ILNews

Judge: safety in danger if offender doesn't move

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2007
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint
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. vagueness cannot challenged, so let's write all laws vaguely and throw the constitution out the window.Even if the court is operating under a particular law, if they don't it they will change it to their liking. What a joke!!!

  2. Two convictions becomes one conviction with exactly the same sentence, only it is not clear wheter or not that sentence will be 18 months, 120 months or 138 months. Actually if the guns were in a home, whether or not they were his, he is protected under the 2nd amendment. Jurors need to learn the law and the constitution before judging others. The cour5ts need to do this as well.

  3. With all due respect, Rick, I think you probably would be making a mistake by going to law school. The job market for attorneys is so saturated, you may well find yourself unemployed and with a lot of debt. You mention law would be a good supplement to your skills. True. But employers unfortunately don't value that. You will find that a law degree may well pigeonhole you into an attorney slot and limit career options. If you have a good job now I would hold onto that. As an attorney, you may well end up making less with the aforementioned debt.

  4. Jack, I was only responding to bill's comment of tying everybody in government together. I agree with you though, it takes one bad apple to ruin the bunch.. As in any profession. What's truly unfair is when somebody violates someone's trust and takes complete advantage of someone

  5. John’s comment is unfair. The majority of attorneys can be trusted. Unfortunately, all it takes is one greedy, unscrupulous, immoral attorney to jade the public.

ADVERTISEMENT