A sex offender can be fined anywhere from $100 dollars to $2,500 dollars if caught in a city park. ..News Source.. by WHAS11



Sex offender renews effort to enter Jeff parks

A convicted sex offender who was turned down twice by Jeffersonville City Court when he asked to be an exception to an ordinance banning sex offenders from city parks took his case to Clark Circuit Court today.

Eric Dowdell, 36, who completed his required 10-year listing on Indiana’s sex offender registry in 2006, wants to attend his son’s baseball games at the city’s Little League complex.

Dowdell was convicted in 1996 of sexual battery.

Dowdell’s lawyer, Gavin Rose of the American Civil Liberties Union, argued this morning that Dowdell has satisfied all the conditions of the city ordinance to get an exception and is not a danger to the community.

But Jeffersonville lawyer Larry Wilder disagreed, citing domestic violence convictions against Dowdell from 1999 and 2001 as well as a pending case from this year.

The ban on sex offenders in city parks, adopted in 2006, allows offenders who have completed their legal obligations to petition the City Court for an exception. But City Court Judge Ken Pierce denied Dowdell’s petition in April, just as his predecessor R. Scott Lewis did last year.

Parties to City Court rulings may ask a state court to take a fresh look at the matter, and Dowdell did so.

Circuit Judge Abe Navarro said he will issue a ruling tomorrow. ..News Source.. by The Courier-Journal

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

NC- Court upholds ban on sex offenders in parks

6-13-2008 North Carolina:

WOODFIN – Town government was within its rights to ban registered sex offenders from Woodfin public parks, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday in a case that could encourage other cities and towns to adopt similar rules.

Justice Edward Thomas Brady wrote in Thursday’s decision that it is reasonable for the town to keep offenders out of parks, and that the town ordinance does not violate any fundamental liberty of the plaintiff in the case.

Joe Ferikes, an Asheville attorney who represented Woodfin in the case, said the suit appears to be the first challenge to such an ordinance in the country.

Mayor Jerry VeHaun said several other counties and municipalities have asked for copies of the ordinance with an eye toward passing a similar measures.

“I can foresee a lot of other places adopting something like this,” he said. “Some have been waiting to see how this case came out, and some have gone ahead and adopted something.”

The town Board of Alderman adopted the ordinance in April 2005, a few weeks after a registered sex offender was charged with taking two 12- to 14-year-old girls from Asheville Mall to a Woodfin home so they could have sex with two men.

Some of the alleged acts in the case occurred in a home close to a town park, VeHaun said Thursday.

“We felt we were in the right all the way,” VeHaun said. “We’ve won one for the people.”

Town resident David Standley, twice convicted of sex offenses and now disabled, sued the town with the assistance of the American Civil Liberties Union. His suit said in part that the ordinance violated his right to travel.

Neither Standley nor his attorneys could be reached for comment Thursday.

Standley, 44, lost before a Superior Court judge and in a split decision before the state Court of Appeals.

Brady wrote in Thursday’s decision that, according to one study, “released sex offenders are four times more likely to be rearrested for subsequent sex crime than other released offenders.”

“Woodfin has a legitimate government interest in desiring to decrease and eliminate sexual crimes in its parks, and prohibiting those most likely to commit criminal sexual acts — persons previously convicted of such conduct — from entering the town’s parks is a rational method of furthering that goal,” Brady wrote.

Standley’s right to travel “is simply not comparable to those rights deemed fundamental” by prior court decisions and does not invalidate the town ordinance, the decision says. ..News Source.. by Mark Barrett

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

IN- HARBESON:Jeffersonville creating illusion of safety in sex offender’s case

See earlier story
4-15-2008 Indiana:

I suspect most of you reading this have little sympathy for anyone who hurts a child. If so, then you’re going to really get mad because I’m about to show you that’s exactly what a local city government is doing.

Officials in Jeffersonville are still trying to keep Eric Dowdell from watching his son play baseball, due to the recently passed sexual offender ordinance. Mr. Dowdell was convicted of a sexual offense 12 years ago, served his time and he’s no longer required to register with the state as an offender. So, shortly after the law was passed, he decided to try to get an exemption from this new law. At that time, Mr. Dowdell was denied permission because he was missing the proper documentation. Apparently he has jumped through that hoop and turned in “zee papers” but city government is still fighting with him.

Now he’s being told that he can’t wipe off the muddy footprints and sit on Jeffersonville’s government funded park benches because he’s had some offenses since then. They were not sex offenses against minors; they were battery offenses against adults. Of course, we all know this is an offense that other citizens have on their records — citizens who also go to government funded parks.

Mr. Dowdell obviously cares for his child to continue to fight and endure intrusive questioning in a court of law. And the mother too, since she testified on his behalf. Certainly Mr. Dowdell’s behavior leaves a lot to be desired, and it looks like the parents’ relationship could use some help, but they are trying to do the right thing for their child here.

So how is the government helping this family by adding to this father’s frustrations? Is this guy really going to be sexually dangerous watching a ballgame? My goodness, we will all know where he is if he attends his kid’s games. Plus, he’s being kept busy doing something useful and productive. It’s one positive thing he wants to do and government officials stubbornly refuse to let him.

The same people responsible for this fiasco will sit in their government funded cushy chairs and offices and lecture citizens on the importance of relationships, especially fathers, in a young boy’s life. So if he is denied permission, we will once again see the immense hypocrisy that occurs when government interferes. All because officials can’t see past their selfish interests to let a father watch his son catch a fly ball.

It must be very annoying for Jeffersonville taxpayers to see all the time and money wasted on this law so far: paying attorneys to create it, council members to discuss and vote on it, paper pushers to enter it into the official records, additional police time spent for enforcement needs, and once again, attorneys to defend it, (and perhaps soon to defend its constitutionality). It’s especially interesting considering all the recent news about how Jeff needs to lower expenses. Do you really think this is necessary to protect children?

Mr. Dowdell has followed the rules so far. He’s jumped the hoops required. In return, they only create a new hoop for him. Why can’t they just let this man spend more time with his son? Well, because it’s important to create the illusion of protecting citizens. They need to do this in order to justify their existence and continue to take money from other people to make their living. Maintaining this illusion is so important, they’ll even hurt a child to do it.

Which is supposedly what everyone wanted to avoid in the first place. ..more.. Sellersburg resident Debbie Harbeson often falls on her face when she tries to jump through hoops. If you want to communicate with her, the first hoop is to write to daharbeson@yahoo.com.

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

IN- Jeffersonville man seeks exemption despite sex offender status

4-2-2008 Indiana:

JEFFERSONVILLE, Ind. (AP) — A convicted sex offender banned by a city ordinance from entering parks has asked a judge for permission to watch his son play baseball at a Little League complex.

Eric Dowdell, 34, said he will seek an exemption from the ban based on his completion of counseling, probation and other requirements set by the ordinance for an exemption. A hearing on the request has been scheduled for April 11 in Jeffersonville City Court.

Dowdell said kids need to be protected from offenders. But he said there should be a distinction between someone like him, who made a mistake years ago and has been a good parent, and someone who might harm children.

Dowdell was convicted of sexual battery in 1996, according to the Indiana Sheriff's Registry of Sex Offenders, and was no longer required to register as an offender after 2006.

Dowdell lives in Clarksville and his 11-year-old son plays in the Little League there, but the games will be played in the Jeffersonville complex this year because the Clarksville site is undergoing a renovation.

Dowdell is the plaintiff in a Clark County lawsuit filed last year by the ACLU of Indiana challenging the constitutionality of Jeffersonville's ordinance.

Ken Falk, legal director of the state ACLU, said the suit will go forward regardless of the outcome of next week's hearing. He said "absent some proof of wrongdoing," people have a right to use public parks. Dowdell's offense was in the distant past, Falk said, and he has since completed his penalties and obligations.

Larry Wilder, the lawyer who drafted the Jeffersonville ordinance, has said repeatedly that he believes the ban is constitutional. Wilder says "going into a park in Jeffersonville is not a fundamental right." ..more.. by Tribune

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...