ILNews

COA upholds Plainfield parks ban

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Constitution doesn't ensure a person's right to enter a public park, and that means a local law restricting sex offenders from visiting those areas isn't unconstitutional, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled today.

In a 20-page opinion released in John Doe v. Town of Plainfield, No. 32A01-0803-CV-133, the three-judge panel unanimously affirmed a March ruling by Hendricks Superior Judge Robert Freese, upholding the town's ordinance banning sex offenders from parks.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana represented Doe, a Marion County resident who is on the registry for 2001 child exploitation and child pornography convictions. The group's legal director, Ken Falk, said this case is the first state appellate decision addressing the issue.

"We're obviously disappointed, and we'll have to determine what the next step will be and if we'll request transfer," Falk said.

Upholding the community's 2002 ordinance, the court determined that Doe's three constitutional claims should fail.

"... The rights guaranteed (or perhaps more accurately, the natural rights recognized as inalienable) in Article I, Section 1, are expressed in language so broad - 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,' among other rights - that it would be impossible to conclude from the text itself that the provision recognizes, as a core value, the right to enter public parks for legitimate purposes," the court wrote.

A historical examination of Indiana's constitutional scheme also doesn't provide that insight, the court found. The judges also rejected Doe's arguments that the Plainfield ordinance violates two other constitutional provisions - Section 12 that requires the ordinance to be rationally related to a legitimate legislative goal, and Section 24 that prohibits retroactive punishment through ex post facto law.

Falk said this decision could impact other pending cases throughout the state. A similar parks ban has been stayed in Greenwood pending this case's culmination, and an as-applied challenge to Jeffersonville's ordinance is also ongoing. The state's high court is also considering related sex-offender restriction and registration cases, as are federal courts.

Aside from the sex-offender restriction component, the new Doe opinion also invites Indiana Supreme Court review on whether Article I, Section 1 of the state constitution creates judicially enforceable rights or merely expresses aspirational principles that are incapable of judicial enforcement. The Court of Appeals declined to address that issue in today's opinion and noted that the state justices had also previously declined to examine it thoroughly. That question remains for another day.

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. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  2. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  3. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

  4. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  5. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

ADVERTISEMENT