TX: Sex offender residency restrictions questioned in small cities


AUSTIN — Registered sex offenders in small Texas cities were until last year challenging residence restrictions, arguing that “general-law” municipalities lacked authority to control where they lived.

A new state law that took effect in September codified small cities’ legal standing to enact such ordinances, but now the attorney who in 2015 sued Krum over its ordinance is back in court, saying that the Denton County city’s newly enacted residence restriction, along with those of several other Texas cities, violates the statute.

“If they’ve passed a new ordinance and it doesn’t comply, they are very likely to be sued,” said Denton attorney Richard Gladden, who challenged Krum’s residency rules on behalf of a then-local male resident who is a registered sex offender. “If they have not complied with House Bill 1111 they are going to lose.”

Read more


Related posts

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.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

So you have to have “a hearing to show that they aren’t a threat” to live within these cities “child safety zones”?

That’s ridiculous. How can you prove you aren’t a threat? Shouldn’t they have to prove I am?

When there are no studies showing residency restrictions help public safety, and many that say it harms public safety by keeping registrants away from family and treatment, how does this even pass rational basis review anymore?

It’s a shame Richard Gladden failed in his earlier court cases regarding residency restrictions, but since he used Procedural Due Process instead of Substantive as the challenge, it failed with them quoting Connecticut DPS V Doe 2003 about the procedure’s scheme only relying on conviction records and not needing a hearing as part of that scheme. With all of the quotes by politicians of wanting to push sex offenders out (banishment) it is also ripe for a Bill of Attainder challenge and violation of arbitrary government action.

Some people will benefit from the lawsuits and I think that is great. But when said and done and the cities lose, then the cities will rescind the existing ordinances and then adopt new ordinances complying with the statutes. So then we’ll all be back t the same place with us winning the battle but losing the war. Just my prediction…and we’ll still be banished.

To really change things public opinion, and thus the media, must recognize and publicize the truth of low recidivism rates, high treatment efficacy, etc
Center for sex offender management has had this data for many uears…but i’s the weird case, with lots of tears, that gets the P.R.