MA: High court shoots down city’s residency restrictions on sex offenders

Admin

BOSTON – In a ruling that could affect dozens of Massachusetts communities, the state’s Supreme Judicial Court on Friday agreed an ordinance limiting where sex offenders can live in the city of Lynn cannot stand.

Several registered sex offenders sued the city after local officials enacted an ordinance in 2011 that prevented Level 2 and 3 offenders from living within 1,000 feet of a school or park. A level 3 offender has been deemed the most likely to commit another crime, according to the state Sex Offender Registry. Full Article

Related

Associated Press via CBS News Boston: SJC Tosses Lynn Law Restricting Where Sex Offenders Live
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2015/08/28/sex-offenders-lynn-restrictions-massachusetts-law-sjc-ruling/

Read the court’s decision:
http://www.mass.gov/courts/docs/sjc/reporter-of-decisions/new-opinions/11822.pdf

Info. about the case including a copy of the amicus brief:
https://aclum.org/cases-briefs/three-registered-sex-offenders-v-city-of-lynn/

Video of the oral arguments:
http://www.suffolk.edu/sjc/archive/2015/SJC_11822.html

Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of

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

 

  1. Submissions must be in English
  2. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  3. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  4. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  5. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Always use person-first language.
  6. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  7. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  8. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  9. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  10. 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.
  11. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  12. Please do not post in all Caps.
  13. 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.
  14. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  15. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  16. 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.
  17. Please do not solicit funds
  18. No discussions about weapons
  19. 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.
  20. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  21. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  22. 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.
  23. 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.  
 

1 Comment
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

The highest court in Massachusetts is to be commended for its wise decision today striking down residency restrictions in that state. The Court saw and spoke the truth when it stated that residency restrictions constitute banishment and are similar to past “mistakes” when “Native Americans and Japanese Americans were lawfully banished from our midst”.

0
Reply