Landlords in one Florida town face fines or jail time if they rent to sex offenders in violation of residency restrictions. From the South Florida Sun-Sentinel:
Landlords in Davie who rent to sex offenders or sex predators in
violation of residency restrictions can be fined or jailed under a law
approved Wednesday night by the Town Council.
Like many cities in Broward County Click here for restaurant inspection reports, Davie requires a 2,500-foot buffer between where offenders live and just about anywhere children gather, including school bus stops, playgrounds and parks.
Under Davie's new law, landlords who rent to sex offenders within the buffer zone can face fines up to $500 and/or 60 days in jail. Repeat violators can face fines up to $1,000 and/or a year in jail.
The town's law now applies to all sex offenders, regardless of their conviction date. Before Wednesday, it applied only to sex offenders convicted after Oct. 1, 2004.
Like many cities in Broward County Click here for restaurant inspection reports, Davie requires a 2,500-foot buffer between where offenders live and just about anywhere children gather, including school bus stops, playgrounds and parks.
Under Davie's new law, landlords who rent to sex offenders within the buffer zone can face fines up to $500 and/or 60 days in jail. Repeat violators can face fines up to $1,000 and/or a year in jail.
The town's law now applies to all sex offenders, regardless of their conviction date. Before Wednesday, it applied only to sex offenders convicted after Oct. 1, 2004.
This is the first law allowing for prosecution I have heard of for third party violations of residency restriction laws. If anyone has a record of any other instances, let me know. These sorts of statutes really change the dynamics involved under such regimes.
What's the culpability standard here? It can't possibly be strict liability, can it? Even "negligently" would be a stretch (or at least one would hope).
Posted by: KipEsquire | January 27, 2009 at 11:27 AM
That's a good question. I always assumed that someone would eventually be charged as an accessory for a violation of the residency restrictions. In that event, the mens rea would probably be hard to prove in many scenarios. However, this article makes it sound like there is a separate ordinance which might well have a lower mens rea standard for 3rd parties. I'll see if I can find the actual law at issue.
Posted by: Corey Rayburn Yung | January 27, 2009 at 11:47 AM