Federal Court Finds Child Sex Offender Residency Restrictions Unconstitutional
Last year we reported
that the Illinois Supreme Court upheld a state statute making it unlawful for a
sexual predator or a child sex offender to knowingly be present in any public
park or on real property comprising any public park. Illinois law also makes it unlawful for a child sex offender to reside within
500 feet of a school, playground, or any facility providing programs or
services exclusively directed toward people under age 18. Recently,
however, a federal district court case found unconstitutional a municipality’s
attempt to impose stricter residency restrictions on child sex offenders.
While the case is not directly applicable in Illinois, the decision is instructive for
those local governments seeking to impose similar restrictions.
In 2016, the Village of Pleasant Prairie, Wisconsin adopted
an ordinance prohibiting child sex offenders from residing within 3,000 feet of
schools, day care centers, parks, trails, playgrounds, places of worship,
athletic fields used by minors, or any other place minors were known to
congregate. The ordinance also prohibited offenders from moving into the
Village unless they were already domiciled there, restricted offenders from
living within 500 feet of one another, and prohibited offenders from leasing
property. The effect of the ordinance made more than 90% of the Village
off-limits to child sex offenders with most of the available property in rural
locations.
In Hoffman v. Village of Pleasant Prairie, a federal district court found these restrictions retroactively punished offenders and violated equal
protection. The prohibition on leasing property to offenders and the 90%
ban on available locations effectively banished offenders from the
Village. Without making any individualized assessment of a particular
offender’s conduct or undertaking any objective studies, the court found the
Village’s laws had a criminal rather than civil purpose effectively punishing the
offenders a second time for the same offense.
The court also found the ordinance treated the same class of
offenders differently, allowing those domiciled in the Village to stay while
banning others. Even though the offenders were not a protected class, and
the Village only had to provide a reasonable basis for the distinction, because
the Village could provide no evidence to justify the distinction the court
found it had violated plaintiffs’ right to equal protection under the law.
The case does not establish bright-line limits regarding
what types of residency restrictions a municipality may impose. Instead,
it holds that even ordinances having a clear public purpose, in this case
protecting children against the risks of recidivism by convicted child sex
offenders, must still be supported by evidence in the record supporting
restrictions that infringe on constitutional rights.
Post Authored by David Warner, Ancel Glink
0 comments:
Post a Comment