Attorney General says renters remain restricted
12-15-2007 Georgia:
When the Georgia Supreme Court changed one word this week in a recent ruling on residency restrictions for registered sex offenders, it meant that most won't be able to live wherever they want after all, officials say.
Meanwhile, a legal advocacy group maintains that the state attorney general's interpretation of the ruling makes a complex law even more confusing.
A Nov. 21 ruling by the high court was interpreted to mean that it had struck down the provisions that prohibit registered sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of a school, church, playground or other places where children congregate. The court cited individual property rights as a basis for the decision, saying the government was effectively taking a person's property by dictating where he or she could or could not live.
"We find that (the law) is unconstitutional because it permits the regulatory taking of appellant's property without just and adequate compensation," the court wrote.
On Thursday, the court issued a substitute opinion with the word "because" replaced by the phrase "to the extent that."
Georgia Attorney General Thurbert Baker's office interprets the ruling to mean that sex offenders who don't own their own homes are still bound by the old residency restrictions.
"After the attorney general moved to reconsider its (Nov. 21) decision, the Georgia Supreme Court subsequently narrowed its original ruling to now only apply to property owners who are registered sex offenders," said Russ Willard, a spokesman for Baker's office.
Hall County Sheriff Steve Cronic made a similar argument when the court's opinion was issued last month, saying sex offenders who rented their homes were not having their property taken if they were forced to move when a church or school was built next door.
Cronic believes the court's new ruling will likely restore the 1,000-foot rule to the residency restrictions, except for a handful of the county's 225 registered sex offenders who own their own homes. "Home ownership is low among the sex offenders in Hall County," Cronic said.
Cronic said his office is still waiting on official word from the attorney general and Georgia Sheriffs Association before resuming its enforcement of the 1,000-foot rule.
The Atlanta-based Southern Center for Human Rights, however, says renters have rights, too.
"The courts have repeatedly held that renters have property rights that are protected," said Sara Totonchi, a spokesperson for the center. "The attorney general's interpretation of this ruling has made a difficult law 10 times more convoluted."
Totonchi noted that the attorney general's office as recently as Nov. 26 declared the restrictions unconstitutional in a letter to the state's 159 sheriffs. "To do a 180 like this really puts the sheriffs in an unrealistic and chaotic place in trying to enforce this law and do their jobs," she said.
"The sheriff will now be expected to determine whether people ... own their houses and whether they up on payments on them," Totonchi said.
Cronic, who was opposed to striking down the 1,000-foot rule, called the court's revised opinion "a step in the right direction." The sheriff said he believes the residency restrictions still need adjustment to stay within the boundaries of the Constitution, and hopes the Georgia General Assembly will address the matter in the coming session.
"I still think the legislature needs to go back and recraft a law that will withstand judicial review," Cronic said. ..more.. by Stephen Gurr sgurr@gainesvilletimes.com
December 15, 2007
Georgia: Sex offender ruling revised
December 14, 2007
Ga. court narrows sex offender ruling to property owners
12-13-2007 Georgia:
ATLANTA --Sex offenders in Georgia are only exempt from the state's strict residency requirements if they own property, according to state Attorney General Thurbert Baker.
Baker's office said a substitute ruling issued by the Georgia Supreme Court late Thursday scales back the court's November opinion, which seemed to toss out the state law preventing sex offenders living within 1,000 feet of schools, churches and other places children congregate.
"We are pleased that the Georgia Supreme Court narrowed its decision today in response to the attorney general's motion for reconsideration," Baker's spokesman Russ Willard said.
"It narrows the scope of the court's decision to only protect property owners."
But not everyone read the justices revamped decision the same way.
"I respectfully disagree with that interpretation," said Sarah Geraghty a lawyer for the Southern Center for Human Rights, which is challenging the law in federal court.
"There are a series of very clear cases out there that say that people who rent their property are protected by the Fifth Amendment just like property owners are."
It is Baker's opinion that is likely to matter, however, as he will be advising sheriffs and other law enforcement officials on how to enforce the law.
It was not immediately clear how many of Georgia's sex offenders own property.
The court's new decision - which changed just one word in the individual opinion - could sow fresh confusion on a topic that has been fraught with heated emotion and sharp political rhetoric.
Just this week, two top Republican lawmakers had unveiled plans to introduce new legislation that would have attempted to again put residency mandates in place aimed at protecting children.
The court's ruling hinged on the takings clause, saying it is unconstitutional to force a homeowner to abandon his property or be in violation of the law. The court said there is nothing to prevent a sex offender from buying a home then being forced to move if a facility catering to children later pops up nearby.
The plaintiff in the case, Anthony Mann, bought a house in Clayton County in 2003. Later, a day care center opened nearby. He filed a lawsuit after being told by authorities that he had to shutter his barbecue business and leave his home.
Mann was convicted in 2002 of "taking indecent liberties with children."
Civil rights groups have fought Georgia's sex offender law, saying it could leave those who have already served their time for sex crimes with few housing options and could backfire by driving them underground.
Supporters counter that it is crucial to protecting children from dangerous predators. ..more.. by SHANNON McCAFFREY - Associated Press Writer --
