ILNews

COA: Park ban violates ex post facto laws

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Relying heavily on a recent Indiana Supreme Court decision regarding sex offenders and ex post facto laws, the Indiana Court of Appeals split in finding a city ordinance banning a convicted sex offender who no longer has to register with the state was punitive and unconstitutional as applied to him.

In Eric Dowdell v. City of Jeffersonville, No. 10A04-0811-CV-676, the appellate court used the recent rulings from the Supreme Court in Wallace v. State and another panel of the Court of Appeals in Doe v. Plainfield, 893 N.E.2d 1124 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008), which concerned a similar ordinance and is pending transfer.

Jeffersonville passed an ordinance in 2006 prohibiting sex offenders from entering public parks with very limited exemptions, such as to watch a minor relative play a sport. The sex offender must demonstrate good cause as to why he or she should be allowed into the park. Eric Dowdell was convicted of sexual battery in 1996, served his sentence, and was no longer required to register by the time the city passed the park ban. Dowdell sought a waiver to enter the park to be allowed to play a sport himself, which was denied twice by a City Court judge. He is appealing the denial of one of those requests.

Dowdell brought the suit for injunctive and declaratory relief, claiming the ordinance is facially unconstitutional and unconstitutional as applied to him. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the city.

Chief Judge John Baker and Judge Michael Barnes agreed with Dowdell and reversed summary judgment in favor of Jeffersonville. Although the majority declined to address his facial challenge because of the precedent set by Doe, it did find the ordinance to be unconstitutional as applied to him by using the seven factors set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144, 168-169 (1963).

The majority cited the Indiana Supreme Court's reasoning in Wallace to support their conclusion that six out of the seven factors - affirmative disability or restraint; sanctions that have historically been considered punishment; finding of scienter; traditional aims of punishment; application only to criminal behavior; and excessiveness - were punitive as applied to Dowdell.

The majority came to a different conclusion in some areas of the factors test than the panel that decided Doe, which the chief judge noted came down before Wallace was decided. The panel in Doe gave little or no weight to the factor of traditional aims of punishment, but this panel believed the factor is significant.

"We hold that as applied to Dowdell, the Ordinance violates the prohibition on ex post facto laws contained in the Indiana Constitution because it imposes burdens that have the effect of adding punishment beyond that which could have been imposed when his crime was committed," wrote Chief Judge Baker.

Judge Terry Crone came to a different conclusion in his dissent when he weighed the seven factors and believed the ordinance to be constitutional when applied to Dowdell. He only found two to be punitive when applied in this situation. He noted that while he is somewhat troubled by the limited nature of the available exemption for convicted sex-offenders, there is a mechanism in which Dowdell and others can seek relief and appeal if they are denied.

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. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT