ILNews

Courts weigh in on sex-offender restrictions

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
A city's law prohibiting registered sex offenders from visiting parks or recreation areas is likely on its way to the Indiana Court of Appeals in what a civil liberties attorney said could be the first appellate case of its kind in the country.

A ruling from Hendricks Superior Judge Robert Freeze March 14 upholds a Plainfield ban of sex offenders in parks and recreational areas, finding the six-year-old local ordinance constitutional and not in violation of any guideposts established by the state or federal Supreme Courts.

Judge Freeze's five-page ruling means the Marion County man identified in court records as John Doe cannot visit the areas with his son, of whom he shares custody. He was convicted in 2001 of child exploitation and possession of child pornography, served time in jail, and was placed on probation until August 2004.

Doe was visiting the Splash Island water park with his young son in June 2005 when police warned him not to return because he was on the sex-offender registry.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana filed the suit in November 2005, seeking a permanent injunction that would keep Plainfield from enforcing the ordinance it had adopted in 2002. The ordinance provided for a fine of $100 for anyone who violates the prohibition the first time and a $200 fine for each violation thereafter.

Doe won an Indiana Court of Appeals victory last year after appellate judges decided he could proceed with the suit anonymously because his safety could be jeopardized by releasing his full name. But he lost in the latest ruling when Judge Freeze wrote that the local ordinances are presumed constitutional unless specifically shown otherwise.

"The Ordinance is an administrative regulation designed to protect the users of Plainfield's parks and to protect the integrity of the parks themselves; it is not criminal or punitive in nature," the judge wrote, adding that some sexual predators target children they have access to, and some have a high incidence of re-offending.

"We're appealing," said Ken Falk, legal director of ACLU of Indiana. "This is a first in Indiana, and I don't know of any case in the country that deals with a ban (focused) solely on a person's placement on the sex-offender registry."

Indiana is well versed in legal challenges to local ordinances banning convicted sex offenders from entering certain areas; numerous suits have been filed across the state, including suits in Jefferson and Greenwood that remain pending. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has also upheld ordinances in Lafayette and Michigan City, and other trial judges have recently upheld laws restricting how close offenders can live to schools, day cares, and youth centers.

The Indiana Court of Appeals plans to consider a residency restriction during arguments set for March 31 in the Blackford County case Indiana v. Anthony W. Pollard, No. 05A02-0707-CR-640. The court is being asked to decide whether the trial court erred in finding that the 2006 statute limiting offenders from living within 1,000 feet of a school property is ex post facto law as it applied to Pollard's 20-year residency. The argument will be at 2:30 p.m. at Indiana University School of Law - Indianapolis.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The is an unsigned editorial masquerading as a news story. Almost everyone quoted was biased in favor of letting all illegal immigrants remain in the U.S. (Ignoring that Obama deported 3.5 million in 8 years). For some reason Obama enforcing part of the immigration laws was O.K. but Trump enforcing additional parts is terrible. I have listed to press conferences and explanations of the Homeland Security memos and I gather from them that less than 1 million will be targeted for deportation, the "dreamers" will be left alone and illegals arriving in the last two years -- especially those arriving very recently -- will be subject to deportation but after the criminals. This will not substantially affect the GDP negatively, especially as it will take place over a number of years. I personally think this is a rational approach to the illegal immigration problem. It may cause Congress to finally pass new immigration laws rationalizing the whole immigration situation.

  2. Mr. Straw, I hope you prevail in the fight. Please show us fellow American's that there is a way to fight the corrupted justice system and make them an example that you and others will not be treated unfairly. I hope you the best and good luck....

  3. @ President Snow - Nah, why try to fix something that ain't broken??? You do make an excellent point. I am sure some Mickey or Minnie Mouse will take Ruckers seat, I wonder how his retirement planning is coming along???

  4. Can someone please explain why Judge Barnes, Judge Mathias and Chief Judge Vaidik thought it was OK to re weigh the evidence blatantly knowing that by doing so was against the rules and went ahead and voted in favor of the father? I would love to ask them WHY??? I would also like to ask the three Supreme Justices why they thought it was OK too.

  5. How nice, on the day of my car accident on the way to work at the Indiana Supreme Court. Unlike the others, I did not steal any money or do ANYTHING unethical whatsoever. I am suing the Indiana Supreme Court and appealed the failure of the district court in SDIN to protect me. I am suing the federal judge because she failed to protect me and her abandonment of jurisdiction leaves her open to lawsuits because she stripped herself of immunity. I am a candidate for Indiana Supreme Court justice, and they imposed just enough sanction so that I am made ineligible. I am asking the 7th Circuit to remove all of them and appoint me as the new Chief Justice of Indiana. That's what they get for dishonoring my sacrifice and and violating the ADA in about 50 different ways.

ADVERTISEMENT