After the Georgia takings case was decided, I downplayed the importance of the decision. I felt that the takings arguments only applied to a limited number of cases under a few statutes. However, two more state courts have issued decisions in line with the Georgia ruling.
In Ohio, the Supreme Court ruled that the statute should not be construed to apply retroactively and, therefore, didn't have to reach the takings issue. From the press release (HT: Sentencing Law & Policy):
The Supreme Court of Ohio held today that, because a 2003 state law barring certain sex offenders from residing within 1,000 feet of a school does not expressly provide that its provisions apply retrospectively, the statute does not apply to an offender who bought his home and committed his crime before the law took effect. The 6-1 decision was authored by Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer.
Because the Court found that the residency statute does not apply retroactively, the justices did not reach or decide the issue of whether such a law, if expressly made retroactive by the legislature, would violate the Ohio Constitution’s prohibition against retroactive laws that infringe on an individual’s substantive right.
If the legislature decides to amend the statute to make it apply retroactively, then the court would be forced to address the takings claim and could go the other way. For now, though, there is no disagreement with the Georgia court.
Meanwhile, in Missouri, the Supreme Court unanimously struck down the portion of the state's residency restrictions that would have forced offenders to move (HT: Sex Offender Research). From the media account:
Dozens of Missouri sex offenders can continue living near schools or child care centers as a result of a state Supreme Court decision.
In a unanimous ruling Tuesday, Missouri's high court upheld a decision in May by a circuit judge striking down a portion of Missouri's sex offender statutes that could have forced the sex offenders to move.
Missouri, like many other states, has enacted progressively tougher laws targeting its roughly 7,200 registered sex offenders.
Since 2004, Missouri has prohibited sex offenders from moving into a home within 1,000 feet of a school or day care. A 2006 law expanded that ban to cover sex offenders who already lived near a school or child care center before the law took effect.
Cole County Circuit Judge Patricia Joyce declared that portion of the law unconstitutional because of its retroactive application. The Missouri Supreme Court heard arguments on a state appeal Jan. 31 and ruled Tuesday -- an unusually speedy decision.
I'm very interested to see how these cases move forward. Ultimately, I stand by my belief that they won't have a long term effect because they don't jeopardize residency restrictions generally. However, I think if enough of these opinions are issued, the momentum may shift and I may be proven wrong.
RE: Missouri case
The public statement by MO Gov. Blunt is telling.
"and it is an outrage that our state's highest court has ruled in favor of sex offenders who want to continue living near schools and child care facilities."
The Court unanimously ruled in favor of the Constitution, but the public will interpret Blunt's words as the Constitution should not apply to RSOs. Not able to vent against the court, the public will vent against those who "want to continue living near schools and child care facilities." Blunt's statement is dangerously irresponsible.
Posted by: jjoe | February 22, 2008 at 04:39 PM
What surprises me the most is that no one has challenged the sex offender residency law, by claiming De jure segregation. All of the court challenges have failed to bring this issue to the forefront. There is case law and precedent for this; however, the courts by and large refuse to acknowledge them.
Has our legislative body forgotten that they can not create laws that are de jure segregation? Southern legislatures and admires of the confederacy passed laws known as the “black codes”, which severely limited the rights of blacks. What’s the difference from what our legislative body is doing now from what Southern legislatures and former confederates did?
Segregation is defined by when specific groups are separated from others.
In order to find unconstitutional segregation, we are required to “prove all of the essential elements of de jure segregation”--that is, stated simply, a current condition of segregation resulting from intentional state action directed specifically to the [allegedly segregated] individuals.
Segregation today in the United States has led directly to the development of a second-class citizen.
Now tell me that these laws don't violate de jure segregation!
Posted by: Cruz | February 22, 2008 at 11:39 PM