ILNews

Justices deny sex offender park ban case

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

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."

ADVERTISEMENT

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