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. 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!!!

  2. 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?

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT