Ga. court overturns restrictions on where sex offenders live - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

ShaniFaye · 11-22-2007, 02:31 PM

Quote:

By BILL RANKIN, RHONDA COOK
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 11/21/07

The Georgia Supreme Court on Wednesday declared unconstitutional a provision of a 2006 state law that prohibits registered sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of day care centers, schools, churches and other places where children congregate.

In striking down the residency restrictions, the justices said they can amount to an "illegal taking" because they force sex offenders who are homeowners to abandon their homes if a place where children congregate is suddenly built nearby.

"Sex offenders face the possibility of being repeatedly uprooted and forced to abandon homes in order to comply with the [law's] restrictions," Justice Carol Hunstein wrote.

"It is apparent that there is no place in Georgia where a registered sex offender can live without being continually at risk of being ejected," Hunstein added.

According to the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, there are almost 15,000 sex offenders on the state's sex offender registry. While the court's ruling focused on the issue of sex offenders who are homeowners, it appears to also extend to all sex offenders because the entire residency restrictions were stricken.

The unanimous decision was a legal victory for Anthony Mann of Clayton County, who researched neighborhoods before he and his wife bought a house in Hampton in 2003. A day care center later opened nearby. When Mann's probation officer told him to quit his barbecue business and move from his home, he filed suit.

Mann is a registered sex offender for a 2002 conviction in North Carolina for "taking indecent liberties with children." Once part-owner of a barbecue restaurant located in a restricted area, he also challenged the state law that restricts where he can work. But the court ruled against him on that issue.

"He gets to stay in his home and he's very happy," said Mann's lawyer, Bailey Wallace of Jonesboro. "This was a severely myopic law that didn't pass the smell test. It turns people into nomads. Where was he going to live? Under a bridge? Under a trestle? Out in the open?"

House Majority Leader Jerry Keen (R-St. Simons), the lead sponsor of the sweeping 2006 law, condemned the ruling, saying the state Supreme Court had thwarted the will of the people.

"Obviously, it's extremely disappointing," he said. "In throwing out the residency requirement in total, based on one situation, the effect of their ruling is that now convicted felony sex offenders are free to live anywhere they want to in Georgia, whether it's a park, playground or day care center next door."

Keen said he anticipates revisiting the residency portion of the law when the Legislature reconvenes in January.

Russ Willard, a spokesman for Attorney General Thurbert Baker, said his office was "reviewing the decision to decide the extent to which the court has limited law enforcement's ability to enforce the sex offender restrictions."

In the state Supreme Court decision. Hunstein wrote that the law essentially places the state's police powers into the hands of third parties who decide to establish or operate a place where children congregate. This makes any registered sex offender living within a restricted 1,000-foot buffer area at odds with the law and having to decide whether to abandon their homes or face a minimum 10-year prison sentence.

"While this time it was a day care center," Hunstein wrote, referring to Mann, "next time it could be a playground, a school bus stop, a skating rink or a church."

Other areas where children congregate, under the law, include parks, gyms, swimming pools and any of at least 300,000 school bus stops across the state. The ruling does not affect restrictions on where sex offenders can work or loiter.

As for the Manns in Clayton County, Hunstein wrote, they could not legally live in their home under the law. Even if Mann could have found another home, "he is faced with the financial burden of maintaining both residences until he and his wife can rent or sell" their Clayton County home, the decision said.

Even if the Manns could rent their property to others, the sex-offender registry law forces the couple to "become lessors, an unwelcomed and unanticipated role for which they are ill-equipped," Hunstein wrote.

Sarah Geraghty, a lawyer for the Southern Center for Human Rights in Atlanta, heralded the ruling.

"This is the court saying we value property rights in this state and the Legislature cannot arbitrarily snatch them away," Geraghty said. "This is a sloppily drafted law that came into being because of election-year pandering. No other state in the United States, except Georgia, saw fit to retroactively evict thousands of people from their homes."

Geraghty is one of a number of lawyers representing sex-offender plaintiffs in a federal lawsuit that seeks to declare the entire registry law unconstitutional. That case is now pending before U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper in Atlanta.

In March, Cooper issued a ruling allowing many facets of the lawsuit to go forward. But he viewed the burden on sex-offenders who own homes differently than the state Supreme Court justices did Wednesday and dismissed claims that sought to hold the law unconstitutional because homeowners would be uprooted from their homes if a child care center or some other place where children congregate was built nearby. Cooper agreed with state attorneys who said the economic impact on sex-offender homeowners was minimal because they could continue to own the property or sell it.

The federal lawsuit's challenges that are still alive include a claim that the 1,000-foot residency and workplace restrictions should not be applied on those who were convicted before the law was enacted. The suit also attacks the residency restrictions for those who are in nursing homes and those who are homeless. It also raises a First Amendment challenge to the prohibition against sex offenders working or volunteering at a church.

Twenty-nine sex offenders who were living in a Cobb County extended-stay lodge were recently told they have to leave by Dec. 1 because a church is under construction nearby, Geraghty said. "These people were there as a last resort."

The lead plaintiff in the federal case, Wendy Whitaker, was forced to move from her home in Harlem, Ga., in early 2006. She lives in South Carolina now and has been paying rent there while also paying the mortgage for the Harlem residence.

Whitaker, now 28, is on the sex offender registry because at age 17 she engaged in consensual oral sex with a 15-year-old boy on school property.

Whitaker said she was pleased with Wednesday's ruling. She said she never would have moved if she had not been required to. But now, she said, she's not sure whether she will return.

"My husband and I had decided it was in our best interest to leave the state of Georgia," she said. "I don't know if we'll return, given everything we've been through."

Staff writer Jim Galloway contributed to this article.

My mother and I were just talking about this the other weekend, when we were discussing how stupid we thought it was that all registered sex offenders here had to spend halloween night in a designated area with their parole officers.

Now, before anyone jumps on me, I totally agree that there are some sick fucks out there and IMO they should still be in jail, not finding somewhere to live. BUT I find it totally wrong that after a "sex offender" has done his time and found a place to live under the restrictions, it could be totally ripped out from under them just because a bus stop got moved or a day care center was built.

Most of the guys I dated in high school could have been considered a "sex offender" at the end of one of our dates simply because of ages. I will never understand why that "kind" of sex offender was penalized for doing nothing because a new business was built or school bus stop created. Its just not fair, IMO.

I can understand not letting them move to an area that already had restricted places on the list....but to make them uproot and leave because of something AFTER makes me sick. In the last few years our news has been filled with story upon story about SOs like the guy in this case....some of them did nothing more than be 17 and horny in the backseat of a car with at 16 year old.

Please, remember Im not at all disclaiming that the sick ones need to be near kids, Im not advocating pedophiles and rapists. But, until someone buys and island and ships them all there after they have done their time....I find it horrible that they had to live under the previous law.

your thoughts?

ngdawg · 11-22-2007, 02:36 PM

That the sex offender laws right now are so broad and all-encompassing that it makes it impossible to differentiate between the peds and the just dumb. So law decides that the 'just dumb' are as much a threat as the peds and everyone gets the same treatment. Any other sector of society being grouped in such a way and treated with the same disdain would be considered a total travesty-but throw in the words "sex offender" and everyone gets on their high horse and feels it's all justified.
Long way of saying I agree with you, Shani.

Terrell · 11-22-2007, 04:21 PM

The court got it right in my opinion. Ngdawg also has a good point on the broadness of the sex offender laws. In some states a lewd and lacivious will require you to be on the sex offender registry. L&L is pretty broad and open to intrepretation. Public urination can as well (indecent exposure) in some states, but most men have committed this "offense" at some point in their lives (wouldn't be surprised if quite a few women haven't as well).

The funny thing is that the people who most deserve to be on the sex offender registry, the crimes that really victimize others sexually, aren't being given life without parole. I could see though in some cases where statutory rape shouldn't carry life (or even prison) in the case where the people who had sex are close in age, (I'm thinking 2 teens where the girls' parents catch them and insist on prosecution) and the state law isn't enlightened enough to have a Romeo & Juliet exception.

ratbastid · 11-22-2007, 04:24 PM

Anyone else wishing they'd known Shani in high school?

(I agree too, btw--given how broken our justice system is, we need to apply some common sense to this thing.)

MSD · 11-22-2007, 09:52 PM

The sex offender registry is de facto proof that our prison system does nothing more than get people away from us so we can calm down about what they did. If they are a repeat offense risk, they obviously aren't suited to live in society with the rest of us. If they aren't, then we're fucking them over by depriving them of their right to live a normal life. At the very least, the judge and jury should have the authority to choose whether to list an offender. Being a registered offender in our society is more like the mark of Cain than the scarlet letter, and it's not fair to assign the same draconian punishment to everyone who commits a crime within a broad spectrum.

11-22-2007, 02:36 PM	#2 (permalink)
ngdawg peekaboo Location: on the back, bitch	That the sex offender laws right now are so broad and all-encompassing that it makes it impossible to differentiate between the peds and the just dumb. So law decides that the 'just dumb' are as much a threat as the peds and everyone gets the same treatment. Any other sector of society being grouped in such a way and treated with the same disdain would be considered a total travesty-but throw in the words "sex offender" and everyone gets on their high horse and feels it's all justified. Long way of saying I agree with you, Shani.

11-22-2007, 04:21 PM	#3 (permalink)
Terrell Insane Location: Orlando, Florida	The court got it right in my opinion. Ngdawg also has a good point on the broadness of the sex offender laws. In some states a lewd and lacivious will require you to be on the sex offender registry. L&L is pretty broad and open to intrepretation. Public urination can as well (indecent exposure) in some states, but most men have committed this "offense" at some point in their lives (wouldn't be surprised if quite a few women haven't as well). The funny thing is that the people who most deserve to be on the sex offender registry, the crimes that really victimize others sexually, aren't being given life without parole. I could see though in some cases where statutory rape shouldn't carry life (or even prison) in the case where the people who had sex are close in age, (I'm thinking 2 teens where the girls' parents catch them and insist on prosecution) and the state law isn't enlightened enough to have a Romeo & Juliet exception.

11-22-2007, 04:24 PM	#4 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	Anyone else wishing they'd known Shani in high school? (I agree too, btw--given how broken our justice system is, we need to apply some common sense to this thing.)

11-22-2007, 09:52 PM	#5 (permalink)
MSD The sky calls to us ... Super Moderator Location: CT	The sex offender registry is de facto proof that our prison system does nothing more than get people away from us so we can calm down about what they did. If they are a repeat offense risk, they obviously aren't suited to live in society with the rest of us. If they aren't, then we're fucking them over by depriving them of their right to live a normal life. At the very least, the judge and jury should have the authority to choose whether to list an offender. Being a registered offender in our society is more like the mark of Cain than the scarlet letter, and it's not fair to assign the same draconian punishment to everyone who commits a crime within a broad spectrum.