The bill, proposed by Senator Vickie Sawyer from the 34^th district, would clarify that the 1,000-foot residency exclusion zones surrounding schools and childcare facilities must be measured from property line to property line, rather than the property address or structure. This clarification would significantly increase the residence restrictions in many communities around the state, including cities like Charlotte and Raleigh, where people on the sex offense registry are already excluded from half of the available residences.

Although this legislation appears to focus on a technicality, it requires further scrutiny. The introduction of SB 52 is an important opportunity to begin a conversation about how to effectively manage the myriad circumstances of those on the sex offense registry list.

One-size-fits-all lawmaking is not working. Study after study shows that the current approach is ineffective yet fear and judgment have driven legislators on both sides of the aisle. Lawmakers should base their votes on sound research rather than emotional reasoning.

Legislation like SB 52 creates an illusion of public safety but would in fact increase the likelihood of recidivism among people on the registry by drastically limiting their housing options and pushing them into homelessness. In addition, such laws further racial inequity in the criminal justice system.

“Residency restrictions are ineffective in promoting public safety but create extreme hardships for people on the sex offense registry, including a disproportionate number of Black North Carolinians,” said Daniel Bowes, attorney and project director of the Fair Chance Criminal Justice Project at the North Carolina Justice Center. “For example, in Iredell County where Senator Sawyer resides, Black people make up just 12 percent of the general population but more than 30 percent of sex offense registrants.”

In turn, SB 52 would also push hundreds of people out of their homes and make it hard for many others to comply because of difficulty ascertaining property lines. Ultimately, this legislation relies on fear tactics, does not improve public safety, and is harmful to those working to reenter society. It’s time to begin a new conversation about this issue.

Source: ncjustice.org

At issue in this case are a variety of grievances presented by the complainants about the N.C. Sex Offender Registry and the prohibitions and restrictions that flowfrom them. Chief among them is that the registry laws are punitive and violate the federal constitution’s prohibition against the ex post facto effect of civil regulatory schemes that are burdensome and deprive citizens of liberty interests in accordance with an analysis first articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144 (1963) and applied by that Court in the seminal registry case of Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (2003).

The lawsuit also seeks a judgment declaring that N.C.G.S. §§ 14-208.18 (a)(2) and (a)(3) (premises statute) are facially overbroad in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments by unconstitutionally burdening plaintiffs’ freedom of association and exercise of religion, and that section (a)(3) of the same statute is void for vagueness in failing to provide a reasonable person enough understanding about precisely what physical spaces he is restricted from accessing.

The lawsuit also seeks a declaratory judgment holding all of Article 27A (“the registry law”) unconstitutional in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment on the basis that the myriad laws burden plaintiffs’ fundamental right to direct the education and upbringing of their children, their right to pursue the common occupations of life, and their right to acquire useful knowledge.

Additional claims for relief are advanced in the original complaint that is 88 pages long and contains 657 paragraphs, a fact the state’s attorney has been keen to emphasize in its Motion for Dismissal. Among other reasons the state seeks dismissal is that the plaintiffs lack standing and that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the claims asserted. The state also moves for dismissal on grounds that the named defendants are not proper parties to the action in accordance with Rule 12(b)(1),(2), and/or (6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

For additional insight into the written arguments proffered by opposing parties, please see the plaintiffs’ Response to the state’s Memorandum in support of the Motion to Dismiss, and the state’s Reply to Plaintiffs’ Response.

For those of us who were in the courtroom, we could not have been more pleased with the performance of our attorney during two hours of oral argument which was divided into three phases organized in view of Judge Loretta Biggs’ assessment of the subject matter. Several members of NARSOL and NCRSOL were in attendance and sat directly behind Mr. Dubbeling who occasionally utilized our presence as a rhetorical device. Aside from its attorney, there was nobody at the hearing in support of the state.

At the conclusion of the hearing, Judge Biggs thanked the counselors and assured each of them that she would make a decision in the forthcoming weeks, which we anticipate will be anywhere from one to six months. Because neither of the parties have moved for summary judgment, Judge Biggs is restricted to ruling on the state’s Motion to Dismiss, alone. The standard of review for the Court is to assume that all factual allegations contained in the complaint are true and to draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiffs.

Whatever the outcome of the case in federal district court, it’s important for everyone to understand that this case is headed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, which, by de novo standard (Latin term meaning “as if from the start”), is entitled to review all aspects of the complaint irrespective of the outcome before Judge Biggs.

Maine does not have statewide mandated residency restrictions, and a report published by another legislative committee ten years ago in Maine raises major concerns and questions about this current proposed legislation.

In 2008, that committee produced a report titled, “Maine’s Criminal Justice & Public Safety Committee Study of Sex Offender Registration Laws.” It is a 37-page report representing hundreds of man-hours of research and meetings examining the effects of SORNA in their state and the alterations that were needed. SORNA, incidentally, does not require residency or proximity restrictions.

On the bottom of page 19 and continuing onto 20 of the report is a brief section dealing with residency restrictions. It acknowledges that some communities in the state have adopted these restrictions for their individual jurisdictions. And then it goes on to say:

Hearing testimony on these bills and educating ourselves about other states’ experiences with residency restrictions, the committee finds, and the research supports, that such restrictions do not increase public safety. Residency restrictions make it more difficult for sex offenders to reenter society and find stability (living and working arrangements) and make it more challenging for law enforcement to find and monitor offenders. Based on these findings, the committee recommends that the Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee of the 124^th Legislature considers introducing legislation that would preempt the field of sex offender management and prohibit municipalities and other entities from adopting their own restrictions on sex offenders.”

One little paragraph that says it all. What a shame it is that they did not proceed with the proposed legislation or, if they did, that it was not successful.

The question is, why is this current committee so determined to compound something that already has been condemned as not only ineffective but detrimental to overall public safety?

Of course, they are not the only state to do so. California, one of the harshest states historically in its erections of residency and proximity restrictions, goes directly against its own Sexual Offense Management Board, which said, “There is no research which supports the use of these strategies [residency and proximity restrictions], there is substantial research showing that such policies have no effect on preventing recidivism, and there is a growing body of research which indicates that residence restrictions actually increase sex offender recidivism and decrease community safety” (p.2).

Other states as well have jurisdictional or statewide restrictions that are in total opposition to the recommendations of the sex offender management boards that they have commissioned to give advice and oversee sexual offense laws and ordinances.

While Texas has no statewide restrictions, certain Texas cities have restrictions so stringent that registrants have been forced to give up desperately needed jobs that they were offered. There was literally no way they could navigate, by car or by bus, the route between where they lived and the location of the job without going into or through a restricted area around a school or daycare facility, and there was no place they could live closer to the job.

The report rendered by that Maine legislative committee ten years ago, that statement by the California board, and every single study or report examining the efficacy of residency and/or proximity restrictions for those on the registry are uniform in their conclusions. These restrictions are ineffective and actually harmful to public safety.

Any legislator who is advocating for such restrictions, including Rep. Danny Martin, should be made to answer directly this question: Why are you asking your constituents to spend tax dollars implementing laws that are shown by every available source to be not only useless but actually harmful to your state?

1. African Americans
2. Muslims
3. Mexicans
4. Illegal aliens
5. Frankenstein
6. Homosexuals
7. Opioid addicts

If you’ll play along with an open mind and objective perspective, you’ll probably find it very easy to see who the REALLY evil people are in the narrative. And, once you’ve run out of things to consider, give some thought to this: Suppose we knew where every single person convicted of drunk driving lived. Would that make anyone any safer?

DALLAS, N.C. — The Gaston County Sheriff’s Office is squashing social media rumors of a registered sex offender halfway house in the middle of a popular Dallas neighborhood that left families worried for their children’s safety.

Deputies said the rumors started after residents in the Summey Knoll subdivision reported two registered sex offenders were living in a house less than 500 feet from a registered daycare, which is illegal.

Assistant Chief Deputy Garry Williams said the sheriff’s office had initially approved the men’s request to live in the neighborhood, unaware of the daycare’s existence, which is located in an unmarked house.

Williams said investigators determined the men were living too close to the daycare and ordered them to leave.

One man did leave, but investigators said the other man, George McDowell, lied and said he also left the neighborhood.

“My deputies, doing some further investigation, found that he was still staying in the Summey Knoll development,” Williams said.

Deputies arrested McDowell, but investigators said false rumors continued to spread on Facebook that the house McDowell had lived in was a halfway house to rehabilitate sex offenders.

“Unfortunately that’s a common occurrence in today’s society,” Williams explained. “Everybody wants to go to social media to vent and post things.”

Wiliams said he’s not aware of any type of halfway homes for sex offenders in North Carolina.

Kyle Creed is a father who lives in the Summey Knoll neighborhood.

“A lot of concerned parents, obviously,” Creed said. “But, we all understood some of it to be rumor.”

Still, deputies are hosting a community meeting Thursday at 7:00 p.m. in the Dallas Civic Center behind the police department to answer questions and dispel rumors about the case.

NBC Charlotte also spoke at length with McDowell’s mother who said she wasn’t aware of the halfway house rumors until the TV station brought it to her attention.

McDowell’s mother said the social media rumors were false, and the home is her primary residence. She insisted her son moved out of the neighborhood immediately after being ordered to by deputies.

McDowell is facing two felonies for failure to register related to falsification of verification notice and sex offender residence violation. He’s expected to have his first appearance in court on Thursday afternoon.

Source: WCNC

The statute is susceptible to multiple interpretations, and the issue has yet to be explored in North Carolina’s appellate courts. My sense is that not all 100 sheriffs in North Carolina apply the law in exactly the same way. And that’s understandable, because I can think of more than one interpretation that makes sense as a policy matter.

For example, a strict property-line-to-property-line approach isn’t a great fit in a rural area where a person’s actual residence might be many thousands of feet from the edge of his or her property. And measuring the distance as the crow flies may fail to take into account barriers like rivers and interstate highways that might effectively buffer a school or child care center by more than the required distance. It’s also challenging to apply the law to rental properties, where a registrant’s individual unit might be more than 1,000 feet from a protected place, but portions of the broader complex—perhaps including common recreation areas, like a perimeter walking trail—fall within the prohibited radius. All of these questions (and many more) have come up in real life.

Even if the “right” way to measure the distance may be open question for now, I do think the statute itself may give us some answers.

As to where to begin the measurement on the side of the protected place (the school or child care center), I think it’s reasonably clear that that measurement begins at the edge of the property line. The statute says the registrant may not reside “within 1,000 feet of the property on which any public or nonpublic school or child care center is located.” That reference to the broader property is hard to square with a reading that starts the measurement at the school or child care building itself.

The other end of the measurement is less clear. It refers just to the place where the registrant “reside[s],” which could be read to mean only the actual dwelling place and not the surrounding land. Had the General Assembly wanted to make clear that the distance was to be measured from the edge of the property line of the residence, it could have phrased the law differently, saying registrants could not reside “on property that is within 1,000 feet” of a school or child care center. That would parallel the structure the law uses for the protected places. And with that in mind a registrant could certainly make the argument that when the legislature wants the prohibition to extend to the property line, it knows how to say so, but it didn’t. Furthermore, to the extent that there’s any ambiguity in this criminal provision, a court would generally look to resolve it in the defendant’s favor.

Please read full article at North Carolina Criminal Law (a blog of UNC School of Government)

The decision is an especially important one, possibly signaling, in Mark Stern’s words over on Slate, that “the judiciary has finally begun to view draconian sex offender laws as the unconstitutional monstrosities they obviously are.”

Here’s the case, in a nutshell. The Michigan SORA is typical of the schemes in place in all of the 50 states. Beginning in the mid-’90s, states (with federal encouragement and financial assistance) began requiring all those who had been convicted at any point in the past of having committed a “sex offense” — typically defined, as in the federal statute (42 USC 16911), as “a criminal offense that has an element involving a sexual act or sexual contact with another”** — to provide a wide range of identifying information (names, addresses, places of employment, schools being attended, vehicle make and model, etc.) to law enforcement officials. This information was then placed in state-operated, publicly accessible sex offender registry databases.

** Definitions of the “sex offenses” that require registration vary state by state. While a number of truly heinous and deplorable crimes — rape, assault, child molestation — are included, so too, as detailed in a survey by Human Rights Watch, are many lesser crimes, such as soliciting or providing adult prostitution services (five states), public urination (13 states), consensual sex between teenagers (29 states) and exposing genitals in public (32 states).

Several of these early SORAs were challenged on ex post facto grounds, on the theory that the registration and public notification schemes imposed additional punishment retroactively, i.e., on individuals whose crimes had been committed, and who had been convicted, before the SORA legislation had taken effect (and, indeed, on individuals who had completed serving whatever period of punishment and probation or parole had been imposed upon them, and who therefore, at least in theory, possessed the same constitutional rights as you or me).

The Supreme Court, however, disagreed. In Smith v. Doe, 538 US 84 (1999), the Court held that the registration and public notification provisions of Alaska’s SORA didn’t constitute ex post facto imposition of punishment because they were not “punitive,” but rather “regulatory”: “clearly intended as a civil, non-punitive means of identifying previous offenders for the protection of the public.” The “stigma and adverse community reactions” that could result from registration did not render the Act punitive because “the dissemination of the registration information, which was largely a matter of public record, did not constitute the imposition of any significant affirmative disability or restraint.”

Please see David’s full analysis at The Volokh Conspiracy in the Washington Post.

Judge Alice M. Batchelder wrote for the court, joined by Judges Gilbert S. Merritt and Bernice B. Donald. Her opinion for the court begins.

Like many states, Michigan has amended its Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) on a number of occasions in recent years for the professed purpose of making Michigan communities safer and aiding law enforcement in the task of bringing recidivists to justice. Thus, what began in 1994 as a non-public registry maintained solely for law enforcement use . . . has grown into a byzantine code governing in minute detail the lives of the state’s sex offenders . . . Over the first decade or so of SORA’s existence, most of the changes centered on the role played by the registry itself. In 1999, for example, the legislature added the requirement that sex offenders register in person (either quarterly or annually, depending on the offense) and made the registry available online, providing the public with a list of all registered sex offenders’ names, addresses, biometric data, and, since 2004, photographs. . . . Michigan began taking a more aggressive tack in 2006, however, when it amended SORA to prohibit registrants (with a few exceptions . . .) from living, working, or “loitering”1 within 1,000 feet of a school. . . . In 2011, the legislature added the requirement that registrants be divided into three tiers, which ostensibly correlate to current dangerousness, but which are based, not on individual assessments, but solely on the crime of conviction. . . . The 2011 amendments also require all registrants to appear in person “immediately” to update information such as new vehicles or “internet identifiers” (e.g., a new email account). . . . Violations carry heavy criminal penalties.

The Plaintiffs in this case—identified here only as five “John Does” and one “Mary Doe”—are registered “Tier III” sex offenders currently residing in Michigan. It is undisputed on appeal that SORA’s 2006 and 2011 amendments apply to them retroactively. That law has had a significant impact on each of them that reaches far beyond the stigma of simply being identified as a sex offender on a public registry. As a result of the school zone restrictions, for example, many of the Plaintiffs have had trouble finding a home in which they can legally live or a job where they can legally work. These restrictions have also kept those Plaintiffs who have children (or grandchildren) from watching them participate in school plays or on school sports teams, and they have kept Plaintiffs from visiting public playgrounds with their children for fear of “loitering.” Plaintiffs are also subject to the frequent inconvenience of reporting to law enforcement in person whenever they change residences, change employment, enroll (or unenroll) as a student, change their name, register a new email address or other “internet identifier,” wish to travel for more than seven days, or buy or begin to use a vehicle (or cease to own or use a vehicle).

Read full story in the Washington Post blog Volokh Conspiracy

You may also be interested in the AP story published in The Detroit News

A state law takes effect that day prohibiting sex offenders from being near places where children “frequently congregate” – including schools, parks, arcades and day care centers – when minors are present.

Robin Vanderwall, president of N.C. Reform Sex Offender Laws, calls the legislation more restrictive to sex offenders than any in the country, except Alabama.

“Even Walmart and McDonald’s will be shut down to them,” said Vanderwall, whose organization opposes the new law.

Gov. Pat McCrory signed the bill into law in July. It is meant to replace portions of a 2008 law that a U.S. District Court judge ruled earlier this year to be unconstitutionally vague and overly broad.

On Dec. 7, Judge James Beaty struck down a segment of the former state law that prohibited registered sex offenders from entering places where a portion of the premises is intended for the use, care or supervision of children. Those places could include churches with day care centers.

Four months later, Beaty struck down another subsection of the law that restricts registered sex offenders from being within 300 feet of locations where children gather.

Beaty, of the Middle District of North Carolina, left intact a provision that bars registered sex offenders from entering schools, daycare centers and other places used exclusively by children.

Beaty noted in his December ruling that nothing in it “prevents the General Assembly from amending the statute or enacting entirely new restrictions that comply with constitutional requirements.”

The state appealed Beaty’s rulings to the N.C. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The appeal is pending. Shortly after it was filed, the General Assembly approved the new law.

Under it, Brandon Michael Wiggins will be arrested if he continues to work at the car repair shop after Aug. 31, said Ronnie Mitchell, the lawyer for the Cumberland County Sheriff’s Office.

Mitchell said Wiggins – who came to the Observer’s attention because of a resident’s complaint – will be told about the law and its consequences before the deadline. He said the more than 650 people on Cumberland County’s sex offender registry will be notified of the new law by mail.

Wiggins, 30, was convicted of second-degree sexual exploitation of a minor in March 2015. He was put on probation for 2 1/2 years.

“I got into something I shouldn’t have two years ago,” Wiggins said. “I learned from it. I’m trying to make a living, you know. I’m trying to move on from it.”

Wiggins said he has worked at the repair shop for about a month. He said he understands concerns about the shop being close to the Boys & Girls Club and a daycare.

“I understand that being an issue or a problem, but I don’t have any interest in doing anything but my job, which is to serve customers and work on cars,” he said.

Wiggins said he worries that his name in the newspaper will make it difficult to get another job.

North Carolina has had a sex offender registry since Jan. 1, 1996. Sex offenders who commit heinous crimes, such as rape of a child, are required to remain on the registry for life. Lesser offenses had required offenders to be on the registry for 10 years. The legislature amended the law in 2006, requiring many offenders to remain on the registry for 30 years.

The latest lawsuit was filed on behalf of five registered sex offenders – named as John Does – against McCrory and Attorney General Roy Cooper.

Among the five was a man convicted in 1995 of receiving material involving the sexual exploitation of a minor. The man served five years in federal prison, where he completed a sex offender treatment program. He later completed terms of his probation.

He had been attending his local church, which contained a child-care center within 300 feet of the main congregation hall. He was arrested in 2011 for violating the sex offender law when an anonymous caller reported him. The charge was later dropped.

According to the lawsuit, all five people who sued the state “have expressed concern and confusion regarding precisely where they are prohibited from going. Many times when the Plaintiffs have asked for clarification, they have received conflicting answers, noncommittal answers, or no answer at all.”

The Cumberland County Sheriff’s Office is responsible for keeping track of the sex offenders on the county’s registry – making sure they follow all of the rules, including registering as a sex offender and notifying the office when they move.

Mitchell said changes in the law are needed. He said he wants to see sex offenders who abuse children under age 13 treated more harshly than others.

“The ones who do deliberate acts and engage in deliberate forcible acts and deliberate sexual acts against minors have committed acts that are reprehensible, that should have both direct and collateral consequences,” Mitchell said, adding that people who commit those acts are most likely to be repeat offenders. (Read full story in The Fayetteville Observer)

In October 2014, the City of Milwaukee began prohibiting violent and repeat sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of any school, day care center or park. That left just 55 addresses where offenders can legally move within the 100-square-mile city. And their living options soon will become more limited across Wisconsin. Republican Gov. Scott Walker signed a bill in February that prohibits violent sex offenders from living within 1,500 feet of any school, day care, youth center, church or public park in the state.

Cities and states continue to enact laws that restrict where convicted sex offenders can live, applying the rules to violent offenders such as pedophiles and rapists, and, in some cases, those convicted of nonviolent sex crimes, such as indecent exposure. They are doing so despite studies that show the laws can make more offenders homeless, or make it more likely they will falsely report or not disclose where they are living. And though the laws are meant to protect children from being victimized by repeat offenders, they do not reduce the likelihood that sex offenders will be convicted again for sexual offenses, according to multiple studies, including one from the U.S. Department of Justice.

In all, 27 states have blanket rules restricting how close sex offenders can live to schools and other places where groups of children may gather, according to research by the Council of State Governments. Hundreds of cities also have restrictions, according to the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers (ATSA). And many laws are becoming more restrictive — along with Wisconsin, they expanded last year in Arkansas, Montana, Oklahoma and Rhode Island.

The restrictions can make offenders’ lives less stable by severely limiting their housing options, and can push them away from family, jobs and social support — all of which make it more likely they will abuse again, according to researchers who have studied the laws, such as Kelly Socia, assistant professor of criminal justice at the University of Massachusetts, Lowell.

“If [the laws] don’t work, and they make life more difficult for sex offenders, you’re only shooting yourself in the foot,” Socia said.  (Please read full article in Stateline, Pew Charitable Trusts)