In New York City, there are hundreds of men and women on the sex offender registry who are subject to the Sexual Assault Reform Act (SARA) residency restriction, which prevents them from living within 1,000 feet of a school. This little-known restriction has created enormous constitutional problems. Because our densely-populated city contains virtually no residences that comply with this restriction, prisons are holding these people past the length of their prison sentences if there is no SARA-compliant housing available – a time period that usually extends longer than a year. This event addresses the history and policy behind the residency restriction, the impact of SARA on people who have committed sex offenses, and the legal challenges being made on behalf of people affected by SARA.
Panelists:
Michael Burke, Hodges Walsh Messemer & Burke, LLP
Bill Dobbs, Publisher, Dobbs Wire, newsletter about sex offense law and policy; Advisor, Sex Offense Litigation and Policy Resource Center at Mitchell Hamline Law School
Emily Horowitz, Professor and Chairperson, St. Francis College, Sociology and Criminal Justice Department
Susannah Karlin, Licensed Social Worker, Center for Appellate Litigation
Robert Newman, Legal Aid Society, Criminal Defense Practice, Special Litigation Unit
Greg Williams, The Fortune Society
Listen to the panel discussion
Related links:
Housing Restrictions Keep Sex Offenders in Prison Beyond Release Dates [nytimes.com – 8/21/2014]
This was already found unconstitutional multiple times in NY.
The NY registry also has had in their FAQs section that it doesn’t matter how far from a school someone lives that if they are going to commit an offense then they will do it regardless how close to the school it is…
The residency restrictions makes no sense to have in NYC as everything is within 1000 ft of a school 😑
Wish I could have gone.
These kinds of little-known exceptions are what really scare me. The legislation and regulatory body surrounding sexual offenses and registrants is vast, and to me that says that even a definitive ban on the registry by SCOTUS won’t catch all the collateral consequences. I mean, even if it did, we’d still have to deal with the collateral consequences of just having a regular criminal conviction.
People convicted of sex offenses are the ultimate expression of living in a “state of exception”. All rights are guaranteed for all except us. Ours are always at risk of being rescinded, and the presumption is on us to justify our “worthiness” of them.
Also, in NY, I have to take off from work and family responsibilities to have my picture taken. This time, I am going to write LE a letter back, stating that due to serious work and dire family obligations, I could come in to have my picture taken M-F before 6am, after 6:30pm & on Saturdays and I don’t participate in such burdens on Sundays as I am assuming that your picture taker doesn’t either, unless it’s paid @double time.
The effects of the formation of an electronic blacklist DEEMED NOT intended to impose restraint on plain liberty. A plain lie, obfuscated by preamble. Plain indentured of citizen to property AND continuous maintenance.
If no liberty at stake, who d complain?
The very man was made leader of the panel. He now also sets the agenda!
He must go!
I am an ex con just like every other ex con. A free citizen who served out his sentence honorably, a long, long time ago. That picture, is a burden. I am a very hard working professional, who ran out of paid time off due to horrific family illness. It’s simple . . . Take pic = get fired.
Will Allen and David Kennerly your comments justify in my opinion the reason for Lifetime and 30 years.
You are hysterical, in denial, making general claims that LE is ‘criminal’ and in fact you well fit the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5)
Why don’t you become a patient here where you will not get your way http://www.paraphilias.nyc
Is this the same “NYLevel1” that was accusing me of being someone else and accusing me of trying to confuse people between me and him? The same one that berated the only organized group fighting for us in NY as a bunch of preeners and failures?
Residency restrictions are unconstitutional, but here they get around it by making it into a trespassing or order of protection type law. It’s not saying you can’t LIVE near a school, it’s saying you CAN’T BE NEAR the school’s premises. So if you’re in a building near the school you’re violating the law – even if you live there. Since it’s not directly aimed at residency, it will take years for a Judge to be brave enough to admit that residency is an issue here and strike it down.