4-13-2011 Ohio:
LEBANON, OH (FOX19) -
Tuesday night, the Lebanon city council discussed an ordinance that would forbid any registered sex offender from loitering within 300 feet of parks, playgrounds, the YMCA and other areas where children hang out.
"I am really concerned and I am a concerned citizen," said Sarah Scott, parent. "I have children and I am concerned about all the other children living here. It's a big deal."
Scott went to Tuesday night's city hall meeting to express her support.
The ordinance allows police to use their discretion in questioning any suspicious person hanging out within 300 feet of parks, the library, churches, or any other common place where children can be found.
"Having been a school teacher all of my life, having raised a daughter and having two children I think that is a fair law," said Faye Curran.
Sex offenders that violate the law will be fined $500 or could spend six months in jail. Sponsor of the ordinance, Councilman Matthew Rodriguez, said the ordinance has the council's support.
"I think the consensus here is that this ordinance will pass," said Rodriguez.
The ordinance will be voted on at next city council meeting on April 26. ..Source.. by Cory Stark
April 13, 2011
Lebanon one step closer to having new rules for sex offenders
November 12, 2009
FL- Attorney says Lee County sex offender law is unconstitutional
If this lawyer thinks he is going to get a ordinance declared unconstitutional based on the grounds of "fairness" then these RSOs need another lawyer! How about trying OVERBROAD and as written I am quite sure no one can micro manage folks and their every move who are not under some form of supervision as this ordinance does. Also, as written it would not be possible for RSOs to live due to lack of access to normal businesses that any reasonable person would need to obtain life's necessities.
11-12-2009 Florida:
by Jeremiah Jacobsen
FORT MYERS, Fla. - A Fort Myers lawyer is fighting to throw out a new law meant to protect your kids from sex offenders.
On Thursday, a Lee County judge will hear arguments about whether Lee County's "Child Safety Zone" ordinance is unconstitutional. Attorney Peter Aiken says the law is far too broad to be fair.
"I'm a grandfather in this community. I have two little grandkids," Aiken said. "I don't have a problem in the world with real laws, with real penalties."
But Aiken says the "Child Safety Zone" law makes it too difficult to understand where offenders can and can't be.
"The problem with a law like this, which I call a feel-good law, is it makes the public feel good and feel safe, but it doesn't do anything," Aiken said.
Aiken represents 57-year-old Joseph Comfort, the first person arrested under the ordinance, after visiting a Lehigh Acres swimming pool in July.
The law orders offenders to stay 300 feet from areas "where children congregate" like schools, parks, and beaches; but Aiken says the language is so vague, offenders don't know where they can be legally.
"If you read this ordinance technically, you can't go to McDonald's, because McDonald's has the playground out front."
Lee County Sheriff Mike Scott was one of the law's leading supporters before it passed in March.
"The sympathy in terms of restrictions would not lie with the person who did the violating, it should lie with the victim, in the light of protecting future victims," Scott said, during an interview on the subject with WINK News last January.
But Aiken says Florida law lumps all sex offenders together in one category, whether the past crime involved a child or not.
"This law deals with anybody that's been convicted of a sex offense and has been labeled a sex offender, regardless of how long ago, regardless of the conduct," Aiken said.
Aiken says Comfort's crime nearly 20 years ago didn't involve a child; yet the attorney says this ordinance is like punishing his client for life.
"A lot of these people are living clean, productive lives, with children, with families. It's not fair," Aiken said. "It is absolutely, 100-percent, not fair."
Aiken says sex offenders are already subject to tough laws and regular visits by deputies.
The sheriff's office says it will let the legal process go forward without speculating on an outcome. ..Source..
October 19, 2009
MA- Sex offender bylaw now includes loitering provision
10-19-2009 Massachusetts:
No loitering within 300 feet of town or state park for sex offenders convicted of child-related offense
If Town Meeting passes a bylaw restricting where Level 3 sex offenders may legally live in town, legislators will also be restricting where these felons may legally loiter.
The town’s contracted law firm, Kopelman & Paige, used a sex offender bylaw that has already been approved by the Attorney General’s office as a template for the one Plymouth’s Town Meeting will vote on late this month, Acting Town Manager Melissa Arrighi explained.
This bylaw includes a loitering restriction.
Selectman Butch Machado pushed for a sex offender bylaw preventing Level 3 sex offenders from living within 2,500, or half a mile, of any school, daycare center, elderly housing complex, park or recreation facility.
But, after hearing arguments against the efficacy of such a restriction, the Advisory and Finance Committee voted unanimously against it.
In the event the article was passed without their blessing, committee members voted to reduce the residency requirement to 1,500 feet. But that amendment would have to be made on Town Meeting floor.
Earlier in the same meeting, experts noted that restricting Level 3 sex offenders to such a serious degree would only lead to homeless offenders who will be more difficult for police to track. These experts also noted that a loitering restriction might prove more effective, since sex offenses are rarely committed in the offenders’ homes.There are times when things said, simply make no sense. i.e., what does loitering near state parks have to do with offender's homes. That correlation makes no sense, but neither does a loitering restriction. I would ask, how many offenses resulted from loitering sex offenders near state parks, has there ever been one?
They conceded, however, that Plymouth could become a dumping ground for these convicted felons if surrounding towns adopt sex offender residency restrictions and Plymouth doesn’t.
Selectmen stuck to their guns on the issue, voting, 4-1, last month to recommend Town Meeting approve the proposed sex offender bylaw, in spite of the Advisory & Finance Committee’s position against the measure.
Since then, town counsel has added the loitering restriction, which reads: “It shall be unlawful for a sex offender who has been convicted of a sex offense involving a child to knowingly be present in any town or state park.” The restriction, if passed, would also prohibit these offenders from being within 300 feet of a town or state park. The added section on loitering does not, however, specifically address loitering in the vicinity of a school or daycare center and makes no mention of protections for the elderly.
Under the language of the proposed bylaw, police would be given the authority to enforce the loitering provisions, and violators would be slapped with a $300 non-criminal fine for every day they are in violation.
The residency restriction would not apply to Level 3 sex offenders who have reported their Plymouth residence prior to Oct. 26 of this year, or if the person is a minor or was a minor when he or she committed the offense and was not convicted as an adult. Other exceptions include those Level 3 sex offenders who register at a particular residence prior to a school, day care center, park or elderly housing facility being established and therefore creating a new prohibited area.Talk about being convoluted this is unbelievable, how would it ever be enforced esp. with the exceptions?
Under the bylaw’s restrictions, Level 3 sex offenders who move to within a half mile of a school, day care center, park or elderly housing complex would have 30 days to move outside that radius.
The first offense would prompt a notification to the offender that he or she has 30 days to move. Subsequent offenses are enforceable by police and carry a $300 non-criminal fine for each offense.
Town Meeting convenes Oct. 26. ..Source.. by Emily Wilcox
September 4, 2009
FL- Sex Offender Arrested At Park
A few points, and I have no idea whether he is guilty of any crime, the officers comments leave something to be desired. Is there a bus stop there? Is there a store there? There are dozens of reasons why this man could be in a area such as that. Now just yesterday this paper reported that there is NO LOITERING law, so where does the trespassing come from? How does one "circle" and "trespass" at the same time? We need more facts before convicting this or any other person.
UPDATE: A second story -also below- confirms my comments and it appears we have a case of police harassment (see second news article below).
9-4-2009 Florida:
Bryan Exile Had Joined ACLU In Fight Against Julia Tuttle Camp
MIAMI -- A convicted sex offender who joined the ACLU in a lawsuit trying to close a camp for sex offenders under the Julia Tuttle Causeway has been arrested.
Miami Police arrested 22-year-old Bryan Anthony Exile on Thursday after he allegedly went to a Miami park where children congregate.
According to the arrest affidavit, an officer was patrolling near Rainbow Village Park in the 2100 block of Northwest Avenue after receiving reports that people were selling drugs and carrying weapons in the area. The officer reported seeing Exile circling the park, where several children were playing.
In the affidavit, the officer reported seeing Exile in the area before and warning him not to return or he would be arrested.
The officer arrested Exile on trespassing charges. Police said that when the officer found out Exile was already on probation on sex-related charges, he contacted the probation officer, who said to hold Exile until he could go before a judge, according to the affidavit.
Exile remains at the Miami-Dade County Jail.
Exile was one of dozens of sex offenders who live under the Julia Tuttle Causeway. Corrections officials have argued that they have very little choice when it comes to placing sex offenders. Local laws in Miami-Dade County require them to live at least 2,500 feet from places where children congregate. That is more than twice the state-required buffer zone of 1,000 feet. ..Source.. by JustNews.com
ACLU's plaintiff gets arrested
9-4-2009 Florida:
A sex offender living under the Julia Tuttle Causeway was arrested for trespassing near a Miami park. The defendant is part of a lawsuit challenging Miami-Dade County.
One of the lead plaintiffs in a suit challenging Miami-Dade County's restrictive ordinance against sex offenders was arrested by police on Thursday for trespassing near a Miami park and violating his probation.
Miami police said they arrested Bryan Exile after warning him to stay out of the area, which has posted signs prohibiting trespassing. The 22-year-old is one of several homeless sex offenders who live under the Julia Tuttle Causeway.
Exile's lawyer, Bruce Alter, criticized police, saying his client frequently visits family members who live in Rainbow Village, a public housing project in the 2100 block of Northwest Third Avenue.
``His wife dropped him off at her relative's home and he had a perfectly legitimate reason to be in this complex, and any suggestion that he was anywhere in the neighborhood of the park to prey upon kids is patently absurd,'' Alter said.
Exile has been on probation since 2007 after being convicted for lewd and lascivious battery on a child.
This summer, Exile was named as one of two plaintiffs in a suit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union against Miami-Dade.
The ACLU contends that the state's rule that sex offenders must live at least 1,000 feet from where children congregate supersedes the county's stricter 2,500-foot ordinance. It is unclear if Exile's arrest would have any affect on the suit.
``I don't know the answer yet,'' said Howard Simon, executive director of the ACLU of Florida. ``I only hope what has happened in the last couple of days does not mean the ordinance will evade review by the courts.''
According to Miami police, which filed two reports, Exile was spotted at 2128 NW Third Ave. in Rainbow Village on Thursday afternoon.
In their reports, two Miami police officers said they had warned Exile on previous occasions that he would be arrested if he continued loitering in the area.
``There are `no trespass' signs all over the complex,'' one report said. Furthermore, police noted that he could not give officers a reason why he was there. The arrest report for the violation of probation says Exile was ``circling the park while several kids were playing.'' Exile was booked into Miami-Dade jail late Thursday for trespassing on property after warning and sex offender/predator present in a park. ..Source.. by JULIE BROWN AND JENNIFER LEBOVICH
July 1, 2009
IA- Advice for schools on new sex offender rules
7-1-2009 Iowa:
Attorneys with the Iowa Association of School Boards are issuing advice to schools about complying with a new law that goes into effect tomorrow. Anyone on the sex offender registry must have written permission to be on school grounds, or they can be charged with loitering.
Mary Gannon of the Iowa Association of School Boards is telling schools to issue those kinds of permission slips sparingly.
"Some of the examples that we've had are dad wants to come to their daughter's graduation or, you know, come to watch their son play football and some of the things we've talked about is your ability to control the environment where that sex offender is going to be," Gannon says.
Gannon notes it's up to the offenders to comply with the law, as schools -- for example -- may not know if someone who delivers milk or bread to the school is on the sex offender registry.
"People are on the sex offender registry for a reason: they've committed a crime somewhere and they've committed a pretty serious crime and we're kind of expecting them to be on their good behavior, so I'm a little concerned about that," she says. "The other part of that is employers don't know they have employees on the registry."
Gannon is advising schools to spell out in their contracts with vendors that no one on the sex offender registry is allowed to make deliveries to the school.
The new restriction forbids convicted sex offenders from loitering at schools, daycares, parks, video arcades and other areas where children gather. Law enforcement officials say it should be more effective than the old law which restricted where sex offenders can live.
In addition to the restriction on loitering, the new law bans anyone on the registry from working as an employee or volunteer at a place where children congregate. Ganon says schools already do background checks on employees -- and even on some volunteers. ..Source.. by O.Kay Henderson
June 19, 2009
IA- Sex offenders calling state office, asking for advice on new law
6-19-2009 Iowa:
Staff in the Iowa Department of Public Safety are busy fielding phone calls from sex offenders concerned about new restrictions on loitering that go into effect July 1st.
According to Jim Saunders of the Iowa Division of Criminal Investigation, sex offenders are asking whether they can attend their child's baseball game, for example.
"You can, as long as you have a legitimate reason to be there," Saunders says."But understand if there is some question, law enforcement is going to approach you, they're going to engage you in conversation and find out what your purpose is for being there and if you can't articulate a legitimate purpose for being on that property where children are present, there could be some problems."
A new state law sets up "exclusionary zones" where registered sex offenders may not loiter. The zones are in and around places where children gather -- like schools, swimming pools, video arcades and parks. The new restrictions replace a law which stipulated convicted sex offenders couldn't live within two-thousand feet of a school. That living restriction is still in place for the most dangerous offenders, but all others listed on the state's sex offender registry are now on notice that they cannot loiter in places where children typically gather.
"So it's going to a much more effective tool for law enforcement in terms of a potential prevention of an assault or attach on a child," Saunders says.
According to Saunders, a sex offender who has children will have to get permission from a school official before they can set foot on school grounds. Saunders says his agency has been busy, answering specific questions about the new law.
"Some of the offenders were concerned: 'I can't go to my child's birthday party at Yellow Banks Park at the shelter?' Well, no you can -- you're there for a legitimate purpose," Saunders says. "But if you're there by yourself and you're hanging out at the shelter where there's a birthday party going on and you cannot articulate to law enforcement your purpose for being there, then you may have a problem. You have some explaining to do."
Law enforcement will press charges if they can prove the offender was at the park to identify potential victims. The new law also makes it a crime for a convicted sex offender to work at a school, day care operation, swimming pool, video arcade, amusement park or any other business which primarily serves children. ..Source.. by O.Kay Henderson
June 18, 2009
WI- Sexual offenders rules set
6-18-2009 Wisconsin:
Three years after the issue was first raised by Alderperson Randy Morrissette II, the Hudson City Council has adopted an ordinance restricting where people convicted of sex crimes may reside.
Three years after the issue was first raised by Alderperson Randy Morrissette II, the Hudson City Council has adopted an ordinance restricting where people convicted of sex crimes may reside.
The ordinance also establishes 150-foot restricted zones around schools, parks, daycares, youth centers and other places where children congregate.
Anyone who has been convicted of a sex crime against a child or a violent sexual offense is prohibited from loitering near the restricted places or being on the premises.
Exceptions are allowed under certain circumstances.
The ordinance bars sex offenders from residing within 200 feet of the same prohibited places.
The ordinance was adopted on a unanimous voice vote at Monday night’s City Council meeting. Alderperson Scot O’Malley, the chief critic of earlier drafts of a sex offender ordinance, was absent.
Mayor Dean Knudson declared the ordinance to be one of the best -- if not the best -- in the state concerning sex offenders.
“I think we could be a model” for other municipalities in establishing residency restrictions, he said.
“We spent a lot of time on this, probably 10 times as much as legislators who voted on a statewide law,” Knudson noted.
He didn’t say what bill concerning sex offenders state legislators had voted on recently.
Hudson’s ordinance is much more narrowly tailored than ordinances in other Wisconsin cities that have resulted in sex offenders dropping out of sight, Knudson said.
Some cities have banned offenders from living within 1,500 or 2,000 feet of places where children congregate.
According to Community Development Director Dennis Darnold, 70 percent of Hudson’s rental housing will still be available to sex offenders under the 200-foot residency restriction adopted by the council.
More than 51 percent of the rental housing north of I-94 will remain available, according to a document prepared by Darnold. South of the freeway, more than 82 percent of rental units will remain available, he said.
Darnold said 262 apartments north of I-94 lie outside of restricted areas, and 697 apartments south of the freeway are outside of the restricted zones. He counted apartments in just buildings with three or more of them.
The penalty for a sexual offender who violates the residency restriction will be a $250 forfeiture plus court costs for the first offense and a $500 forfeiture for each subsequent offense.
Each day that an offender resides in a restricted zone will constitute a separate violation.
The forfeiture for going onto restricted property without permission, or loitering near it, will be $1,000 for the first offense and $2,000 for each subsequent offense.
Morrissette had pushed for more stringent residency restrictions, but he voted to adopt the ordinance before the council. ..Source.. by Randy Hanson, Hudson Star-Observer
June 16, 2009
IA- Library considers sex offender law impact
The latest in idiot written laws. Tell me an idiot didn't write this law!
6-16-2009 Iowa:
City Attorney Don Hemphill assured Spencer Public Library board members recently that only four sentences in a new state law apply to city and county libraries. He also deemed the potential impact of the 32-page act signed by the Gov. Chet Culver -- which lists prohibitions that apply only to individuals who've been convicted of a sex offense against a minor -- on the library as being "very minimal."
As of Monday evening, there were 19 sex offenders on the online Iowa Sex Offender Registry listed as living in Clay County. In the surrounding counties, there were 39 in Buena Vista, 59 in Cherokee, 12 in Dickinson, 13 in Emmet, 22 in O'Brien, 11 in Osceola, five in Palo Alto and eight sex offenders listed as living in Pocahontas County.
"First, I should emphasize there are two kinds of sex offenders for purposes of our consideration: Those who have committed an offense against a minor, that's a person under 18, and those whose victims were adults. Only those whose victims were minors are subject to the prohibition," Hemphill clarified. "Sex offenders whose victims weren't minors can come in and use the library like everybody else. But, sex offenders who have committed offense against a minor are banned from library property or from loitering from within 300 feet of the library property. However, the statue specifically provides that these offenders may live within 300 feet of the library. So, they can live next door in the new middle school."
Hemphill also explained there are two technical exemptions cited in this prohibition: Released offenders are authorized to come to a library to drop off their child. They may also be allowed in a library for voting purposes.
Hemphill then informed Spencer Public Library Director Kay Larson and library board members, "You don't have to enforce this law. You don't have to prepare a listing of these offenders and make sure they never set foot in the library. The standard is like any other person in the library: If somebody is acting in a way that causes you concern or suspicion, then you probably have a duty, as a reasonable person, to make some investigation. But, no, you don't have law enforcement authority or affirmative duty to try to list all these people."
As board members discussed the new law and whether they should develop a policy relating to it, the city attorney indicated there are a few existing policies they may want to consider.
"They can be on the premises with the approval of the library administrator. So, you need to think about under what circumstances, if any, should Kay authorize one of these persons to be on the library premises. I saw a suggestion that that would have to be a board decision. You could take the other extreme and leave it up to Kay to do whatever she wants," Hemphill told board members.
He continued, "The latest questions are: Are we going to serve these people even if they can't come to the library? Can they get a card? Can somebody come and get those materials for them?"
"I suppose there could be a criteria that they could come for the purpose of getting a card. Maybe they'd only come at 9 a.m., when children wouldn't be present," Hemphill answered. Or, convicted sex offenders whose victims were minors might make arrangements to visit a library while being supervised by a law enforcement official, one board member added for the sake of discussion.
The library's director then explained that individuals wanting a Spencer Public Library card can only apply for one on site. Online applications, which are "the trend in libraries," are not done locally, Larson said.
Board members directed her to crosscheck the online Iowa Sex Offender Registry registrant listings for the surrounding area with the library's current database. Larson was also told to invalidate their library cards, denying them this certain class of library service.
"I don't think that would take too much time and I think it would give our staff, if nothing else, peace of mind that we've blocked these people from just coming in here arbitrarily," she said.
While board members agreed with Spencer Public Library staff that homebound deliveries would not be allowed, it was clarified that they would be able to access the library's Wilbor and EbscoHost systems. The online systems allow users to download audiobooks and to access full-text articles from magazines, scientific journals, newspapers and reference books.
"And, if any of those offenders have this urgent need for checking out a book, surely there'd be a friend or associate who could use their card to do that to pick up a book for them (at the library)," board member Roger Littlefield said. ..Source.. by Kris Todd, Daily Reporter Staff
June 11, 2009
CT- Safety zone? Sex offender law ‘dead on vine’
This is a roomful of misguided people at work, they have 4 RSOs and want a proximity law allegedly to protect children. Are they expecting a Woodstock? Whether or not a law is in place, its presence is not going to stop someone from committing a new sex offense. After all, there was a law which said, don't commit a sex offense and some were convicted of breaking it, what makes these people think a new ordinance is going to stop crime? Sometimes it is best to be realistic unlike what is happening here.
6-11-2009 Connecticut:
An ordinance hoping to keep convicted sex offenders from entering designated child safety zones died on the table Monday night as town legislators urged proponents to rework the language and wait for state lawmakers to enact legislation that might give the local law more credibility.
“One is always in a stronger position if in fact one has enabling legislation which gives municipalities the authority to take certain actions, and in addition, many times, carries with it the potential for a criminal penalty, which is much more severe,” town attorney John Wayne Fox said.
In Hartford, state Rep. Alfred Camillo Jr. (R-151) of Old Greenwich recently introduced “An Act Authorizing Municipalities to Impose Residency Restrictions on Registered Sexual Offenders,” a bill under review by the Joint Committee on Planning and Development. The proposed bill, if passed as written, would allow towns to enact local laws prohibiting registered sex offenders from living within certain distances of schools and child day care centers.
“The purpose in having a discussion on this was in the hopes of having a better bill, stronger bill rather than any attempt to weaken it in any way,” Mr. Fox said about discussions attorneys had with selectmen and the Representative Town Meeting’s legislative and rules committee, which recommended Monday to postpone the item indefinitely.
The Connecticut Department of Public Safety Sex Offender Registry, found at Ct.gov/dps, currently has four people, all men, listed as living in Greenwich — two in Greenwich, one in Old Greenwich and one in Riverside. Their crimes range from sexual assault to illegally possessing child pornography, and took place between 1998 and 2005.
The proposed town ordinance, which proponents said is similar to laws already in place in Danbury, Ridgefield and New Milford, would designate areas such as public parks, playgrounds, beaches, teen centers, sports and educational facilities as child safety zones. Registered sex offenders entering the marked areas would be subject to a written warning to stay away and a $100 fine if he or she refuses to leave or returns.
Critics of the document cited the constitutionality of the language, which did not allow convicted sex offenders to enter schools, for example, for meetings such as the RTM, but did allow them to enter for voting purposes.
“I’ve heard a lot about the sex offenders and their rights, but what about our children’s rights, what about my grandchildren’s rights, your brothers or your sister’s rights? We have rights, too, and I think it’s about time we took a stand on this,” said Sam Romeo, chairman of the east sector of the Community and Police Partnership. The group, along with the Greenwich Police Department, supported the ordinance, first suggested by Neighborhood Resource Officer Keith Hirsch.
“This bill, the way it’s written right now, just gives the police officer another tool in their tool box to protect our children,” said Mr. Romeo, adding that any thought that police officers might use the ordinance as an excuse to harass sex offenders is “insulting.”
“I don’t think this is going to turn Greenwich into a police state, as some have said. It’s really throwing a red herring into the issue,” he said.
Police Sgt. James Bonney said there are more than 5,000 registered sex offenders in Connecticut, a state that has 92% of offenders complying with the law that requires them, after being convicted and released, to register for 10 years for committing nonviolent crimes and crimes against minor victims, and for a lifetime for committing violent and/or multiple offenses.
“I personally don’t believe you can put a price on child safety,” Sgt. Bonney said. “These offenders have not... I don’t think they’ve paid their debt to society until they’re off the list.
“As Greenwich residents, we should not be allowing Greenwich to be a safe haven for sexual offenders when others towns in the state are making bold statements with legislation on this subject.”
Mr. Romeo said there are more than 30,000 registered sex offenders in neighboring Westchester County, N.Y., and anything can happen.
“You can’t say that this doesn’t happen in our town because it does. It happens everywhere,” Sgt. Bonney said, citing a recent Greenwich arrest of a registered sex offender allegedly hanging out near one of the busiest bus stops in Pemberwick.
Douglas Wells, chairman of the legislative and rules committee, said the goal of the legislation is important, but it’s the bill’s language that needs work.
RTM member James Boutelle agreed that bringing the bill back this fall would be beneficial.
“No other town has been sued?” he said, referring to Officer Hirsch’s claim that other towns with the ordinance have had little to no trouble with their laws. “Well, no other town is Greenwich.
“If we pass an ineffective ordinance, we will pay the price.”
While the ordinance will have to be resurrected and reworked by town attorneys before coming again to the RTM, Officer Hirsch told the Post yesterday he’s willing to give whatever support is necessary.
“The driving force in the town government is anything we can do to help the youth the Town of Greenwich, we should explore it,” he said of getting the legislation out there.
“If the selectman and the lawyers plan to revisit it, we’re definitely going to support them on this.” ..Source.. by Sara Poirier, Assistant Editor
June 8, 2009
PA- City may change sex offender law
No one is protected by this illusion, politicians just want to look good before the public. They know the truth and to cover 25 persons, what a waste of time and resources and lkely a hefty lawyer fee.
6-8-2009 Pennsylvania:
SUNBURY — No one has ever been fined or jailed for violating the city ordinance that prohibits registered sex offenders from loitering within 1,000 feet of public places where children may gather, Sunbury solicitor Michael Apfelbaum says.
But the American Civil Liberties Union says the ordinance is unconstitutional and that it will file a federal lawsuit unless Sunbury addresses the issue by today.
Meanwhile, the city’s solicitor said additions could be made to the law to address the constitutional questions.
The ACLU protest came to light after city resident Teri Jo Hunt, a registered sex offender and mother of four, was cited for taking her son to a crowded city park last summer.
The outing could have placed Hunt in jail for 60 days or cost her $500 in fines, if the ordinance had been enforced.
Apfelbaum said he wrote the ordinance at City Council’s request to replicate a similar ordinance in the city of Allentown.
The ACLU says the vague word “loitering” makes Sunbury’s ordinance unclear and unconstitutional.
With many similar ordinances throughout the state and country, Apfelbaum said he was surprised the ACLU is concerned about Sunbury’s ordinance.
Asked if the intention of the May 2006 ordinance was to keep registered sex offenders outside city limits, Apfelbaum said: “The main purpose was to keep the specifically geographical areas safe. From there, if (sex offenders) had trouble finding a living place, that’s their problem.”
The solicitor called the ordinance “tailor-made” to Sunbury, and includes playgrounds and schools as off limits to all registered sex offenders.
It is possible that the city will add to the ordinance, he said.
“I want to make sure, most importantly, that there is an ordinance that protects against people on the list,” he said. “From there, if we want to put some additional restrictions on the ordinance that satisfy people who have questions about constitutionality, we can put in those restrictions.”
There are 23 registered sex offenders who live or work in Sunbury, according to the Pennsylvania Megan’s Law Web site. However, the ordinance applies to all registered sex offenders, regardless of where they live.
”We don’t want our nice playgrounds to be a fun place for sexual predators to hang out,” Apfelbaum said. “My sense has always been that people on the list went to other towns to do their hanging out.” ..Source.. by Anna Teletovich
June 4, 2009
PA- ACLU to Sunbury: Change sex offender ordinance or face suit
6-4-2009 Pennsylvania:
SUNBURY — The city will be named in a federal lawsuit next week if it doesn’t move to eliminate a 2006 ordinance prohibiting registered sex offenders from loitering within 1,000 feet of schools, day cares, playgrounds or any public place children congregate.
The city’s sex offender loitering ordinance is being challenged as unconstitutional by the American Civil Liberties Union.
Valerie Burch, of the ACLU of Pennsylvania, contacted city solicitor Michael Apfelbaum on Tuesday and notified him that a lawsuit will be filed next week if the municipality doesn’t act.
“We’re giving the city the opportunity to make it right without going to federal court,” Burch said .
The primary issue with the Sunbury ordinance is its vagueness, she said. “It’s unconstitutional when a law is not clear,” Burch said. “Loitering is not defined. A bug on the street could cause kids to gather.”
Apfelbaum agreed the language in the ordinance was too broad and said he’ll meet next week with the city council to discuss how to tighten up the language to provide more specificity on public areas restricted to sex offenders.
“We’ve even asked the ACLU for suggestions,” he said.
If the city fails to demonstrate its willingness to address the issue by Monday, Burch said, a lawsuit will be filed in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on behalf of “Jane Doe.”
“Jane Doe” is ____, a 39-year-old Sunbury mother of four and registered sex offender, who was cited for violating the ordinance last summer.
The ACLU was alerted to the local law by news reports about ___, who was cited after she went to a city park with her young son.
___, who was convicted of a felony offense in 2002 for taking a photo of a young girl’s breasts, said she was adhering to state Megan’s Law requirements of registering annually with the state police but had no idea there was a city law prohibiting her from taking her children to events and places where other minors gathered.
Many municipalities across Pennsylvania have passed ordinances restricting sexual offenders, Burch said, but few include the loitering element.
Unlike the city ordinance, the state law doesn’t limit offenders’ housing options or movements.
Although ___ was cited and could have faced a 60-day jail sentence or $500 fine, the ordinance was never enforced. ..Source.. by Marcia Moore, The Daily Item
May 13, 2009
MI- Sex offender __ convicted of loitering near school
Is this a case of entrapment?
5-13-2009 Michigan:
MUSKEGON COUNTY -- A Norton Shores sex offender has been convicted of loitering near a school and of failing to pay a sex-offender registration fee, but acquitted of two other school loitering counts.
The misdemeanor verdicts came Friday in the case of ___, 45, of 5982 Lake Harbor, after a bench trial heard by 60th District Judge Michael J. Nolan. Nolan scheduled sentencing for 1:30 p.m. May 21.
__, a registered sex offender, was released from prison in December 2007 after serving nearly 14 years for third-degree criminal sexual conduct. He was a part-time firefighter with Norton Shores when the incident with a 14-year-old boy occurred in 1993. Authorities said __ used his position to lure the boy into several sex acts. ..News Source.. by Local reports Muskegon Chronicle
Sex offender __ charged with loitering near school
11-13-2008 Michigan:
A Norton Shores man who spent 13 years in prison for sexually assaulting an emotionally impaired boy has been arrested for "hanging out" near an elementary school.
__, 44, of 5982 Lake Harbor, a registered sex offender, was arraigned Friday before 60th District Judge Maria Ladas Hoopes.
He is charged with being a sex offender loitering near a school, in this case Churchill Elementary, a misdemeanor that carries a penalty of up to a year in jail for the first offense. Bail was set at $5,000 and a pretrial hearing for 9:30 a.m. Dec. 12. Due to jail overcrowding, his bail was reduced Monday to personal recognizance, and he was released.
The law regarding "loitering" states as follows:
MCL 28.733(b) "Loiter" means to remain for a period of time and under circumstances that a reasonable person would determine is for the primary purpose of observing or contacting minors.
Norton Shores Detective Tony Nanna said police also executed a search warrant at __'s home Nov. 6 as part of an ongoing investigation.
Note: This is a different person than the one the article is about:
The arrest was the second in less than a month in Norton Shores of a registered sex offender for violating the student safety zone by coming within 1,000 feet of a school.
___, 38, of Muskegon Heights was arrested Oct. 22 at his parents' home, 1637 Lawnel, which is near Mona Shores Middle School, 1700 Woodside.
__, who allegedly resisted police at the time of his arrest, has been bound over for trial in 14th Circuit Court.
"The safety of our kids in the community is of the utmost importance to this department and this detective and will not be tolerated," Nanna said. "Anytime we get a complaint of a possible violation, we'll investigate fully."
The complaint about __ came late last month from neighbors and school personnel at Churchill Elementary, 961 Porter, according to police.
Nanna said __ was cutting trees in a wooded lot 328 feet from school property for about a week. He was helping a friend and was not there due to employment. "He admitted he was hanging out," Nanna said.
Michigan loitering law DOES NOT prohibit being near a school per say, only if his purpose was "to observe minors." Now, is Nanna a reasonable person? Did Nanna ask this man, if he maybe stopped cutting trees because he was tired and sat down to rest, and the man answered, yes? If so, then such questioning is entrapment because nowhere is the law explained to registered offenders, not even on forms used during registration (samples submitted by various registrants). If any reader knows this person or his lawyer please contact them, they may not know the wording of the law.
At the time, __ was out on bond after being arrested for refusing to pay a one-time $35 fee for registering his address as a sex offender, police said. ..Source.. by Lisa Medendorp The Muskegon Chronicle
April 16, 2009
FL- Broward faces knotty issue of sex offenders
OH, how blind lawmakers are, nothing suggested changes anything, even looking at the issue from the lawmaker's perspective. First, not one mention that any specific footage reduces crimes, in fact, crimes are not even mentioned. The only thing that occurs if they standaridize to 1,500 feet and enact a loitering law is, is is is what? Nothing! RSOs have not been convicted of any loitering crimes nor is a problem of "RSOs are loitering" even mentioned. So, adding a loitering provision is just so that lawmakers can say, see what I did. The dilema of residency and loitering laws will never be resolved until some lawmakers decides he truely wants to PREVENT future sex crimes, and enacts something -like therapy- which changes how the offenders act in their daily lives.
4-16-2009 Florida:
No one on the Broward County Commission defended the notion of a 2,500-foot rule that would essentially eliminate all feasible housing for registered sex offenders.
The commissioners heard a series of experts warn about the folly of a Draconian residency restriction that force sex offenders into homelessness. They were told that offenders forced into unstable living conditions become more difficult to supervise, more likely to abscond, more likely to re-offend.
Lori Butts, a lawyer and psychologist who runs a South Florida sex offender treatment program, warned that stable housing was necessary for their jobs, monitoring and treatment. Banishing them to live under bridges, she warned, would leave sex offenders with ``nothing to live for. Nothing to lose.''
No one, during the two-hour hearing on Tuesday, pretended that public safety would be much enhanced if sex offenders were banned from residing within 2,500 feet of a school, park, playground or school bus stop.
UGLY OUTCOME
And Broward sees the ugly conundrum Miami-Dade County has created for itself with the 2,500-foot radius -- 63 sex offenders forced to live in under the Julia Tuttle Causeway.
But none of the well-reasoned arguments addressed the peculiar dilemma facing the Broward Commission. Miami-Dade and Palm Beach counties and most of Broward's municipalities already embraced the get-tough 2,500-ft. restriction. ''I've heard a lot said about these laws being irrational and unconstitutional,'' Broward Commissioner John Rodstrom said. ``Maybe I tend to agree with them. They are probably irrational and maybe unconstitutional.
(eAdvocate Post)
''But the problem I have is that everyone else has enacted this law,'' Rodstrom said. The perverse effect has been to convert the few remaining slivers of unincorporated Broward into havens for registered sex offenders.
Juan Formoso, the president of Broadview Park, an unincorporated Broward neighborhood with about 6,000 residents, told the commission that the number of registered sex offenders living in his community has risen from 30 to 104 in three years.
''I believe [the 2,500-foot restriction] only gives people a false sense of security,'' Commissioner Kristin Jacobs said. ``But it exists. And it constricts where sex offenders can live. It has concentrated them in our unincorporated areas.''
TEMPORARY ANSWER
The commission, reluctantly, enacted its own 2,500-foot rule but only for 90 days, hoping that in the meantime a county task force can come up with a more rational solution. But it's doubtful that any one city or county commission -- however enlightened -- can fix this escalating mess unilaterally.
State Sen. Dave Aronberg, the Fort Myers Democrat, might have the answer. He has authored a tough, rational bill creating ''a single, consistent 1,500 foot residency restriction throughout Florida.'' It includes ''child protection zones,'' prohibiting sex offenders from loitering 300 feet from schools, parks, libraries, bus stops.
Aronberg's office said his proposal, ``backed by law enforcement, prosecutors and child safety advocates, ends the confusion caused by 129 different ordinances and will eliminate the homeless sex offender problem that endangers public safety.''
Aronberg's bill would also give South Florida a way out of an embarrassing dilemma. ..News Source.. by FRED GRIMM
February 24, 2009
MI- Charge against sex offender dropped
Given there is no clear definition of "loitering" I'm not surprised at this outcome.
2-24-2009 Michigan:
MUSKEGON COUNTY -- A misdemeanor case against a Norton Shores sex offender, charged in November with hanging out near an elementary school, has been dismissed "for further investigation."
The case against Darwin Michael Brown, 44, was dropped Friday. Brown had been scheduled for trial Friday in 60th District Court on a charge of being a sex offender loitering near a school, in this case Churchill Elementary. That's a misdemeanor carrying a penalty of up to a year in jail.
Brown, a registered sex offender, was released from prison last December after serving time for third-degree criminal sexual conduct. He was a part-time firefighter with Norton Shores when the incident with a 14-year-old boy occurred in 1994. Authorities said Brown used his position to lure the boy into several sex acts. ..News Source.. by The Muskegon Chronicle
January 28, 2009
WI- Some can’t live with sex offender decision
No doubt, the police will have a field day misinterpreting this one to incarcerate registrants, opps you weren't loitering just birdwatching...I can see it now.
1-28-2009 Wisconsin:
Defeat of residency restrictions anger rules’ supporters in Greenfield
Supporters of an ordinance that would restrict where sex offenders can live in Greenfield are not giving up, despite the Common Council’s recent denial of one set of proposed rules.
Alderwoman Linda Lubotsky, who proposed such an ordinance, and other proponents plan to protest at 6 p.m. today, Jan. 29, on the steps of City Hall, 7325 W. Forest Home Ave. Plus, Lubotsky said a new proposal will come back to the Legislative Committee in the coming weeks.
Those prospective actions come on the heels of the Greenfield Common Council’s Jan. 20 meeting, in which the governing body took two votes — one on an ordinance restricting where sex offenders can live and one on where they can loiter.
Loitering ‘yes,’ living ‘no’
The loitering ordinance passed unanimously. Under the new rules, sex offenders cannot loiter within 1,000 feet of a public park, parkway, swimming pool, library, recreation trail, playground, school, day care center, specialized training facility (such as for gymnastics or dance academy programs) or athletic fields used by children.
It is not illegal for a sex offender to use a path to walk through a park, but the rules prohibit an offender from being in the child safety zone “under circumstances that warrant alarm for the safety of persons in the vicinity.”
-So, will people just start sounding alarm to everyone hoping to catch a sex offender? This is unbelievable, hysteria permeates the minds of lawmakers, creating conditions that are meaningless, unless a sex offender is "walking on a path through a park (presumably applies to child safety zones mentioned -albeit all unmarked-)." What a joke!
But, after a testy discussion between aldermen and audience members, the council, on a 3-2 vote, denied restrictions on where sex offenders can live.
As proposed, the ordinance would have allowed sex offenders now living in the city to stay put but no sex offenders could move to a residence within 1,000 feet of those places named in the loitering ordinance.
Questionable effectiveness
In voting against the residential restrictions, aldermen Donald Almquist, Shirley Saryan and Tom Pietrowski said they have not heard any complaints about sex offenders and questioned whether the ordinance would be effective.
Melissa Becker, director of the sex offender program for the state Department of Corrections, and resident Bill Stevens said the data does not prove these ordinances are a deterrent.
“Sex offenders obtain their victims through social networks, through their churches, through their hobbies, through mentoring, through babysitting, through dating women with children … nothing to do with where they live,” Becker said.
“Even the rare stranger offender does not offend in his neighborhood,” she added. “There’s just too much chance of getting caught.”
The map showing the areas where sex offenders would not be able to live was called into question, as city officials pointed out a park and a day care center that were missed when it was drawn up.
An unwelcome sign?
Supporters of the ordinance now fear Greenfield will become a “dumping ground” for sex offenders, given that several neighboring communities have passed residency restrictions for sex offenders.
They often point to Steven Hanke, a convicted sex offender who was evicted in connection with a new ordinance limiting where sex offenders can live in Franklin.
The law survived a court challenge and Hanke moved to a Greenfield hotel, much to the ire of some residents who spoke at the Jan. 20 public hearing.
Not passing the ordinance, supporters said, threatens the safety of the city’s children and other residents.
“Asking for 1,000 feet ain’t asking for much,” resident John Butschli Jr. said. “There’s plenty of other places for them to move.” ..News Source.. by MARK SCHAAF
November 13, 2008
MI- Sex offender Darwin Brown charged with loitering near school
I wonder if these folks have heard of Chicago V. Morales 527 U.S. 41 (1999) on the issue of loitering?
UPDATE: Upon review of the state's loitering law we have found there is nothing in it to prohibit a RSO from "coming within 1000 feet of a school" although the residency portion prohibits -certain offenders- from residing within 1000 feet of a school.
11-13-2008 Michigan
A Norton Shores man who spent 13 years in prison for sexually assaulting an emotionally impaired boy has been arrested for "hanging out" near an elementary school.
Darwin Michael Brown, 44, of 5982 Lake Harbor, a registered sex offender, was arraigned Friday before 60th District Judge Maria Ladas Hoopes.
He is charged with being a sex offender loitering near a school, in this case Churchill Elementary, a misdemeanor that carries a penalty of up to a year in jail for the first offense. Bail was set at $5,000 and a pretrial hearing for 9:30 a.m. Dec. 12. Due to jail overcrowding, his bail was reduced Monday to personal recognizance, and he was released.
Norton Shores Detective Tony Nanna said police also executed a search warrant at Brown's home Nov. 6 as part of an ongoing investigation.
-What is the relationship between his home and loitering near a school to warrant a search of the home?
The arrest was the second in less than a month in Norton Shores of a registered sex offender for violating the student safety zone by coming within 1,000 feet of a school.
-Two? This is almost an unheard of offense, and two by the same agency inone month. Hummm.
Jeffrey Thomas Partlow, 38, of Muskegon Heights was arrested Oct. 22 at his parents' home, 1637 Lawnel, which is near Mona Shores Middle School, 1700 Woodside.
Partlow, who allegedly resisted police at the time of his arrest, has been bound over for trial in 14th Circuit Court.
"The safety of our kids in the community is of the utmost importance to this department and this detective and will not be tolerated," Nanna said. "Anytime we get a complaint of a possible violation, we'll investigate fully."
The complaint about Brown came late last month from neighbors and school personnel at Churchill Elementary, 961 Porter, according to police.
Nanna said Brown was cutting trees in a wooded lot 328 feet from school property for about a week. He was helping a friend and was not there due to employment. "He admitted he was hanging out," Nanna said.
At the time, Brown was out on bond after being arrested for refusing to pay a one-time $35 fee for registering his address as a sex offender, police said.
Brown was released from prison last December after serving time for third-degree criminal sexual conduct. He was a part-time firefighter with Norton Shores when the incident with the 14-year-old boy occurred in 1994. Authorities said Brown used his position to lure the boy into several sex acts. ..News Source.. by Lisa Medendorp The Muskegon Chronicle
October 14, 2008
WI- Sex offender mandate threatens liberty
While Mr. Clegg's observations are correct and he eludes to why aren't other crime types targeted, what he misses is, that these laws could be applied to any group or person based on the whims of local lawmakers. Whoever they dislike can become a target. That, is why the general public needs to be scared: "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." Lord Acton (1834–1902).
10-14-2008 Wisconsin:
If ever there was a good time to give short shrift to principled arguments on behalf of justice, the punishment of sex offenders could very well be that time. The caricature of the typical child molester — a man with sunglasses and a mustache, peering out his window as he cruises by the local middle school — is not a figure that should, or ever will, invite sympathy.
So it is understandable that the town of De Pere, in the interest of wiping clean such a stain on the fabric of civil society, would want to impose harsher restrictions on sex offenders. De Pere’s city council passed a law this past Tuesday mandating that registered sex offenders avoid loitering within 200 feet of public parks, schools or other areas where one would conventionally expect to find children. The ordinance applies to all sex offenders and will be pertinent to them even if they are not under state supervision.
The measure is not alien to the universal human urge to defend its young — perhaps that is why the city council passed it unanimously — but the casual disregard of De Pere’s city council for the rights of society’s most detested individuals is an act of insanity all the more troublesome because it is so excusable. De Pere’s ordinance may make a city council feel good about their ability to defend a threatened community. It may make police feel as though they have the legal muscle to nip pedophilia in the bud. It is also a drastic violation of human rights.
The idea that all sex offenders — every individual who has committed a crime that is remotely sexual in nature — are a threat to children reeks of a paranoia with no interest in hearing the voice of reason. Every class of offender, whether his or her crime victimized children or not, will now be painted with the stigma of pedophilia, the most egregious brand of sexual crime it is possible to commit. And while the bitter pill of reality may be difficult to swallow, it is impossible to see how certain classes of sexual crime — with their own psychological motivations and underlying causes — can in any way make an offender more disposed to harm children than the average citizen. The drunken partygoer who became too aggressive in a moment of alcohol-induced self-confidence is no more likely to be De Pere’s next pedophile than its average inconspicuous male park-goer.
Society has the right — and the responsibility — to protect itself from any individual who would do it harm. However, if such restrictions are truly necessary, it begs the question as to why these offenders, so unworthy of loitering in parks, are worthy of living in civil society at all. Parks, above any other public area, are where someone would be most expected to “loiter.” If this amount of latitude, so willingly given to any other member of society, is denied to sex offenders, then it is challenging to see how the city council of De Pere has any true willingness to see sex offenders rehabilitated. It is not an act of insensate brutality to acknowledge that the average pedophile may very well never be fully capable of existing in society. And if that is the case, attempting to make him or her stay away from parks will do little to discourage an underlying disorder that renders an individual more fit for a prison cell than the tree-lined streets of De Pere.
One must also question whether the measure is not simply designed to drive sex offenders out of De Pere altogether, so that another town in Wisconsin can bear the proud mantle of a municipality that is friendly to sex offenders. During a discussion on the ordinance, Alderman Bob Wilmet cited his concern that De Pere could become a dumping ground for sex offenders that are fleeing neighboring areas, where ordinances are stricter. As a patchwork of local regulations concerning the conduct — and in many cases, the living circumstances — of sex offenders begins to spring up across the state, it will be increasingly difficult for them to not only find a place to live in a state that has supposedly welcomed them with hesitant arms, but to be able to travel at all without fear of violating a draconian ordinance drafted upon the whim of well-intentioned councilmen. ..Source.. by Sam Clegg (sclegg@badgerherald.com) is a sophomore majoring in economics.
