UT: Request from registered sex offender to change taxi driver ordinance raises bigger questions

Source: stgeorgeutah.com 8/8/21

A local resident’s request to the Cedar City Council for an exemption to one of its ordinances has raised the question of when – or if – a convicted sex offender who has since served their time and been crime-free should be allowed to have the same freedoms to pursue a living as other citizens.

The issue first came up in May when Enoch resident Jamie Sherman spoke to the City Council during the public comment portion of the agenda.

Sherman told the council that he and his wife are seeking to open a taxi cab business in Cedar City, but he was unable to receive the necessary city permit because he has to register as a sex offender for an offense that occurred nearly 20 years ago. This registration is one of a variety of disqualifications listed under the taxi cab ordinance.

Since Sherman’s crime occurred in North Carolina, he would have to live in that state for 10 consecutive years and be crime-free in order to have the registry requirement lifted. While Sherman said he has indeed had a totally clean record since his conviction, he did not stay in North Carolina, so he is required to register as a sex offender in each state where he resides for the rest of his life – or until he returns to North Carolina and remains there for 10 years.

Sherman requested that the council look into his situation and see if there’s anything council members can do to help.

“The only thing I’m trying to do is provide a better life for my family and for myself,” he said.  “I was just wondering if there was any way that you could change the regulations for somebody like me so that I can drive a cab and provide for my family.”

At that point, the council decided to put the item on the agenda for the following meeting.

Jamie’s wife, Rona Sherman, appeared with him before the council at that meeting.

“We don’t want to change the ordinance,” she said. “We’d like you to just make an amendment.”

Referring to the North Carolina law, she said if someone hasn’t been in trouble in 10 years and hasn’t had any other problems, she believed the person deserved a second chance.

“It’s been 18 years for him with no issues,” she said of her husband. “Nothing going back to any problems, so we’re just asking for a fair chance.”

The Shermans suggested that maybe a probation could be enforced, where Jamie Sherman could get a permit for a period of time, see how it goes and then come back before the council. They also added that for safety purposes their cars have been fitted with cameras.

“We put a lot of effort into this,” Jamie Sherman said.

Click here to read more

Related posts

Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...


  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. 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.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. 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.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email 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.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

“During the June 2 meeting, Romeril stated that ‘the recidivism rate when it comes to drugs, alcohol and sex offenses are extremely high.'”

This City Attorney just lied. It’s time to bring him before the state bar and pursue having him disbarred.

To live and work as the rest of the people. Not so much. With registration database, one property( state’s) prevents access to other properties. ( public and private). Similar to incarceration or P&P.

Guy should consider getting in touch with Robin at NCRSOL and filing in NC since ten years anywhere he has been without issue should be good enough to be removed from the NC requirement, not just ten years in NC. He moved for whatever reason(s) but should not be held to a time standard that does not make sense.

Crystal clear what is happening here. City council is pretending to care while wringing their hands, while the attorney is saying what they really want. SOs should NOT be working and paying taxes to the system that oppresses them. The state has made a decision that SOs should face impossible barriers to gainful employment, therefore the state should be made to pay the full cost of their policy. If the state fails to provide adequate assistance, than direct physical action is necessary. As the sanctimonious attorney spouts, “actions have consequences”. Great. These people need to be shown the consequences of their actions.

A local resident’s request to the Cedar City Council for an exemption to one of its ordinances has raised the question of when – or if – a convicted sex offender who has since served their time and been crime-free should be allowed to have the same freedoms to pursue a living as other citizens.

This is easy to answer: now. Already. So much for what SCOTUS said in Smith about PFRs being, “free to move where they wish and to live and work as other citizens[.]” Nice job, SCOTUS.

There should be laws against being drunk on Power.

Daam they don’t want people on the registry to have anything I bet if a person forced to register told an LEO he had a headache the cop would say.. what the Hell you doing over there with A headache and open an investigation then legislators would pass a new law that requires all sex offenders to carry a bottle of aspirin on them at all times or be arrested
The news article would read “sex offenders are faking headaches to avoid detection”

Good luck

How can NC’s scheme be held to be non-punitive when it traps a citizen there for the term of registration? That sure seems to be an unconstitutional burden on one’s Freedom of Travel. There’s no way NC can show anything but a microscopic interest in keeping an emigrant under its scheme.

Think of this silliness: suppose this gentleman moved away but keeps a parcel of land in NC just to complete the registration duration. He never returns to NC for anything other than to update registration, instead staying in UT. Other than the administrative BS the man does, how is NC helped? I would say NC is actually reducing its claimed public safety because it would be compelling this “danger” to return regularly to the State when he otherwise wouldn’t!

I don’t see how this “must live here” requirement of NC can withstand judicial scrutiny.