MO: City Union Mission sues Jackson County sheriff over arrest threats

[The Kansas City Star]

The Jackson County Sheriff’s Office is targeting some sex offenders for arrest at the City Union Mission because it sits near a park, according to a federal lawsuit alleging that the practice violates the charity’s constitutionally protected rights of religious freedom.

The suit centers on how the sheriff’s office interprets a Missouri law that prohibits certain offenders from “loitering” within 500 feet of a public park that contains a pool or playground equipment.

The mission operates several facilities in the 1100 block of East 10th Street near Margaret Kemp Park, and the sheriff’s office has interpreted that law to cover those offenders at the mission, according to the suit filed in U.S. District Court in Kansas City.

Read more

 

Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...

 

  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  4. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Use person-first language.
  5. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  6. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  7. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  8. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  9. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address that are not personally identifiable.
  10. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  11. Please do not post in all Caps.
  12. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  13. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  14. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  15. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  16. Please do not solicit funds
  17. No discussions about weapons
  18. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  19. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  20. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  21. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
  22. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 

16 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Is this filed in Federal Court?

This case sums up a couple things I’ve been on lately: how presence restrictions violate First Amendment religious expression, and the vagueness of the word “loiter.” I am confident the State will lose this case, perhaps even with harsh words from the bench. That said, I’m guessing the court will take the easy way out and merely rule on the vagueness of the word “loiter,” and avoid the First Amendment issue. (Kind of makes sense. Why kill a law the hard way when you can kill it the easy way?) The thing is, the State is going to have a VERY hard (I would say impossible) time saying the RCs were loitering, regardless how that word is defined. In fact, the State cannot say one way or another what the RCs were doing there.
Maybe they were basket weaving. Maybe teaching ESL. Who knows. All that matters is the State must show “loitering,” however defined, was occurring. But it doesn’t really matter, as there is no way they were present at the mission for no apparent reason, or not doing anything, etc. They were there for food, shelter and (perhaps) religious services. IOW, engaging in life activities, which definitely is not loitering.

One thing that makes me scratch my head is how is the mission being forced to, “allow sheriff’s deputies to conduct ‘sweeps’ of its facilities.” Someone should remind the mission operators that there’s this thing called the Fourth Amendment.

@just in CA
Yes, Federal court: “…according to a federal lawsuit…” is right in the article, and the header of this section.

Is the MO law loitering or just being there? (Either way is unconstitutional)I thought it was just being in the vicinity of. I love it how the sheriff does not take any accountability for the law, the lawmakers don’t either…This is the law and I will enforce it. It will cost them though. I don’t see a chance of blocking anyone from a church.

I’m so sick of hearing about these stupid ass restrictions and rules aka eggshells to walk on. This is Not American Freedom. If the DOJ and those in the “Justice System” lmao, did their damn Job and kept actual threats to society off the streets and help Rehabilitate all other offenders then maybe we’d have a functioning system instead of the culture of chaos this country is breeding. History repeats itself and this country is going to crap its collective short shorts When not IF, Registered Sex Offenders rise up like an Army of Black Panthers and really make their lives hell until they stop playing the “Administrative” card and stop abusing our families and our constitution.

P.S Death to the Registry

What else is interesting is some of these missions do essential work for the homeless in helping them secure VA benefits, housing, etc through associate agreements with local agencies. Are they loitering then while they are waiting for their turn? What about when it is gets cold in KC? Sheriff is on a power trip in MO, like the rest of the state. The mission should be putting up a fight on the sweeps.

“But Sheriff, you only enforce those laws you really want to enforce or someone else wants you to, not all of them. If you did, then there would be a lot more folks in the county jail.”

Note ,, no I am not real bright , and yes I put my self in stupid situations , but in my defence that was years ago and have paid in full light years ago , that don’t make what the Justice system exempt or a free ticket to take advantage of the not so bright or anyone else , sure I made mistakes but never to hurt anyone and never premeditated , the same can’t be said for law enforcement ,