Iowa Town's Total Sex Offender Ban May Be in Jeopardy

A helpful reader informs us that a small town in Iowa (Dyersville to be precise) has decided against repealing an ordinance that bans all sex offenders from residing within the city limits. The ordinance however, is in tension with the state's own residency restrictions which prohibit sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of schools, libraries, and daycare centers. Thus, it appears that the town's ordinance is in a state of limbo. From The Telegraph Herald:

The Dyersville City Council decided not to act Monday on a repeal of an ordinance passed in 2005 that bans all sex offenders from residing within city limits.

Council member Molly Evers, a longtime opponent of the ordinance, cited a recent change in Iowa Code that takes away power from municipalities to adopt ordinances on residency of sex offenders.

[Under Iowa law], "any motion, resolution or ordinance adopted by a political subdivision of the state is void and unenforceable."

Four days after the council meeting, Evers expressed her displeasure with the decision not to move forward. "Dyersville should do the right thing now and bring its ordinance in accord with state law," Evers wrote in an e-mail to the TH. "Unfortunately, though, some people cannot admit it when they are wrong.

City Attorney Marc Casey contacted the Iowa Attorney General's office for "informal" advice before forming his opinion, according to Iowa Attorney General spokesman Bob Brammer.

"In our view, a local ordinance in this realm likely would be preempted by the specific language in the statute," Brammer said. "We encourage any city to consider and research if there are potential liabilities if the city enforces an ordinance that has been preempted or voided by state law."

Heavens said he's not concerned about litigation against the city. "Somebody would have to show they were harmed that they can't live in the city limits of Dyersville," Heavens said. "We have never had (sex offenders) come here and ask us to live here."

Meanwhile, a 19 year old Dyersville man has been charged with the sexual abuse of two 13 year old girls.  If he is convicted, it will be interesting whether the town will enforce the residency restriction on a current resident. 

Comments

[Eric Knight]

Keep in mind that this is the same city that became famous from the "Field of Dreams" movie, and the city got a lot of money from the tourists that came to look at the baseball field in a corn farm. Since then, the craze has died down, but the city finds itself lacking in the national/international recognition department.

Therefore, I think they are using the tactic as a publicity stunt. I've always maintained that any larger city that wants to really advertise itself as "family friendly" can simply outlaw registered sex offenders from the city limits in total. This would, of course, be reported as national news. The only "advertisement costs" would be in the form of defending the ordinance through the months or years of litigation through the various courts, as any awards would not be paid through appeals. Even if this ran into the low millions, a medium sized city would probably make ten times as much in revenue from newer people suckered into moving into the "family friendly" city.

[Joseph Marchelewski]

I don't think it's quite legal to ban even a sex offender from residing in a particular city. Can they ban all drug offenders or domestic violence offenders?

[Eric Knight]

"If he is convicted, it will be interesting whether the town will enforce the residency restriction on a current resident. "

In today's times, he will be in jail for at least a decade, perhaps longer, so by the time he's out the residency restrictions will be codified on a national, or even international, scale.

[Erin Clayton]

Even though this is the same city that became famous from the "Field of Dreams" movie, I do not think this is a publicity stunt. Iowa is well known for being family oriented. I lived in Cedar Rapids for a long time & I was impressed with the way that family values were upheld & protected. I have lived in other parts of the country where this was not done, & the crime rate was a lot higher than it is in Iowa. What is wrong with wanting to protect your family & friends? The people that you are saying have a right to live in town lost their rights as soon as they had their name added to the sex offender list in my opinion. I wouldnt want a known sex offender living down the street from me or my family.

[rodsmith]

no offense erin but you want to show me just where you found this in the U.S CONSTITUTION?

" The people that you are saying have a right to live in town lost their rights as soon as they had their name added to the sex offender list in my opinion."

LEGALLY under that CONSTITUITON once they completed any court ordered sentence they have the SAME RIGHTS YOU DO. Just about every law passed in the last 10-15 years covering sex offence is COMPLETELY ILLEGAL under that DOCUMENT and are also ILLEGAL under the only U.S Supreme Court decision covering them.

if you have the guts i dare you to EDUCATE YOURSELF read that decision.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/01-729.ZS.html

espcially notice THIS PART of the decisin

"Contrary to the Ninth Circuit’s assertion, the record contains no evidence that the Act has led to substantial occupational or housing disadvantages for former sex offenders that would not have otherwise occurred. Also unavailing is that court’s assertion that the periodic update requirement imposed an affirmative disability. The Act, on its face, does not require these updates to be made in person. The holding that the registration system is parallel to probation or supervised release is rejected because, in contrast to probationers and supervised releasees, offenders subject to the Act are free to move where they wish and to live and work as other citizens, with no supervision."

this asinine illegal law DIRECTLY violates that!

[Daniel]

Rodsmith.

I admire you passion but you need to understand that it falls on deaf ears. "Family values" is code talk by parents who enjoy beating their children, teaching their children that repeating anything other than exactly what their parents tell them to do is from the devil, and making sure their children have the narrowest possible minds. Talking to people about the US Constitution is a waste of breath. They don't know anything about that and they don't want to know anything about that. Leave them in peace.

[rodsmith]

nice one daniel..but i will always tell them. because sooner or later one of the idiots will try and pull that same illegal violation of the constitution with ME and at that time they will simply be DEAD! i won't care who they are what clothing they have on! they will simply be DEAD.

and i dont' want to hear anyone say "I DIDN'T KNOW!'