ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459

Monthly Meetings: Nov 21, Dec 19 – Details / Recordings

Emotional Support Group Meetings 2020 (Phone only)


CT: Law would bar sex offenders from most public spaces

[] [1/3/18 UPDATE: The ordinance passed]


NAUGATUCK — Sex offenders will no longer be allowed in borough-owned parks, schools, playgrounds, recreation and event centers, pools, gyms, sports fields and facilities, trails, or open space if the Board of Mayor and Burgesses approves a new “Child Safety Zone” ordinance.

The board will hold a hearing on the proposed ordinance at 6:45 p.m. Tuesday in the Hall of Burgesses at Town Hall, 229 Church St.

The ordinance was inspired by a young girl who was raped repeatedly as a child, according to Mayor N. Warren “Pete” Hess. He said the offender has been released from prison and recently seen frequenting town parks.

Under the proposal, police will notify all registered sex offenders in the area. Violators of the order could be issued an infraction ticket for $250.

The police department will post a list of registered sex offenders in its records area for the public to view and child safety zones will be clearly marked at the entrance of included locations, according to the ordinance.

Original article


Join the discussion

  1. Agamemnon

    Thousands of law abiding registrants are going to be barred from practically all facets of society because of concern over ONE person (who hasn’t seemed to have done anything since his release).

    Overkill much?

  2. Matt

    Punishment forever. Regardless of circumstance. A murderer, gang member who sells black to kids, a wife beater, a 10 time DUI offender…..They can all do whatever they want once they’re off paper. This is one of thousands of daily examples of an unconstitutional law. (And despite the absolute fact that it’s unconstitutional, it just doesn’t make any sense.) Just curious: When is “Pete Hess” up for reelection? I bet it’s soon. Real soon.

  3. Lake County

    Yep, not punishment. This town will be ripe to file suit against. All this because 1 person is frequenting a place he has a right to be at. And no one has said he is doing anything wrong.

    Since the Borough of Naugatuck has a compelling interest in protecting
    children from the threat of sexual abuse from sex offenders, it is
    hereby resolved that, to preserve and promote the health, safety and general welfare of the children of the Borough of Naugatuck, it is in the common interest to enact reasonable regulations
    restricting sex offenders from entering Child Safety Zones.

    . As used in this chapter, the following terms shall have the meanings
    Child Safety Zone
    (1) Any park, school, playground, recreation center, event center, swimming pool or
    wading pool, gymnasium, sports field, trail, passive recreation area, open space
    parcel, or sports facility, which:
    a. Is under the jurisdiction of any department, agency or authority of the
    Borough of Naugatuck, including, but not limited to, the Board of Education
    of the Borough of Naugatuck, the Park and Recreation Commission or the
    Conservation Commission.
    b. Is leased by the Borough of Naugatuck to another person for the purpose of
    operating a park, school, playground, recreation center, event center, bathing
    beach, swimming pool or wading pool, gymnasium, sports field, trail, passive
    recreation area, open space parcel, or sports facility;

    (2) “Child Safety Zone” includes any and all buildings, land, parking area or other
    improvements located on the same parcel on which each of the aforementioned
    facilities is located, but does not include any public street or public sidewalk
    located on the outside boundary of Child Safety Zones.

    Here is the entire ordnance:

    We’ll have to wait a few days to see if they publish the results. I cannot find a link to an actual video of the hearing.

  4. Renny

    A full page ad needs to be taken in the local paper each time there is an arrest for a crime of any kind against a child within the Child Safety Zone to highlight that the zone is not really safe after all and THEN sue sue sue, and refuse to settle for less than 20 million.

  5. Jack

    Sue the bastards Janice. This is war.

  6. Facts should matter

    I knew the “crazy” would start up first week of 2018. Wasn’t disappointed or surprised one bit to say the least.

    Again, we see a dubious new law/ordinance birthed from one victim that will subsequently punish all for the actions of one. Not only do they view us as guilty by association, but hate by association as well.

  7. Dustin

    Notice he didn’t name the offender, who is presumably registered and probably banished from the park already. Why not? Wouldn’t he have been arrested and publicized anyway? Makes me wonder if he made up the “inspiration” as well.

    • Dustin

      By the way, Hess is a Democrat, for those who think abusive SO legislation is a Republican thing. An odd reasoning, considering the SOR was created by Democrats in the first place.

      I advise all to disregard whether these laws and rules are Democrat or Republican – it doesn’t matter. Anti-SO legislation is probably the only issue where each party will support the other. Focus on the issue, not the individuals writing, passing, and supporting them.

  8. American Detained in America

    That was my thought. Usually they are quick to name the registered citizen, as well as the date of conviction, the amount of time spent in prison, and the release date. Strangely, this one is so vague, my guess is that it’s as fictional as my “victim.”

  9. Bob

    Yep… Loser politicians in that state…. I guess…. remember the shows on letterman talking about CT ? what a waste of a time to go there.

  10. Marie

    Does that say they will mark the safety zones? Really?

    Coming from IL where parks, trails, zoos, etc are all off limits its often hard to know where a public trail meets a trail owned / maintained by a subdivision or a forest becomes a state run park… Are they going to rope off or assure every point of entry is marked?

    If I enter a park via a walkway from my neighborhood but the safety zone sign is at the front parking lot am I liable ?

    The idea of marking these areas sounds great but is laughable. Especially if such places include child care and in home day care as those are moving targets.

    • Paul 2

      Just get a battery powered Saws-all and hack a few parking meters down the night before you want to go on a nice hike or stroll thru the park in order to pay the $250 fine

  11. Dustin

    Notice also the ordinance issues an “infraction ticket for $250.” Leaving aside that a registrant would be arrested for being in the proposed zones anyway, how is fining him “protecting the public”?

    Why not play on the (false) public perceptions of RSOs and claim the mayor is selling $250 tickets to pedophiles to victim-shop all over the borough? Would love to see how the mayor would react to that.

  12. Tired of this

    I have long wondered why we must continue funding, via our tax dollars, public spaces we aren’t allowed to enjoy anymore.

    • Robert Curtis

      There is the argument for ALL of those that are on the sex offender registry NOT to pay taxes. If those on the registry are NOT afforded the same rights as the rest of society then why should they pay taxes? Opting out of society is also another option. The way to loose rights by our gov’t come first by them turning our rights (ie. to travel) into a privilege then fee\tax the hell out of it. Sort of what they did with requiring us to maintain a driver’s license. Why not develop in demand skills and not be licensed or reduce such licensing as best you can. I’m considering removal of all official forms of gov’t connected ID. We are no different than illegal aliens in our own country. We should seek out their wisdom and how-to before going off-grid if that is the choice some of us choose. Me? Fighting from all angles/fronts possible is my aim. We need to hold churches and religious organizations accountable to their teachings and not just gov’t officials to the Constitution and their oath of office. What say you?

Leave a Reply

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  • We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  • 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.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • 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.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
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.  

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *