« Ind. Decisons - Supreme Court answers a question of first impression: how should an Indiana court analyze a request to protect a trade secret from pre-trial discovery? | Main | Ind. Decisions - Probation sentencing subject of Supreme Court opinion today »

Tuesday, December 18, 2007

Ind. Law - Continuing with: Do the changes to the sex offender law mean longtime homeowners must move?

Following up on this ILB entry from Aug. 19th, re three John Doe cases in Tippecanoe County, and this one from Nov. 29th headed "Georgia's top court overturned a state law Wednesday that banned registered sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of schools, churches and other areas where children congregate", Sophia Voravong of the Lafayette Journal Courier has two new reports today.

From the first, headlined "John B. Doe challenges law," some quotes:

A Tippecanoe County judge must decide whether a state law that ordered a sex offender to move from his Lafayette home provides protection for neighborhood children or punishes the offender.

It will be the key factor in whether a lawsuit filed by the man, a registered sex offender known only as John B. Doe in court documents, can proceed in Tippecanoe Superior Court 2.

Attorneys for the defendants, Tippecanoe County Prosecutor Pat Harrington and Sheriff Tracy Brown, requested a hearing to dismiss the complaint. The hearing was Monday morning.

The attorneys argued that a recent Indiana statute prohibiting those convicted of sex offenses against children from living within 1,000 feet of a school, youth program center or public park is in the community's best interest.

"If the law saves one, two or three children from being molested in a year, then that's rational," said Deputy State Attorney General Robert Wente, who represents Harrington. * * *

[Doe's] lawsuit is one of three complaints filed in Tippecanoe County questioning the law that forced 28 offenders here to move or be charged with a Class D felony. Deputy Prosecutor Laura Zeman said Monday that all the offenders have relocated.

A hearing for one of the other Tippecanoe County lawsuits, this one filed by the Indiana Civil Liberties Union under the alias John Doe, also was held Monday in Tippecanoe Circuit Court.

John B. Doe's attorney, Earl McCoy of Lafayette, questioned the logic of the law, which took effect July 1, 2006. His client is allowed to visit his home, where he had lived with his wife and stepchildren for about six years, any time of day.

That includes daytime hours when children are headed to school, and afternoon when they are coming home.

"He can be there all day. He just can't sleep there," McCoy said. "Nothing about this law is protecting the children."

He also argued that the law constitutes punishment because, if John B. Doe settles in a new home, nothing in Indiana's statute would prevent neighbors from hosting youth programs such as Boy Scout or Girl Scout meetings.

"They can create a situation to oust a neighbor if they want to," McCoy said. "There's no guarantee. That's our concern."

Judge Thomas Busch, who is presiding over the complaint, also questioned whether the law is a step too far.

"Of course, there's extreme punishment where we could banish all of them to Australia or if you were to cut off the hands of a thief," he said. "But isn't there some point where even though the motive is protection of children, the action is punishment?"

Another hearing is scheduled in January.

In a second story, Voravong reports:
The Indiana Civil Liberties Union is arguing on behalf of a registered sex offender in Tippecanoe County who had to move out of the childhood home he shared with his mother.

The Lafayette man was one of 28 people forced to move under a recent Indiana law that prohibits those convicted of sex offenses against children from living with 1,000 feet of a school, youth program center or public park.

His lawyer is questioning whether officials here correctly interpreted the statute and whether the man, identified only as John Doe in court documents, is being punished again for a crime committed years ago.

"Even if there is not a punitive purpose behind the statute, it does have a punitive effect," ICLU attorney Kenneth Falk said during a summary judgment hearing Monday before Judge Don Daniel of Tippecanoe Circuit Court.

"He's now a transient, subject to moving from place to place. Mr. Doe has no plans of being able to settle down."

The anonymous lawsuit is one of three filed in Tippecanoe County -- making up a handful of similar complaints filed in Indiana since the legislation took effect July 1, 2006. * * *

Falk's argument is that the law should not apply to anyone convicted of a child sex crime before that date. Confusion comes from the statute's legislative history, which says it applies "only to crimes committed after June 30, 2006."

But if the intent of state legislators was to apply the legislation to all, Falk contends that it's a matter of "ex post facto," or aggravated punishment.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on December 18, 2007 11:37 AM
Posted to Indiana Law