City begins repeal of sex-offender residency rules

7-28-17 California:

SAN MARCOS — The City Council has voted to start the process of repealing its sex-offender residency and loitering restrictions after receiving a letter threatening a lawsuit if it didn’t repeal the rules, which courts have ruled unconstitutional elsewhere.

The San Marcos City Council’s July 25 vote for the first reading of the repeal was unanimous.

Voters in 2006 approved Proposition 83, better known as Jessica’s Law, which prohibited registered sex offenders on parole from living within 2,000 feet of a school or park. San Marcos, following the lead of a number of cities, in 2007 enacted its own local ordinance that prohibited all registered sex offenders, not just parolees, from loitering within 300 feet of where children congregate.

But in the years following the ordinances, a number of studies and reports have shown that the restrictions have negative effects, including isolating and increasing homelessness among sex offenders, which makes it harder for law enforcement to monitor them.

Courts have ruled that the 2,000-foot residency restriction was unconstitutional in San Diego County and the 300-foot loitering prohibition, adopted by a number of cities, was unconstitutional overall. ..Continued..

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

How to Measure 1,000 Feet for the Sex Offender Residential Restriction

5-20-17 North Carolina:

Under G.S. 14-208.16, a registered sex offender may not reside “within 1,000 feet of the property on which any public or nonpublic school or child care center is located.” What’s the right way to measure those 1,000 feet? As the crow flies? Property line to property line? Building to building?

The statute is susceptible to multiple interpretations, and the issue has yet to be explored in North Carolina’s appellate courts. My sense is that not all 100 sheriffs in North Carolina apply the law in exactly the same way. And that’s understandable, because I can think of more than one interpretation that makes sense as a policy matter.

For example, a strict property-line-to-property-line approach isn’t a great fit in a rural area where a person’s actual residence might be many thousands of feet from the edge of his or her property. And measuring the distance as the crow flies may fail to take into account barriers like rivers and interstate highways that might effectively buffer a school or child care center by more than the required distance. It’s also challenging to apply the law to rental properties, where a registrant’s individual unit might be more than 1,000 feet from a protected place, but portions of the broader complex—perhaps including common recreation areas, like a perimeter walking trail—fall within the prohibited radius. All of these questions (and many more) have come up in real life.

Even if the “right” way to measure the distance may be open question for now, I do think the statute itself may give us some answers. ..Continued..

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Englewood may overhaul sex offender residency rules after law makes nearly the entire city off limits

2-7-17 Colorado:

Proposed measure would reduce buffers from schools, daycare centers from 2,000 feet to 1,000 feet

Englewood city leaders on Monday readied a major overhaul to a decade-old law that severely restricts where sex offenders can live in this city of 32,000 south of Denver.

Englewood’s law, enacted in 2006, prohibits sex offenders from taking up residence within 2,000 feet of a school, a day care center and other locations where children congregate, such as public pools. But that buffer, considered one of the toughest in the state, has had the effect of placing nearly the entire city off limits to those convicted of a sex crime and invited lawsuits and other challenges to what some say is an overly broad prohibition.

The City Council on Monday considered reducing that distance requirement to 1,000 feet, opening up some new parts of the city where registered sex offenders would be able to live. Specifically, the measure would increase the portion of the city open to sex offenders from 1.3 percent of Englewood properties to 21 percent.

The measure was pushed forward on a 5-1, vote and public comment will be heard on the issue at the next meeting, Feb. 21.

“This is a great compromise,” said Councilman Rick Gillit, who concedes that Englewood may have set the buffer too wide 11 years ago but still needs controls over how close a sex offender might be living to families, especially those with young children.

But others are less certain that Englewood’s move will do anything to address the larger question of what to do with those who have served their time for the crime and now need a place where they can reconnect with family members and support systems and reintegrate into society. Alison Ruttenberg, a Boulder lawyer who represents three sex offenders who sued Englewood last year after claiming the city planned to push them out, said drumming offenders out of neighborhoods doesn’t increase safety for the people living there.

Even if sex offenders aren’t living in a city, Ruttenberg said, they may still work there or pass through unaffected by any restrictions.

“You’re not keeping them out of your community; you’re just keeping them from living in your community,” she said.

She said the recidivism rate for sex offenders who successfully go through treatment is less than 1 percent and the recidivism rate for perpetrators of other felonies is far higher. Singling out sex offenders over other criminals is wrong, she said, and her legal challenge to the law remains in effect.

“People shouldn’t be afraid of sex offenders — they should be afraid of drunk drivers and burglars,” Ruttenberg said.

Mark Silverstein, legal director of the ACLU of Colorado, said Monday that Englewood’s sex offender residency restriction “is a fear-based ordinance” fueled by the stigma often associated with sex crimes. The ACLU also sued Englewood over the ordinance, prompting the city to stop enforcement of the law for a while.

“These ordinances are justified as protection for children, but they don’t do anything to protect children because they don’t stop people from hanging out near where children are,” Silverstein said.

Instead they push former inmates deeper “underground” and away from family members or social structures that might stabilize their lives, he said. Silverstein and Ruttenberg said Englewood, and the half dozen other communities in Colorado that have residency restrictions on the books, should drop them. Other communities with buffers in place include Greenwood Village, Dacono and Greeley, said Meghann Dollar, a legislative and policy advocate for the Colorado Municipal League.

Dollar said the restrictions are defensible under a city’s land-use powers and that “these decisions are a matter of local concern.”

“We support a municipality’s ability to enforce its land-use authority,” she said.

But councilwoman Laurett Barrentine said she would not be supporting the new 1,000-foot buffer because it remains “arbitrary” and cannot “be substantiated that it makes the community safe.”

“Providing a false sense of security is dangerous,” she said. ..Source.. by John Aguilar

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Lawmaker seeks more limits on where sex offenders live

Never have I seen a lawmaker show a need for such legislation other than "Its a good idea" which proves nothing. This is an idea looking for a problem..

12-10-16 Texas:

AUSTIN — Small cities have trouble keeping registered sex offenders from living near schools and other places where children gather, but one lawmaker says the state may finally be ready to give them that authority.

Unlike larger cities, municipalities with populations less than 5,000, known as general-law cities, don't have the power to dictate where registered sex offenders may live, according to some interpretations of a 2007 opinion by Gov. Greg Abbott, then the state's attorney general.

With no state limits, nothing prevents sex offenders from being around children once they’ve finished their sentences in those small communities.

Nearly four-dozen general law cities have adopted limits, but threatened legal action prompted nearly a quarter of them to repeal the rules. About the same number have been sued, according to the Texas Municipal League.

Rep. Drew Springer, R-Gainesville, said he plans to settle the matter with a bill allowing small cities to create child safety zones of no more than 1,000 feet around schools, day cares, playgrounds, youth centers, public pools, arcades and facilities that hold events geared toward children.

Registered sex offenders could transport a child they’re legally permitted to be with into the zones. They may travel through the zones for work.

The proposal also exempts those who've lived in a zone before it was created.

“I think I’ll have bipartisan, strong support,” said Springer, whose proposal is backed by the Texas Municipal League. “It’s rural Texas values.”

He called it a “quality-of-life” measure.

Bennett Sandlin, executive director of the Texas Municipal League, said 96 percent of the state is outside the jurisdiction of cities, which leaves plenty of space for sex offenders to live outside child safety zones.

“We’re not in support of legislation that would ban sex offenders,” he said. “You’ve got to live somewhere, but not within 50 feet of a school.”

But Richard Gladden, a Denton attorney who works on behalf of Texas Voices for Reason and Justice, a group that advocates for those required to register for sex-related offenses, said similar bills have failed in the past.

Courts elsewhere are increasingly throwing out such restrictions, with a federal appeals court in Michigan ruling one unconstitutional.

Gladden said research doesn't support the idea that residency rules make children safer.

In fact, making offenders' lives less stable, by requiring them to live far from their jobs, could raise the odds of re-offending, he said.

"Politicians don’t inform constituents of that,” he said. “They leave that out so that they can appear to be tough.”

In some cases, those who've been convicted don’t register rather than face restrictions on where they can live, he said, even if neglecting to do so is illegal. That makes it harder, not easier, for police to know their whereabouts.

In Oklahoma, Tulsa has lost track of hundreds of sex offenders who simply quit registering, according to media reports.

Springer said limits on small cities came to his attention a few years ago, when a sex offender moved into a motel in Muenster, a city in his North Texas district. He didn’t have to wait for church to hear about it.

“Everybody knows everybody else in Muenster,” he said. “They all have my cell phone number.”

There was no trouble, and Springer said that the man only stayed a couple of months.

Still, Stan Endres, Muenster’s city administrator, said city leaders talked about drafting an ordinance.

“There were people that wanted us to run him out of town,” he said. “I don’t think it was a problem, but people can get carried away.” ..Source.. by John Austin

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

New sex offender rules stalled

12-8-16 Michigan:

LANSING – Passage seems increasingly unlikely for a bill that would limit the places registered sex offenders can work and was inspired by the discovery that sex offenders worked at a Lansing nonprofit that serves victims of sexual assault.

The bill from state Sen. Curtis Hertel Jr., D-Meridian Township, would make it illegal for sex offenders to work for organizations that serve victims of sexual assault or children. The bill was inspired by a State Journal report in June that three registered sex offenders were simultaneously volunteering at the Listening Ear, a Lansing nonprofit that runs a crisis hotline for victims of sexual assault and others.

The offenders had answered calls to the hotline and had volunteered alongside victims of sexual assault who didn't know the men were offenders.

But Hertel's bill has been waiting for a vote in the Senate since July, and there's no indication it's going to advance in the seven session days scheduled for the remainder of the year.

Even if the bill cleared the Senate, it still would have to pass the state House. Bills that don't pass both chambers by the end of the year have to be reintroduced in the new term that begins next month.

"The issue is still a priority for me, and we're working to get it done," Hertel said Wednesday. ..Continued.. by Justin A. Hinkley , Lansing State Journal

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Some registered sex offenders exempt from residency rules

10-29-16 Iowa:

SIOUX CITY, Iowa (AP) — Desiree Navin moved with her two young children to a home on Sioux City's west side earlier this year.

Her girls, Joeyanna, 7, and Jayceelynn, 5, were preparing to attend the nearby Liberty Elementary School this fall until she took them on a walk to a park near the school at 1623 Rebecca St.

"I saw him sitting there relaxing with his dog over by the school, and I thought, 'He looks familiar,'" she said.

As the man got closer to her, Navin remembered, "Yep I know him, he's a pedophile."

Navin said she had heard the man, whom she had known since she was a teenager, was a sex offender. To verify her suspicions, she visited the Iowa Sex Offender Registry Website, where she learned the man was on the registry and his address was less than 250 steps from the school. The Sioux City Journal (http://bit.ly/2eDJToo ) reports that the registry showed he was convicted in 2003 in Iowa of lascivious acts with a child between the ages of 14 and 17 and in a neighboring state of a sexual charge against a minor.

"You ain't going to school there," Navin said she told her children that same day.

To her dismay, she later learned from a Journal reporter that the man was within his legal rights to live there.

The landmark 1995 Iowa law that established the sex offender registry originally prohibited nearly all convicted offenders who victimized children from residing within 2,000 feet of a school or registered day care -- the length of about six football fields. But changes approved seven years ago by then-Gov. Chet Culver and the state Legislature relaxed the restrictions for offenders convicted of less serious sexual crimes against minors, like the man Navin and her children encountered. ..Continued.. by ALEX BOISJOLIE Sioux City Journal

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Marion forced to abandon tough sex offender ordinance over lawsuit threat

10-8-16 Texas:

The city of Marion was given an ultimatum recently, as Texas Voices For Reason and Justice (TVRJ) and the Law Office of Richard Gladden sent a letter asking the city to repeal a local sex offender ordinance.

“There’s not a single council member, and/or person in the audience, or staff that wanted that rescission of that ordinance,” Marion Mayor Bill Seiler said.

The letter addressing the ordinance reads:

“This letter is to provide your city and its representative officials with notice, in accordance with the Sections 101.101 and 311.034 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code of a legal claim that I intend to file for TVRJ on behalf of its members ... against the city of Marion.”

During a phone interview on Tuesday, Gladden explained that in 2007, current Governor of Texas Greg Abbott, who was then the Attorney General wrote a legal opinion that said general-law cities — cities with less than 5,000 population — do not have legal authority under Article 11, Section 4 of the Texas Constitution to implement permanent residency restrictions for sex offenders.

Abbott’s legal opinion says “A general-law municipality is a political subdivision ‘created by the State and, such as, possess(es) those powers and privilege that the State expressly confers upon [it].’ Tex. Dep’t of Transp. v. City of Sunset Valley, 146 S.W.3d 637 , 645(Tex.2004). We have found no law authorizing a general-law municipality to adopt this type of residence restriction. Thus, unless the Legislature expressly authorizes it, a general-law municipality may not adopt an ordinance restricting where a registered sex offender may live.”

“It (the legal opinion) wasn’t a secret,” Gladden said. “Texas Municipal League (TML) put out a memorandum and sent it to all cities, but approximately 80 went ahead and did it anyway. When I spoke with the organization (TVRJ) it was more cities than we really needed to sue ... we narrowed it down to 46 cities, which initially did not include Marion.”

The Texas Municipal League provides services to Texas cities and advocate the interests of cities and city officials.

City of Marion attorney Peter Gruning said in Marion’s defense, the legal opinion does not specify what general-law cities can and can’t do.

“The general-law cities say under our general police powers, and under our ability to protect the public at large, we do have the authority to do that,” he said. “There has been one attorney general opinion that barely addresses the issue of general-law cities, but does seem to say that general-law cities don’t seem to have the authority — that’s an advisory opinion. The attorney general doesn’t make law, but gives opinions.”

A former resident of Marion, who declined to comment, is required to register as a sex offender and is about to end his probation, Gladden said. That resident and his family own property in Marion and would like to return home, but the ordinance does not allow it.

TVRJ Executive Director Mary Sue Molnar said those who are required to register regularly face these obstacles, which ultimately, are counterproductive.

“The (Marion) residency restrictions put the entire town off limits,” she said. “Residency restrictions don’t work, it creates homelessness and splits families. With 80,000 people required to register in the state, and 12 new people added to that list everyday, Texas could be facing a crisis.”

“We’re not for any law that sounds good, or feels good. Residency restrictions don’t work, they’re counterproductive for tons of reasons,” she added.

The original Marion ordinance, Sect. 1 states:

“The City Council of the city of Marion finds that sex offenders who are required to register as a sexual predator under V.T.C.A., Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Chapter 62, present an extreme threat to the health, safety and welfare of children ... locations where children regularly congregate in concentrated numbers wherein certain registered sex offenders and sexual predators are prohibited from loitering or prohibited from establishing temporary or permanent residency.”

The ordinance, which was adopted in March 2011, required those who register as sex offenders to keep 1,000 feet away from real property where children regularly gather.

Seiler said the only reason why the city council wanted to implement the ordinance was to protect children.

“One of the things that was not covered in the zones for the state was bus stops,” he said. “So, our intention was to include every possibility where children gathered and obviously, bus stops are where they gather. By doing that, and because of the many stops around the city, it blanketed the city. I don’t know if, at the time, we thought it was stricter than the states’. We thought that it would comply with the intent of the law.”

Gruning explained that if the city went to court on the issue, it would start at the district court, then go up to the court of appeals. Because there are cities already in litigation, and the issue has been brought to the attention of the state legislature, he said waiting would be best for the city.

“There are two different ways this can go: court of appeals can make a determination, but the state legislature has been asked to consider the authority of a general-law city,” he said. “If they take that up, as long as the law that they pass on it meets constitutional muster, that law will proceed what the courts do on the court of appeals. The issue is being considered both in appellate courts and hopefully, by the legislature. If that’s the case, the advise I gave this city is let’s wait and see.”

Additionally, Seiler said going through the city budget, there wouldn’t be enough resources to proceed with the litigation.

“There’s no way with the revenues we receive that we could ever withstand the deep pockets of the opponents,’” he said. “In fact, we would’ve spent the entire city budget within about six months and not be able to run the city. Just on the lawsuit itself, that type of litigation is very expensive.”

Texas law states that no registered sex offender can live within 500 feet of community safety zones or 1,000 feet of the victim, schools, or childcare facilities.

“It (the state law) removed a few areas, but not the main areas,” Seiler said. “The protections for the kids and individuals are still there, it just puts more work on my police force. And they’re certainly up to it.”

Seiler said city council will try to implement the original ordinance soon and until then will attend legislative sessions and advocate for the rights of general-law cities.

“They must think the constitutionality of these individual’s rights is worth more than ensuring our children are safe,” he said.

However, Molnar said she disagrees that having resident restrictions will be an effective way to handle this sensitive issue.

“What’s shocking to me, is that the majority of these public officials have not done the research on the effectiveness of these policies,” she said. “All they have is a feel good factor, where it sounds good to the constituents.”

Currently, TVRJ has sued 11 cities and 12 are on the list to be sued, Gladden said. ..Source.. by Jennifer Luna

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

South St. Paul set to dramatically restrict where sex offenders can live

9-22-16 Minnesota:

Shange McNeal was found guilty of criminal sexual assault in 2001. So when he moved into a South St. Paul neighborhood in June, locals took notice.

Eyebrows also raised when Anthony Bulmer moved to the inner-ring suburb. Bulmer was busted for criminal sexual conduct in 2011 after repeated contact with a 10-year-old girl.

But it was Christopher Blair's arrival that caused South St. Paul, population 20,000, to go on the offensive. Blair is a convicted sex offender whose past includes repeated attempts at accosting females with a weapon.

The City Council is in the process of deciding whether to implement one of the strictest residency restrictions for sex offenders anywhere in Minnesota.

The ordinance would prohibit an offender from taking up temporary or permanent residence anywhere within 1,500 feet of a school, park, playground, licensed daycare facility, place of worship, or sexually oriented business.

In other words, of the suburb's six-square-mile footprint, sex offenders would be allowed to reside in just four small pockets. Three of these areas are the grounds of the South St. Paul Municipal Airport, along the woodlands of the Mississippi River, and near Highway 52 in the far northwest corner.

The proposal is the brainchild of Police Chief Bill Messerich. He proffered the idea, in part, because the community felt powerless about convicted predators setting up residence there.

Messerich admits the city is walking a fine line between public safety and personal liberties.

"There's always a concern you might end up with a legal battle when you have this kind of new ordinance," he says. "But the city has done its due diligence, restricting the areas where these individuals could live in South St. Paul without being too restrictive."

The courts could very well disagree.

The California Supreme Court last year ruled unconstitutional a similar ordinance, in which offenders were barred from living within 2,000 feet of a park or school. By severely restricting their "ability to find housing," the statute "greatly increased the incidence of homelessness among [sex offenders], and… hindered their access to medical treatment, drug and alcohol dependency services, psychological counseling, and other rehabilitative services," the court wrote.

South St. Paul's initiative smacks of these same infringements, since the designated pockets where offenders could live are largely uninhabitable.

"There's one road near the airport where there's houses. And you're right, there's nothing along the river," he says. "But there's some homes in another of the pockets, although it's largely a commercial area. So the choices aren't zero." ..Source.. by Cory Zurowski

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

“If this is winning, I don’t want it:” Convicted sex offender talks about life after being released from prison

9-13-16 Wisconsin:

MILWAUKEE -- On the morning of July 5th, a white van left Fox Lake Correctional Institution. In the back, Matthew Schechter, a Milwaukee man with a history of sex crimes.

As a young man in the late '80s, he had sex with two teenage girls; in the mid-'90s, forceful sexual assaults on adult women. After 22 years in prison, he’s getting out, his time served.

No one wants a sex offender like Matt Schechter living next door to them, and it’s certainly understandable. Municipalities across the state have codified this with ordinances that restrict where offenders can live. But are those restrictions really keeping you safe?

Four hours after leaving Fox Lake, Matt Schechter walks out of the state building on 6th Street -- his first steps into freedom after 22 years. Where those steps will lead him, he doesn't know. The prison van left him here to be processed by parole and fitted with a GPS monitor.

"They didn't have any answers for me,” Matt says. “No housing options. Just, 'We're gonna put you on this GPS bracelet, and good luck.’ That's all they told me," Schechter said.

The maze he will try to navigate over the next 48 hours spotlights serious issues with sex offender residency requirements in Wisconsin. By state law, sex offenders have to return to the county in which they lived when they committed their crime. For Matt, that's Milwaukee. However, there are 19 municipalities in Milwaukee county, each with different restrictions on where he can live -- various buffer zones around areas children might be -- schools, parks, daycares and so on. No one has given him any information on what those rules are, and he knows one wrong move can put him back in prison.

After stopping at a bank to cash a check his father in Germany sent him to get started, he boards a bus for Walmart.

"I feel pretty anxious and nervous," he says as the bus rolls south on 27th Street. "I probably only have enough to get by for a few days," Schechter said.

At Walmart, Schechter picks up supplies and a cell phone. He has to call his parole agent to advise her where he's staying, once he figures out where that is. Sex offenders don't get a map of areas they can live when they get out prison and they don't get a list of approved addresses. They're directed to decipher the buffer zones on their own.

But first, the cell phone is a challenge. Immediately it becomes clear, things have changed in 22 years. He struggles for an hour to figure out how it works.

Finally, once he gets it working, he calls Oak Creek Police. He’s not allowed to access the internet. He’s heard there are some motels on South 27th where he may be able to stay the night. They give him the green light for one night. But time is running out. The battery on his GPS monitor is low.

"It’s only good for 12 hours. If I don't charge it and it goes off, there will be a warrant issued for my arrest," Schechter said.

So Schechter starts walking south, hoping to make it to a motel in time: A homeless sex offender, deemed by the state to be so dangerous he'll remain on the registry for life, strolling the street at night looking for a place to stay.

“You can see what a mess this has become,” says Republican State Representative Joel Kleefisch. He’s been pushing for a statewide standard, a uniform buffer zone everywhere, but he's getting pushback.

“No municipality wants to be told that their specific rules shouldn't be in place. If you're a municipal leader you want to tell your citizens 'we don't have any place in this municipality for sex offenders to live,'" Kleefisch said.

Matt eventually did find a vacant motel room for the night, plugs in his GPS, and talks about his past.

“In 1994, I had a lot of anger. I had a lot of issues growing up, and I didn't know how to ask for help. I didn't know how to talk to people, and along the way I hurt a lot of people," Schechter said.

In prison, Schechter explains he did five years of therapy, including sex offender treatment , and drug and alcohol treatment.

“Ultimately, I want the same thing everybody else wants . I want to get a job, and go to school, and make a life for myself," Schechter said.

But the next day, Schechter is on the move again.

"Every place you try to stay is illegal. The shelters won't take me because of my status," Schechter said.

And Schechter has had to leave Oak Creek because the city, along with 15 other municipalities in Milwaukee County, has what’s called an Original Domicile Restriction: If you didn't live there when you went to prison... You're not allowed to live there when you get out -- anywhere.

No one tells sex offenders that when they're released. It's another avenue in the maze they have to figure out.

As the night gets late, Schechter tries to find a blanket to sleep with for the night, but strikes out. With nowhere to turn, he walks into a Milwaukee Police station and has a stroke of luck. An officer, sympathetic to his situation, says he can stay in the park next door.

Schechter shows us where he’ll be sleeping: "Back there are some benches underneath those trees. So I'll just use my duffel bag as a pillow and put on my jeans - try to keep some of the bugs off," Schechter said.

48 hours after Schechter was set free, as the sun rises over MacArthur Square the next morning, he is in violation of Milwaukee's sex offender ordinance -- the park, smack in the middle of a child safety zone. But with nowhere for him to go and with the blessings of police, his parole agent approves it.

"Well, I'm disappointed in that," snaps Alderman Bob Donovan.

Donovan sponsored the most recent restriction on sex offenders in the city. In April, Milwaukee re-defined the word "residence" to mean a place where a person sleeps at night. So now, it's illegal for a registered sex offender like Schechter to even fall asleep within the city's safety zones. Fifteen other municipalities in Milwaukee county have the same measure, taking away the exemption for a temporary place to sleep.

"The purpose of the legislation was to close that loophole," explains Donovan.

Where are they supposed to stay?

"Well, not in Milwaukee," said Donovan.

But one week later, that's still where Matt Schechter is sleeping -- in the same park, next to the police station.

“I know it feels good to people to say, 'Oh yeah, we did something.' But look at what you're doing. It's not designed to keep children and other people safe. It may look that way, but it's really designed to make it impossible for sex offenders to find anywhere to live. So they're forced to go somewhere else. The problem is, the ways the state laws are written. We can't go anywhere else," Schechter said.

So where in Milwaukee can Schechter live? The city has a 2,000 foot buffer zone, leaving just pockets of possibilities. Most aren't even residential. A car dealership, for example; the parking lot of a pet supply company; the 10th hole at Tripoli Country Club; the taxiway at Timmerman; the coal piles on Carferry Dr.; a section of St. Adalbert's Cemetery; and most of Mitchell International Airport.

In the entire city, there are just 55 addresses approved for sex offenders. FOX6 Investigators checked them against the sex offender registry, and found there is not a single sex offender living in any of them. Most are single family homes -- not for sale and not for rent. The few multi-units don't allow felons.

"It’s catastrophic," says Wendel Hruska of Project Return, a program that tries to help former inmates transition. He's seen how being homeless drives sex offenders underground and off the grid.

"Those individuals can't really function," Hruska said.

"And that means they have nothing to lose," adds psychologist Anna Salter, who has studied the sex offender mind. “It`s definitely a risk factor for re-offense.”

"They're stuck," says Hruska.

Stuck, like Matt Schechter.

One month after his release from prison we check up on him. He's found a full-time job, but he can't find a place to live. Each night after his second shift, he returns to the park, and puts up his tent.

We notice Schechter’s mood is much darker than it was a month ago.

"I`m considering just saying f--k the whole thing and turning myself back in," Schechter said with frustration. "Even in prison you have federal civil rights to a bed and a bathroom. If this is winning, I don't want it."

Today, more than a month after our last interview with Schechter, he has finally found a place to stay in West Milwaukee –- one of the three municipalities that doesn’t have the original domicile restriction. However, there are more than 230 other sex offenders still on the streets in Milwaukee County. ..Source.. by Brad Hicks

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Surry County law enforcement favors new North Carolina sex offender laws

See also: N.C. lawmakers clarify sex offender law --and-- North Carolina Kicks Sex Offenders Out of Libraries, Parks, and Fairs

9-1-16 North Carolina:

Changes to laws regarding where registered sex offenders can and cannot go take effect today. And that is expected to clarify things for local law enforcement as well as offenders.

“We’re glad the new laws take effect,” Assistant District Attorney Mark Miller said on Wednesday.

The previous law prohibited sex offenders from knowingly being on the premises of places used by children but not solely for that purpose.

But it didn’t specify exactly what that meant, and it applied to sex offenders who had never committed a crime against a minor.

While that was confusing enough for law enforcement and offenders, and outraged civil rights advocates for what was conceived to be an unconstitutional witch hunt, a Fourth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals ruling in April shot down portions of the existing law and “left a blank space,” Miller said.

“They closed a loophole to keep our children safer,” he said.

The new law more specifically addresses what kinds of places from which a registered sex offender is restricted and generally applies only to offenders who have committed crimes against a victim under 18 years of age.

“As a citizen, I like that,” said James Markham, UNC School of Governments professor who teaches judges, prosecutors and law enforcement on the subject.

“If I’m the sheriff or police, I can enforce that,” he said. “If I’m a sex offender, I know I can’t go there.” ..Continued.. by Terri Flagg

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

NYS Senator Calls On Assembly To Pass Sex Offender Residency Restrictions

Personally I think this decision should be made by a Judge on a case-by-case basis, not Legislators and broadly applied!

9-1-16 New York:

A New York state Senator from the Hudson Valley is calling on the Assembly to pass legislation to keep registered sex offenders from living near children.

Republican state Senator Terrence Murphy stood at Koegel Park in the Westchester County town of Somers Wednesday urging the Assembly to pass a bill that restricts Level 2 and Level 3 sex offenders from residing within 1,500 feet of their victims.

“To me, it’s common sense. And, I think to a lot of us standing here today, this is common sense. But the Assembly continues, year after year, to play politics with our fragile kids. Completely unacceptable,” Murphy says. “Right now, we have a Level 2 sexual offender living within 1,000 feet of this park.”

Murphy spoke about the need for both child safety and victim safety zones. Murphy says child safety zones are places where children congregate, such as schools, churches, synagogues, playgrounds, parks and daycare centers.

“There should be absolutely no Level 2 or Level 3 sexual predator to be allowed to reside anywhere near these kids,” says Murphy.

Murphy’s bill has twice passed the Senate with bipartisan support. Queens Democratic Assemblyman Ed Bruanstein sponsors the bill in the Assembly and several of the bill’s Assembly co-sponsors are Democrats, including a number from the Hudson Valley. Assembly Democratic spokesman Michael Whyland says the Assembly has held roundtables on this issue and will continue to monitor it, adding that assemblymembers want to make sure people are safe. Prior to being elected to the state Senate, Murphy served as a councilman in Yorktown, where Michael Grace is supervisor.

“How is this not the right thing to do?” asks Grace. “As a town supervisor we have, we get notification when somebody moves into a neighborhood and everybody’s up in arms about it.”

State law says that Level 3 sex offenders as well as Level 1 or Level 2 sex offenders whose victim was under the age of 18, cannot enter school grounds or be within 1,000 feet of a school or daycare center. Level 3 sex offenders are considered to be at the highest risk of re-offending. The New York State Court of Appeals in 2015 ruled that state law preempts local law when it comes to residency restrictions for registered sex offenders, which rendered a number of such local laws unenforceable, including in Rockland County. Again, Murphy.

“In 2011, we had a Level 3 sexual offender in Putnam County that was released from prison and allowed to move right next door to its two victims. Earlier this summer, we have heard about the similar incident right here in Peekskill,” Murphy says. “This, as I say, is completely, completely unacceptable.”

Two Westchester County Correction Superior Officers stood at the park alongside Murphy in support of his call. ..Source.. by Allison Dunne

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Sharon Runner Introduces Legislation Requiring Department of Corrections to Obey Jessica's Law

2-14-16 California:

SACRAMENTO – Senator Sharon Runner (R-Antelope Valley) announced today she is authoring legislation that will stop the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) from allowing convicted sex offenders to live near parks and grade schools. Senate Bill 1021 will require CDCR to enforce the voter approved sex offender residency restriction under Jessica’s Law in all counties except San Diego.

Last year the California Supreme Court held that the restriction preventing registered sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a school or park could not be upheld in San Diego County because of a severe lack of compliant housing. While the Supreme Court made it abundantly clear that the ruling applied only in San Diego County, CDCR immediately refused to enforce the law in any of the other 57 counties.

“The Corrections Department’s sweeping decision to allow convicted sex offenders to live next to where our children learn and play is unacceptable,” said Runner. “Under the department’s new policy, only 24% of sex offenders are still required to live within the limits set by Jessica’s Law. This means that 76% of paroled registered sex offenders are free to live next door to parks and grade schools, even before they complete parole.”

Equally as disturbing, the Department justifies its refusal to enforce Jessica’s Law upon the advice of the California Attorney General, but has refused to release the Attorney General opinion, despite repeated requests from legislators and the press. ..Continued..

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

NH House considers ban on sex offender residency restrictions

2-12-16 New Hampshire:

HB 1153 would prohibit towns or municipalities in New Hampshire from passing ordinances that restrict where registered sex offenders can reside. The bill is being considered by the House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee, with a hearing scheduled for Wednesday February 17. Currently, there are no state-level restrictions on where sex offenders may live.

Policies typically enacted by towns include barring sex offenders from living within a set distance of a school, day care center or playground.

The NH Civil Liberties Union has successfully challenged such ordinances in New Hampshire in the past, with courts striking down residency restrictions in Dover and Franklin, finding that there was no evidence that the restrictions increased public safety. Several other towns, however, still have residency restrictions in place.

Previous attempts at similar legislation include a 2014 attempt that passed the House but died in the Senate. A 2015 bill died in the House.

Another bill, HB 1390, would explicitly authorize towns to adopt sex offender residency restrictions.

Supporters of banning residency restrictions argue that such ordinances do not, in fact, make children more protected, and that the restrictions can make it very difficult for offenders to find a place to live and work, which increases the chances of recidivism. State police have also stated the laws drive offenders underground, making them more difficult to monitor.

Opponents argue that allowing cities and towns to set conditions on where sex offenders may reside helps protect vulnerable populations, and that towns should retain the right to decide for themselves if such a restriction is appropriate for their community. ..Source.. by LFDA Highlights

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

State Assembly passes bill restricting where violent sex offenders can live

2-10-16 Wisconsin:

MADISON, Wis. —The Wisconsin Assembly has signed off on a bill creating uniform restrictions on where violent sex offenders can live.

Right now, municipalities use ordinances to determine where sex offenders can't live. The bill would bar violent sex offenders from living within 1,500 feet of any school, day care, youth center, church or public park anywhere in the state.

If the sex offender committed a crime against a child, he couldn't live next door to a child. If the offender committed the crime against an elderly or disabled person, he couldn't live within 1,500 feet of a nursing home or other assisted-living facility.

Local ordinances would generally remain enforceable.

The Assembly approved the bill 64-34 on Tuesday. The measure goes next to the state Senate. ..Source.. by WISN.com

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

West Lake Hills set to defend its registered sex offender ordinance, city council says

2-10-16 Texas:

General-law city, nonprofit organization face off over residency restrictions

Texas Voices of Reason and Justice filed a lawsuit Dec. 28 against several cities, including West Lake Hills, alleging the city’s restrictions on where registered sex offenders can reside violate the Texas Constitution, said Richard Gladden, Texas Voices of Reason and Justice attorney.

The nonprofit organization provides information and education about the state’s public sex offender registry and its impact on community safety.

West Lake Hills prohibits registered sex offenders from establishing permanent or temporary residence within 1,000 feet of a playground, school, video arcades, youth center, day care center, public swimming pool or bus stop, according to the city ordinance.

Because it is a general-law city—cities with fewer than 5,000 residents—West Lake Hills cannot pass ordinances without authorization from the Texas Legislature, Gladden said. As a general rule, Texas does not prohibit registered sex offenders from living or going near places frequented by children, he said. The city’s laws that define where registered sex offenders can live is unconstitutional, he said.

“The goal is to provide a safe and secure environment for all of our residents, especially our children,” West Lake Hills Mayor Linda Anthony said of the ordinance.

There are areas within West Lake Hills where registered sex offenders are able to reside under the current ordinance, she said.

In November, Texas Voices for Reason and Justice sent letters to 46 Texas general-law cities, raising concerns over the legality of the municipalities’ registered sex offender residency ordinances, Gladden said. Twenty of these cities repealed their sex offender ordinances shortly after receiving the letter and Texas Voices of Reason and Justice sued 14 of the remaining cities, he said.

“Many [registered sex offenders] are no longer on probation—they’ve already paid their debt to society,” Gladden said. “Now, they and their families are having a hard time finding a place [to] live.”

During its Jan. 13 meeting, West Lake Hills City Council agreed to file documents denying the allegations in the lawsuit. ..Source.. by Kirsten Peek

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

NY Bill Would Require Advance Notice of Sex Offender Relocation

2-2-16 New York:

The New York Senate passed a bill requiring the state to notify government officials and school leaders when sex offenders are transferred from a state facility to a community program or residence in their municipality.

According to the bill, it would require notification to take place no later then 10 calendar days prior to the transfer.

Community leaders should not find out about the transfer of potentially dangerous sex offenders after they have been moved into a neighborhood, which has been the case in my district and elsewhere," Senator Patrick Gallivan (R-C-I, Elma) said. "The state has an obligation to notify local officials about the transfer of sex offenders into a community program so that they have ample time to properly address public concerns and potential security issues. The only way to do that is for the state to share this information with local officials.”

The bill has been sent to the Assembly. ..Source.. by Joe Gullo

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Manitowoc sex offender ordinance approved

A note for folks who may not realize this: Ordinances are laws issued by local officials.

12-22-15 Wisconsin:

Convicted sex offenders from outside Manitowoc can no longer legally be placed within the city limits after the City Council approved an ordinance regulating such placements.

The council Dec. 21 unanimously approved the ordinance, which prohibits any convicted sex offender from residing or being placed on supervised release within the city limits unless the offender lived in the city at the time of the offense or previously resided in the city for more than five years.

Exemptions to the ordinance include if the offender already lives in the city, if the offender is a minor, or if the residence belongs to the offender's parents, grandparents, siblings, spouse or child, as long as the person "established the residence at least five years before the designated offender established residence at that location."

Additional regulations contained in the ordinance include penalties for property owners knowingly renting to unauthorized offenders, and penalties for any offender caught loitering within 500 feet of schools, parks and other places kids congregate.

Penalties range from $300 to $1,000. An appeal process is included in the ordinance allowing offenders to make a case for special placement within the city. Appeals must go before the city's Public Safety Committee, chief of police and City Council.

The need for the ordinance arose after convicted sex offender Mark R. Rickert, who is not from Manitowoc, was placed within the city.

Because some of the ordinances around the state are so restrictive, there is no place to put sex offenders in the municipalities from which they came. That means the Wisconsin Department of Health Services has to look elsewhere for placement.

When beginning to discuss the ordinance, a distance restriction that would have kept offenders from living within a certain distance of the aforementioned locations was included. Council members decided creating those "safe zones" would also create other zones with high concentrations of sex offenders.

Instead, the council decided to use the ordinance as a way to keep outside offenders from being placed within the city.

"We're limiting the outsiders," said Eric Sitkiewitz, council president. "I think that's the important thing in this ordinance."

Ald. Chris Able, chairman of the Public Safety Committee, which first discussed the ordinance, said he's happy with the final result.

"I think this is an important step forward for better safety for everybody," Able said.

Even with the ordinance in place, Ald. Jim Brey said everyone needs to remain vigilant in keeping the city safe.

"Don't be afraid to call the police department if you have concerns," Brey said. "They will gladly respond and be part of the solution."

The City of Two Rivers also approved a similar ordinance. ..Source.. by Marcus Nesemann

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Small Towns Change Sex Offender Laws

12-22-15 Texas:

For most parents, sex offenders are something that is always in the back of their mind. but it's not always an easy subject to discuss.

"That’s no good."

Last week city councils from around 50 small towns in Texas had to sit down to discuss the uncomfortable subject, after they received a letter from the advocacy group Texas Voices For Reason and Justice, threatening a lawsuit against their current laws for sex offenders.

"I don't want sex offenders near any of our schools or small towns."

And neither did the City of Whitewright. The town's Mayor Alan West says their town's laws had sex offenders living 1,500 feet from schools.

But after receiving the letter from T.V.R.J they realized they were going to have to shorten it by 500 feet allowing sex offenders to move closer to the schools.

"We're a class A general law city and being that we cannot exceed the states standards."

Texas State standards say a sex offender has to live 1,000 feet from a school and since the city of Whitewright has less than 5,000 people they are un able to exceed state standards.

"The ordinance that was listed included up to 15 foot from schools and daycares and state statue is one thousand so we repealed it so it would be in compliance with our state regulations."

The City of Pottsboro and Gunter also received the lawsuit letter making them reduce their restrictions to one thousand. But as for the City of Whitewright Mayor West say there is nothing residents need to worry about. ..Source.. by KTEN.com

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Public Defenders Office Questions Sex Offender Housing Bills

12-18-15 Wisconsin:

Proposed Changes Would Set Distance Requirements From Schools, Other Public Places

An attorney from the Wisconsin State Public Defender's Office wants changes to a bill that would restrict housing options for released sex predators, saying it could put the state's civil commitment law in constitutional jeopardy.

If it passes, the bill would bar the state from placing patients released from the Sand Ridge Secure Treatment Center from living within 1,500 feet of schools, parks, churches and daycare centers. Communities across the state have passed local ordinances that are even more stringent.

Attorney Robert Peterson, who heads the SPD's sex offender unit is pushing for language to be included in the bill that would pre-empt those local rules.

"To allow local municipalities to overrule state law and frustrate these placements and keep people institutionalized, I think, is constitutionally invalid," Peterson said.

Another bill that has yet to have a hearing would establish statewide buffer zones for all sex offenders overriding local ordinances. Authors of the two bills have said they will try to combine the them.

But according to Peterson, research in other states has found buffer zones aren't effective at preventing future sex crimes.

He advocates using a risk assessment tool to determine which offenders are the most likely to reoffend, saying research has found that sex offenders have much lower reoffense rate if they are allowed to live in a structured community setting.

But Racine Republican state Sen. Van Wanggaard, who's sponsoring one of the bills, said communities need some protection from offenders who have committed violent sex crimes.

"We just don't want to have that person close to our loved ones and people who potentially can't protect themselves," he said. ..Source..

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Most Sex Offender Parolees Exempt From Ban

12-14-15 California:

Three-quarters of California's paroled sex offenders previously banned from living near parks, schools and other places where children congregate now face no housing restrictions after the state changed its policy in response to a court ruling that said the prohibition only applies to child molesters, according to data compiled at the request of The Associated Press.

The rate is far higher than officials initially predicted. The state expected half of the 5,900 parolees would have restrictions on where they can live or sleep lifted when the corrections department changed its policy following the March ruling. Instead, data shows that 76 percent of offenders no longer are subject to the voter-approved restrictions.

Corrections officials said last spring that about half of the convicted sex offenders are considered child molesters who would still be subject to the housing ban.

But even some whose offense involved a child no longer face the 2,000-foot residency restriction, officials disclosed in explaining the higher number. That's because the department's new policy requires a direct connection between where a parolee lives and the offender's crime or potential to reoffend. Only rarely is the assailant a stranger to the victim, the type of offender whose behavior might be affected by where he lives.

"A parole agent cannot simply prevent a parolee from living near a school or park because the offender committed a crime against a child," Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation spokesman Jeffrey Callison said in a statement.

The decision largely reverses a blanket housing ban imposed by California voters nine years ago. Many states impose a variety of residency restrictions on sex offenders, though states including Iowa, Georgia and Oklahoma rescinded or changed their residency restrictions and some now also tailor restrictions to individual sex offenders.

As a result of California's policy change, more than 4,200 of the state's 5,900 offenders no longer qualify for the residency restrictions, according to data compiled by the corrections department at the AP's request. However, their whereabouts still are monitored with tracking devices and they must still tell local law enforcement agencies where they live.

One in five sex offenders who used to be transient have been able to find permanent housing because they are no longer subject to the rule, the department said.

"These numbers are absolutely astounding," said state Sen. Sharon Runner, R-Lancaster, who co-authored the original ballot initiative. "Kids in kindergarten living across the street from a sex offender is not what the people voted for in Jessica's Law. Seventy percent of the people voted to keep them away from schools and parks."

The department spent months reviewing offenders' criminal backgrounds before deciding that the ban should continue to apply to about 1,400 offenders. The department couldn't provide the status of nearly 300 other offenders. ..Continued.. by Don Thompson

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...