The Indiana Supreme Court has declined after nine months to accept a case asking whether registered sex offenders can be
banned from parks and recreational areas.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana had asked the state's justices to grant transfer in John Doe v. Town
of Plainfield, No. 32A01-0803-CV-133, after the Court of Appeals ruled in September 2008. The appellate panel affirmed
a Hendricks Superior judge's decision and upheld the town's ordinance restricting offenders from visiting parks, finding
that the Indiana Constitution doesn't ensure a person's right to enter a public park.
Justice Theodore Boehm was the only justice who wanted to accept transfer, according to the appellate court's online
docket listing for Thursday.
The ACLU of Indiana's legal director, Ken Falk, filed a transfer petition to the state's highest court in mid-October,
and the case was subsequently funneled to the court for consideration after briefing. The docket entry shows the justices
received the request Nov. 19.
The Court of Appeals ruling was the first state appellate decision addressing the issue in Indiana, Falk said, and it's
expected to impact other pending cases involving similar ordinances throughout the state.
In the transfer petition, Falk argued the ordinance represents ex post facto punishment, burdens constitutionally protected
privacy rights, and is not rationally related to the legitimate government purpose of protecting people in those parks.
"This case now stands for the proposition that the mere potential of recidivism, without more, is sufficient to ban
former offenders from public places," the petition states. "Ultimately, therefore, the question presented is whether
the Indiana Constitution can tolerate these types of restrictions."














Never heard of remand to another state. How often does that happen?
I highly recommend Deanna and her team of professionals that serve the legal community. Great information and many thanks for sharing.
they are pushing these cases against lawyers too far. thought-crime.
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!!!
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.