Supreme Court of Georgia Strikes Down Residency Restrictions

The Supreme Court of Georgia has struck down the state's restriction residency restriction laws.   From the AP:

Georgia's top court overturned a state law Wednesday that banned registered sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of schools, churches and other areas where children congregate.

"It is apparent that there is no place in Georgia where a registered sex offender can live without being continually at risk of being ejected," read the unanimous opinion, written by presiding Justice Carol Hunstein.

The law had been targeted by civil rights groups who argued it would render vast residential areas off-limits to Georgia's roughly 11,000 registered sex offenders and could backfire by encouraging offenders to stop reporting their whereabouts to authorities.

From the opinion itself:

Unlike the situation in the typical regulatory takings case, the effect of OCGA § 42-1-15 is to mandate appellant's immediate physical removal from his Hibiscus Court residence. It is "functionally equivalent to the classic taking in which government directly . . . ousts the owner from his domain." Lingle, supra, 544 U.S. at 539. As long as the day care center remains in its current location, appellant cannot reside in his home until he is released from the registration requirement by a superior court, OCGA § 42-1-12 (g), which cannot occur until a minimum period of ten years has passed after his release from probation.

It's important to note that this decision was entirely premised on a takings challenge because the Georgia statute as applied didn't "grandfather" existing residences.  As the opinion itself makes clear, most other states have not followed the Georgia approach.  So, in itself, this decision doesn't call into question most residency restrictions across the nation.  Still, it's a big victory for the Southern Center for Human Rights and for those who question the efficacy of residency restrictions in general.

HT: How Appealing

Comments

[David T]

I care what happens to these "wastes of human flesh"? Too bad! Why should it be easy for these vial people to live anywhere?

[DL]

Then where should they all live? Underground? It got to the point where a sex offender would need to move every time any facility, effectively removing right of property.

I'm glad the courts have stepped in to put the kubash (sp?) on a very well intended but short sighted law.

[David T]

Underground is too good for them - death penalty - or find an uninhabited island - they are not welcome on this planet.

[Dave]

Last one to die, please turn off the lights.

It's attitudes like that which will make this planet inhospitable for anyone.

Enjoy your ivory tower, sir. The view must be pleasant.

[Ilah]

"Why should it be easy for these vial people to live anywhere?"

(sigh) As has been said before, numerous times, it is only the ignorant who still believe that public safety is best served by making life as difficult as possible for sex offenders living in the community.

In truth--not opinion--the policies so favored by those such as yourself go a long way toward endangering children. Continuing to support them is an act of irresponsibility most often practiced by those more interested in the gratification of self-righteousness than the fulfillment of public safety.

[Leah Simon]

To those of you who consider every sex offender a vile person I ask that you not judge lest you be judged. How many of you slept with an underage partner when you were in your teens? Oh most of you! Why that makes you a sex offender too! The truly dangerous are the ones to be watched, but to paint the picture with such broad strokes is just plain stupid! It could be your son or grandson who is labeled a sex offender.

[Mark in Jersey]

Dave, you probably DO care about these "wastes of human flesh", because for victims under eighteen:

In 46.5% of the cases, the offender is a Family Member, and
In 46.8% of the cases, the offender is your Friend or Acquaintance.

(U.S. Dept. of Justice, 2003, NCJ 198281).

Only 6.7% of the cases are the so-called "stranger danger".

You're a tool for lumping people into one category. Think a little before over reacting, m-kay?

[Mark in Jersey]

Dave, you probably DO care about these "wastes of human flesh", because for victims under eighteen:

In 46.5% of the cases, the offender is a Family Member, and
In 46.8% of the cases, the offender is your Friend or Acquaintance.

(U.S. Dept. of Justice, 2003, NCJ 198281).

Only 6.7% of the cases are the so-called "stranger danger".

You're a tool for lumping people into one category. Think a little before over reacting, m-kay?