ILNews

Sex offender wants to return to his home

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2007
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
A convicted sex offender in Lafayette is asking a judge to allow him to move back to his home. The man, referred to as John Doe in court documents, is required to relocate because of a state law that took effect in 2006. The law prohibits sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of a school, public park, or youth program center.

The plaintiff was convicted of child molestation in 1988 and released from the Indiana Department of Corrections in 1992. The Lafayette Sheriff's Department began in late April notifying offenders they have 45 days to find new housing to be in compliance with the law.

The plaintiff is hoping a new law that took effect this year will allow him to move home. The law lets offenders petition the court to consider whether they should continue to be considered an offender against children. The petition can be done only if the offender has been released for 10 years.

John Doe's attorney, Chad Montgomery, filed petitions earlier this week in Tippecanoe Superior Court 1 asking that his client no longer be considered an offender against children because he has since had a clean record and that he be allowed to temporarily reside in his home while the judge considers the case.

The plaintiff had owned and lived in his Lafayette home for seven years with his wife, who is still living in the home. John Doe has been in compliance with the law and moved from his home; however, he was recently told he must move again because that residence is located too close to a school administration building.
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. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT