« Ind. Decisions - Transfer denied in John Myers II appeal | Main | Ind. Courts - Brief editorial in Bloomington paper on state judges up for retention »
Friday, October 31, 2008
Ind. Decisions - More on "Ruling in Plainfield's case considered key for Indiana communities with similar rules"
Updating this ILB entry from September 25th on the Court of Appeals decision in the case of John Doe v. Town of Plainfield, Indiana (check it for a number of useful links), Bruce C. Smith of the Indianapolis Star today reports:
Convicted sex offender John Doe is continuing his long-running legal battle to be allowed in Plainfield's town parks.Attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, representing the Marion County man, have asked the Indiana Supreme Court to hear their latest appeal against a Plainfield ordinance banning convicted sex offenders from the town's parks and trail system.
The ACLU is asking the state's high court to consider further review of a September ruling by the Indiana Court of Appeals, which upheld the town's ordinance. * * *
In the newest filing, the ACLU is asking the Supreme Court to look at legal issues in the most recent state Court of Appeals ruling because of the potential for statewide impact.
"The question of whether sex offenders can be banned from public parks merely because of their past convictions is important because other communities have similar ordinances," said Ken Falk, legal director for the ACLU of Indiana.
In a 19-page petition for transfer, he wrote to the Supreme Court that more Hoosier communities undoubtedly would be prompted to enact similar ordinances.
Plainfield's ordinance, passed in 2000, has survived challenges in Hendricks Superior Court and the state appeals court. Lafayette and Michigan City enacted bans against individual sex offenders that have withstood court review.
Greenwood enacted a ban similar to Plainfield's two years ago. An ACLU suit is pending on similar issues about a ban enacted in Jeffersonville.
In Indianapolis, courts have struck down a broadly worded ordinance that attempted to ban sex offenders for 1,000 feet around parks, schools and other places. The size of the prohibited area was considered unworkable. * * *
Falk wrote to the Supreme Court that the lawsuit now centers on the potential for a sex offender to commit a crime again.
He warned that appeals court rulings leave open the possibility that Plainfield and other communities could expand "sex offender bans to any places where children or other persons could possibly be present."
Posted by Marcia Oddi on October 31, 2008 08:28 AM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions