WI: A convicted sex offender has filed a federal lawsuit challenging Muskego’s rules that restrict where he can live

[amp.jsonline.com – 7/28/20]

A convicted sex offender has filed a federal lawsuit challenging Muskego’s rules that restrict where he can live, or whether he can live in the city at all.

In the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Milwaukee, Ronald E. Schroeder said the city’s ordinances violates his constitutional rights by preventing his move from Waukesha to Muskego, where he has been invited to live at the home of a woman who is a longtime friend.

Schroeder, 50, is residing in Waukesha on a temporary living plan after his release from prison in March. He was convicted in 2008 of two counts of second-degree sexual assault of an unconscious person.

Read the 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.  
 

9 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Seems they’re really still stuck in the dark ages up north.

I am all for an end to the residency restriction. but I’m not sure if I’d want this clown for my neighbor.
https://www.milwaukeemag.com/TheJoker/

Interesting that if he had been prosecuted in 1991 for his child’s murder, and he was getting out now, there would be no public outrage or issues whatsoever. A wife beater, girlfriend abuser, child abuser, child murderer… no problem. But a man who touches his sleeping girlfriend OMG.
A-lot of his past Karma seemed to have been reflected in his sentence. Hopefully his Karma doesn’t hurt our chances to eliminate residency restrictions in WI. Muskego’s restriction is 1250′ it is ripe for a lawsuit.
To bad the Joker didn’t hire Adele.

Wisconsin has a piecemeal approach. In some ways it’s good, because the statewide rules being present 10-15 years ago were going to be horrendous. But, the result has been communities having to go it alone, often competing to have harsher rules than their neighboring communities to keep registrants from moving across the boundary.

The most egregious part of these ordinances is the ‘original domicile’ rule, which means that you can’t establish a residence in a community unless you had lived there prior to your conviction. For me, that essentially means that I can never move from my current home if I want to live in SE Wisconsin. All the neighboring communities have original domicile rules meaning I can’t move there since I didn’t live there prior to my conviction. You’d think I could just move to the nearby town where I lived when convicted, but that won’t work since there are no allowable residences which are not too close to my victim’s home.

Even more odd, I can’t even move to a different home in my current town. I’m only allowed here because I’m grandfathered in. Since we also have an original domicile rule, I would be prohibited from establishing a new residence here.

This is crazy at its worst.

A few years ago a registered person In NY won the case so No residency restriction at all once off paper. No 1,000ft rule. No 1,998ft rule (LOL) and there has NOT BEEN ONE arrest since their unconstitutional law was overturn. It’s all about corrupt politics, not safety obviously.