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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT