« Ind. Gov't - Still more on: "State no longer holds all cards" | Main | Courts - In Pennsylvania, "Women begin to dominate state appellate courts" »

Thursday, November 05, 2009

Courts - Sex offender laws before several courts

Nov. 2nd ILB entry discussed recent decisions of the Indiana and Kentucky Supreme Courts relating to the ex post facto impact of sex offender residency restriction laws.

In California, this Nov. 4th story by Bob Egelko of the San Francisco Chronicle reports:

The California Supreme Court appeared to be searching for a middle ground Tuesday in a dispute over whether thousands of formerly imprisoned sex offenders must live at least 2,000 feet from parks and schools, a voter-approved restriction that would exclude them from most of the state's urban areas. * * *

A state lawyer argued that Proposition 83, a November 2006 initiative, imposed the residency restriction on all 65,000 registered sex offenders in California and subjected them to prosecution for violations.

An attorney for four paroled offenders, two from the Bay Area, said the restrictions covered, at most, only those who committed sex crimes after Prop. 83 passed - and made little sense even for that group. * * *

The state says about 6,800 registered sex offenders are now on parole. Nine months after Prop. 83 passed, parole officers began ordering them to leave their homes if they lived less than 2,000 feet from a park or school, and arresting them for parole violations if they stayed.

Under those rules, "San Francisco is one big exclusion zone," Galvan said. Because authorities have refused to let parolees move to other counties, he said, their only choices are homelessness or prison.

Baxter noted, however, that Galvan's four clients had all been paroled before Prop. 83 passed, and would not be subject to the residency restrictions if the court interpreted the measure to cover only post-November 2006 parolees. That was the most logical interpretation of the measure, said Baxter, generally the court's most conservative justice.

But Mennemeier said the state's ballot pamphlet, which included arguments by Prop. 83 supporters to create "predator-free zones" around schools and parks, showed that voters intended to apply the limits to all registered sex offenders.

Justice Joyce Kennard appeared skeptical, noting that ex-offenders who were barred from living near parks or schools "can still mingle out there."

Galvan's attempt to limit Prop. 83 to those who committed sex crimes after its passage was questioned by Baxter and Justice Carol Corrigan, who appeared willing to apply the restrictions at least to those who were imprisoned for sex crimes in November 2006.

James Nash of the Columbus Ohio Dispatch reports today in a story that begins:
Thousands of registered sex offenders would be subject to less-stringent reporting requirements if defense lawyers succeed in challenging parts of a 2007 state law intended to crack down on sexual criminals.

The attorneys told the Ohio Supreme Court yesterday that the get-tough law was applied illegally to more than 26,000 sex offenders who were sentenced before it took effect.

In addition, the lawyers said, the measure penalizes people who commit sex offenses before they turn 18 by requiring them to continue to register as sex offenders well into adulthood.

The state's highest court heard four cases yesterday challenging Senate Bill 10, which created a new system for classifying sex offenders based more on the severity of the crime than the likelihood of committing future offenses.

More than half of the offenders were placed in the most-serious category -- sexual predators -- who are required to register every 90 days for life.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on November 5, 2009 10:48 AM
Posted to Courts in general