ILNews

Judge: safety in danger if offender doesn't move

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2007
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
A Tippecanoe County judge has denied the request of a convicted sex offender wanting to stay in his Lafayette home as the court considers his lawsuit to no longer be deemed a danger to children.

Superior Judge Don Johnson issued a two-page order this week denying a request by John Doe, a 56-year-old man being ordered to move so that he's not within 1,000 feet of children-saturated areas, such as a school or church.

An Indiana law that took effect July 1, 2006, prohibits convicted child crime offenders from living within 1,000 feet of a school, youth program center, or public park. Doe complied but decided to take advantage of new legislation that began this July allowing such offenders to petition a court to examine whether he or she still poses a danger to children and should be forced to move.

The court has ordered two independent psychiatrists to evaluate whether Doe should still be considered an offender against children and a danger to society.

"The statute is designed to provide a safeguard for minors by requiring convicted sex offenders not to reside within 1,000 feet of designated areas where children are likely to reside," he wrote. "The public interest will be disserved should the preliminary injunction be granted."

Now, Doe's attorneys have 30 days to file an interlocutory appeal with the Indiana Court of Appeals on whether Judge Johnson erred in not granting the preliminary injunction request. Attorneys could also file a permanent injunction petition to challenge to overall law.
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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT