RI: Lawsuit seeks to block R.I. law limiting number of sex offenders in homeless shelters

[providencejournal.com]

PROVIDENCE, R.I. — An advocacy group for the homeless is asking a federal judge to block a Rhode Island law set to go into effect Monday that limits the number of convicted sex offenders who can stay at Rhode Island homeless shelters.

In a lawsuit against the state filed Friday in U.S. District Court, lawyers representing the Rhode Island Homeless Advocacy Project and six registered sex offenders argue that the law passed in September is unconstitutional and violates the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The suit asks for an injunction preventing the state from enforcing the new law’s 10-percent limit on the number of shelter beds that can be given to registered sex offenders.

It focuses on people who now stay at Harrington Hall in Cranston, the state-owned shelter operated by Crossroads Rhode Island that has become a place of last resort for sex offenders whose options for housing have been limited by increasingly strict residency laws.

Displeasure among Cranston lawmakers with the number of sex offenders staying at Harrington Hall prompted the 10-percent bill.

“As a direct result of the 10 percent Restriction, many of the Plaintiffs have been or will be denied shelter at Harrington Hall and will be required to sleep or camp on the streets, even when there are beds available to accommodate them and notwithstanding the operator’s willingness to do so,” said the suit, filed by a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island. “Being forced into un-sheltered homelessness, particularly during the winter months, imposes life-threatening conditions upon the Plaintiffs.”

Harrington Hall has 111 beds, so the 10-percent cap limits it to 11 registered sex offenders staying there per night.

The suit says 49 registered sex offenders stayed at Harrington Hall on Oct. 19 and 32 offenders on Dec. 27.

It argues, among other things, that the 10-percent rule violates the 14th Amendment’s equal-protection clause and unfairly denies disabled sex offenders benefits provided by the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act and the Fair Housing Act.

Read full article

 

 

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.  
 

5 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Hope they win it, particularly when considering that their residency restrictions led to the homelessness of those SOs in the first place. Pretty audacious of RI to legislate them into homelessness then deny them the services for the homeless that they provide. Wouldn’t be surprised if they made it illegal for a registrant to be homeless like Illinois. Not much difference between that and refusing to release an SO after his sentence is served for not having a place to go, also caused by their residency restrictions.

Is this new law only targeting those forced to register Or other felons as well? Like domestic violence felons and those that have multiple conviction for robbery as these types of convicted felons “may also be” a threat to other residents in that shelter? There is proof about horrific damage to persons and property committed in shelters all over the USA by persons who are NOT registered sex offenders. Nothing to see here people, keep walking. Situation is under control.

Correct me if I am wrong, but aren’t the Republicans in control of Cranston City Council?

Just saying.

….