Sex Crimes

Suit By Miami Sex Offenders Under Bridge Dismissed

A Miami circuit court judge has refused to undo the city's strict local ordinances, which have forced a group of sex offenders to live under a bridge. The ACLU of Florida, which argued against the ordinances, has an interesting page describing life under the Julia Tuttle Causeway. From the Miami Herald:

In the suit, filed against Miami-Dade County, the ACLU argued Thursday the county's ordinance banning sex predators from living within 2,500 feet of schools conflicts with a state statute that sets the boundary at 1,000 feet.

But Miami-Dade Attorney Tom Logue countered that, if that were true, the Legislature would have clearly inserted the preemption into the statute.

In fact, Logue pointed out, over the past few years, various lawmakers have tried and failed to change the sex offender residency restrictions to make local ordinances more consistent with state law.

That effort -- and its repeated failure to pass snuff in the Legislature -- demonstrates there was nothing in the original statute -- even intended -- that would prohibit municipalities from drawing up their own restrictions.

UK Sex Offender Banned From Particular Street

A British sex offender has been banned from visiting a particular street. From the BBC:

John Horton, 41, has been banned from visiting the street in Chard for five years afer a court granted an injunction.

Knightstone Housing Association was granted the order after some residents complained Horton may try to return after his release from prison.

Horton has served a sentence for indecently assaulting a girl under 16 in Wales.

He has also been convicted twice for causing grievous bodily harm and was sent to prison in 2008 for handling stolen goods and for breaching his sex offenders order.

New Sex Offender Registration Scholarship

Thanks to Sentencing Law & Policy, we see a new article on SSRN by Amanda Agan (of the University of Chicago Department of Economics) entitled Sex Offender Registries: Fear Without Function? From the abstract:

I use three separate datasets and designs to determine whether sex offender registries are effective. First, state-level panel data is used to determine whether sex offender registries or public access to them decreases the rate of rape and other sexual abuse. Second, a dataset which contains information on the subsequent arrests of sex offenders released from prison in 1994 in 15 states is used to determine if registries reduce the recidivism rate of offenders required to register compared with those who do not. Finally, I combine data on locations of crimes in Washington, D.C. with data on locations of registered sex offenders to determine whether knowing the location of sex offenders in a region help predict the locations of sexual abuse. The results from all three datasets do not support the hypothesis that sex offender registries are effective tools for increasing public safety.

I haven't read the study yet, but this is consistent with every other study that has reviewed the efficacy of registries.

Vermont Sex Offender Wins Residency Restriction Battle

A Vermont court has ruled that a sex offender could not be barred from living in areas near where children are often found. You may view the ruling here. From the Brattleboro Reformer:

A sex offender who fought a city of Barre ordinance restricting where he could live has won a legal challenge.

Washington Superior Court Judge Helen Toor struck down the ordinance, finding that the city had failed to prove it had legal authority to dictate where people reside.

Christopher Hagan had sued the city after being told he couldn't live with his wife and children in a Barre apartment.

American Civil Liberties Union attorney Dan Barrett, his lawyer, says Friday's ruling is a victory for the rule of law. He says that Vermonters convicted of crimes should have their punishment determined by the courts, not by city councils or town select boards.

Georgia Sex Offender Challenges Online Registration Requirement

Sex offender banishment seems to be catching up with the information age. A Georgia sex offender has brought a constitutional challenge in federal court against a new state law that forces sex offenders to register their passwords, screen names, and e-mail addresses with law enforcement officials. Last year, a federal judge in Utah struck down a similar requirement. Recently, that same judge vacated her decision after the Utah legislature amended the statute to address the judge's concerns. From the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

A federal judge on Tuesday began weighing arguments for and against a new Georgia law that requires sex offenders to hand over Internet passwords, screen names and e-mail addresses to law enforcement officials in the name of public safety.

Attorneys for convicted sex offender Terrence White urged U.S. District Judge Bill Duffey to block the law because it infringes on White's constitutional rights.

State attorneys countered that the 2009 law gives authorities a much-needed tool to make sure registered sex offenders don't strike again.

Duffey did not rule immediately, but he said the case centers on a "fundamental issue in our culture."

"Children do have to be protected, but that also has to be balanced with constitutional protections," he said. "And I never take those lightly."

The case hinges on a state statute that took effect in January, bringing Georgia in line with a 2006 federal law requiring authorities to track Internet addresses of sex offenders.

It also made Georgia one of the first states to take the extra step of forcing its 16,000 offenders to turn in their passwords as well.

Economist Article & Podcast About Sex Offender Laws

The Economist, which recently ran a great article, America's Unjust Sex Laws, now has an interesting podcast interview with Sarah Geraghty, a human rights lawyer in Georgia. In the podcast, Geraghty argues that America's sex-offender laws punish too many too harshly. Geraghty has been at the forefront of lots of the important sex offender litigation in Georgia and she is definitely worth listening to on the subject.

Indiana Supreme Court Declines To Hear Ordinance Challenge

The Chicago Tribune is reporting that the Indiana Supreme Court has declined to review an appellate court decision which upheld an ordinance banning registered sex offenders from parks in the suburb of Plainfield. From the Tribune:

The court declined to hear the case by a 4-1 vote, letting stand without comment a state Court of Appeals ruling upholding the 2002 ordinance.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana had sought a ruling to clarify the court's stand on such local ordinances. The court has generally declined to strike down laws restricting the activities of sex offenders but has found constitutional problems with enforcement in certain cases.

Plainfield town attorney Mel Daniel said officials were pleased with the decision released on Thursday.

ACLU attorney Ken Falk said the group might now drop a lawsuit over a similar ordinance in Greenwood. 

Another Free Exercise of Religion Issue for a Sex Offender

These days, sex offenders can't even go to church in some areas. Not long ago the State of Georgia enacted a law prohibiting sex offenders from volunteering at church. Now a North Carolina sex offender is fighting for the right to attend church, albeit one that also maintains a day-care center. From UPI:

James Nichols, 31, told The (Raleigh, N.C.) News & Observer he was surprised by his arrest in March. Sheriff's deputies learned he was attending Moncure Baptist Church in Chatham County while they were investigating an alleged sexual assault in the parking lot -- one not involving Nichols.

"Anyone in this world has a right to practice their religion, and whether they've made any mistake in their life, they should have the right," Nichols said.

The American Civil Liberties Union is supporting Nichols, while psychologists and social workers who deal with sex offenders are lobbying the General Assembly to modify the state law.

State Sen. David Hoyle, who pushed for the tough law, sees no need for change.

"As far as I'm concerned, they've lost all their rights -- to go to church ... to go to McDonald's to get a cheeseburger ...," the Gastonia Democrat said. "They have made that choice. They have imposed that on themselves. I didn't."

The Georgia law was temporarily enjoined and I think the Free Exercise claim stands a good chance of success. It will be interesting to see if courts split in these cases.

Illinois Bans All Sex Offenders from Social Networking Sites

Illinois Gov. Patrick Quinn singed a new law yesterday which makes it a felony for a registered sex offender to use social networking sites. Like most other broadly worded sex offender restrictions, this new law is sure to raise all sorts of constitutional problems. From the Chicago Tribune:

Gov. Pat Quinn signed new laws Tuesday designed to limit sex offenders' use of technology as a way to find more victims.

"Obviously, the Internet has been more and more a mechanism for predators to reach out," said Sen. Bill Brady (R-Bloomington), a sponsor of the measure and a governor candidate. "The idea was, if the predator is supposed to be a registered sex offender, they should keep their Internet distance as well as their physical distance.

"The object is to protect innocent individuals on the Internet from sex offenders."

Quinn also signed into law a new offense known as grooming, where a predator over time coaxes a minor into meeting for sexual activities. The law, whose sponsors included Rep. Jack Franks (D-Marengo), is aimed at closing a loophole in the current sex registration law, he said. It takes effect immediately.

For a discussion of one of the constitutional issues that is certain to arise, you might check out this article by my research assistant here at Sex Crimes.

Update: In the comments, sexoffenderissues links to the actual bill and notes that the restriction only applies to persons on probation or parole. That changes the legal situation for the law in a couple respects. First, convicts rarely challenge parole and probation conditions for fear of having their parole and probation revoked. That means even if there are constitutional problems, they might not be litigated for a while. Second, courts are usually more inclined to uphold restrictions that are part of a parole or probation scheme. 

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the media reported the law as being much broader, but it is still disappointing.

The Emerging Criminal War on Sex Offenders

I have just uploaded a draft of my new article, The Emerging Criminal War on Sex Offenders, to SSRN. You can find the article here. This is the abstract:

This article addresses four central questions. First, what is the difference between normal law enforcement policy and a “war” on crime? Second, assuming such a line can be discerned, has the enactment of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act (“AWA”) in combination with other sex offender laws triggered a transition to a criminal war on sex criminals? Third, if such a criminal war is emerging, what will be the likely effects of such a transition? Fourth, if such a criminal war is emerging with substantial negative consequences, how can it be stopped?
By reviewing America’s history of criminal wars, primarily the War on Drugs, the article identifies three essential characteristics of a criminal war: marshalling of resources, myth creation, and exception making. It concludes that the federalization of sex offender policy brought about by the AWA elevated law enforcement to a nascent criminal war on sex crimes. This change could have repercussions as substantial as the drug war has had on American criminal justice and society.

Now that I have the article draft completed (along with another article about judicial activism), blogging will finally resume on a regular schedule.