LUBBOCK, Texas (KCBD) – More than a dozen registered sex offenders are living too close to children, that’s according to the Lamesa Police Department.
The chief of police confirmed that 19 residents received notices stating they were in violation of the city’s code of ordinances.
Eugene Gaspar is a registered sex offender who said the department gave him 90 days to move, or face a fine of up to $500 a day.
Gaspar said the notice came as a surprise because officers at the Lamesa Police Department approved his address when his family purchased their home more than two years ago.
“And I told them, ‘Can you check the map and make sure that I am in compliance?’ Because I am not going to spend $150,000 to $200,000 on a home when I can’t live there. They came back and told me, ‘Yes,’ that I was in compliance, and everything is good,” Gaspar said. “I bought the home and remodeled it. When I was fixing to move in, then I went again.”
Gaspar said after checking for a second time, he was once again given the approval by Lamesa police officers to move into the home his family purchased.
Gaspar said he has registered at the Lamesa Police Department every 90 days for the past two years, with no problem, until now.
“There is a new guy there who registered me. He said, ‘Oh, I’ve got to give you this notice.’ The notice said the Lamesa Police Department had an audit done and we were out of compliance, and we had 90 days to resolve,” Gaspar said.
Mary Sue Molnar is the founder and executive director of Texas Voices for Reason and Justice, a volunteer organization that provides support for sex offenders and their families.
Molnar said she was contacted by multiple registered sex offenders in Lamesa who had identical stories to Gaspar’s.
“There is no statewide residency restriction law, but the law allows individual cities and towns to impose ordinances,” Molnar said.
It is amazing how much we try as PFR’s to remain in compliance, only to run into this, and it’s always our fault. I hope all of these people contact a lawyer and fight this.
People [like the Lamesa Police Department] doing this deserve nothing but the worst in life. Let karma kick them in the neither regions.
If this does not get resolved in the PFR’s favor, it is the ULTIMATE proof that the registry is punishment. We already know this anyways, and I am sick and tired of hearing it is not punitive. Kicking a person out of their own home when they moved in 2 years ago and were approved when this ordinance was already in place, is the ugliest thing any human being can do to another human being. I hope all 19 PFRs fight this and win. Disgusting!!!
I see a huge contradiction in the way things are done with ordinances. States were forced into adopting SORNA or lose federal funding, which is essentially governmental extortion. However, state’s rights give the ability to meet the criteria for compliance almost (but not quite), exactly, or additionally. Now we have essentially a thousand different variations for the same thing. Yet, it is not double jeopardy. It is civil not criminal. It isn’t punishment (to change the rules at any given time.)
We get into all these discussions about this or that regarding Federal vs. State which are completely moot. This scheme was passed at the Federal level. It has to be destroyed at the Federal level. Just as with decriminalization of marijuana. Even though states legalize, the Federal government does not. But if the Federal government legalizes, States must comply.
I no longer believe in States Rights. I think we should have one level of government. This way there would no longer exist the Byzantine labyrinth of variation in laws. You could have addendums for situations particular to geographic regions, but it would be standardized at least. No lower-level governmental entities trying to dictate to the majority.
This way there would only have to be ONE fight against bad laws and not a thousand. I get so sick of the mountain of red tape and abuse of authority and rule of law by publicly elected officials. This abuse happens because officials know it would take years to undo something that takes merely a stroke of a pen. I also believe Constitutional challenges should be prioritized and fast tracked. Just my 2 cents.
This man did everything right by the book, and he tried to follow the law. But he just made 1 mistake. He trusted cops.
This ordinance has been in place since 2009. Personally, I would never buy a home in any community that has a child safety residency restriction. I don’t care if I live 10,000 feet away from the nearest school or park. If they have an ordinance in that community, I’m not buying there. Because local governments can always go back and change the rules, and you can’t do nothing about it. NEVER assume that a community will “grandfather” your property into an ordinance. Communities with common sense may do that, but others will not.
I felt moved by this speech by Paul Harvey in 1965.
Freedom to Chains – Paul Harvey
I ask you is the a difference between using a gun or a regulation scheme to impose segregation?
An audit caught this error on the LE part and those impacted must suffer. It does not appear LE lied about it (as would be allowed under SCOTUS ruling) but rather was ignorant of it. Since action was taken twice to ensure all was good, then LE is clearly at fault here. Should also sue on distress grounds and sue to make LE buy the current house, if not found in favor of the gentleman, IMO.
Sounds like a “regulatory taking” to me. It was legal yesterday, and today they change the regulations (or the implementation of them) in such a way as to make it illegal. They’ve just denied the property owner use of the property for its primary intended purpose, namely as a residence.
Not sure what the case law in Texas says about this, but there is case law here in Wisconsin that makes it clear a regulatory taking is the same as any other type of governmental taking, and the person whose property is being taken is entitled to due process and just compensation.
In other words, the owner is entitled to his/her day in court, and if the govt wins they still have to provide just compensation for the property they’ll be taking.
This is where property owners have more of a leg to stand on than renters.
@Worried, are they taking the property or can they still own it but not be allowed to live there? Can they sell it and get the same market value as they would have prior to them being noticed? If they can own it but not live there and the property isn’t devalued I’m not sure it runs afoul of the takings clause – at least as far as how the takings clause is interpreted federally. Would have to read up the WI case law to see how it might differ there.
Gaspar said. “I bought the home and remodeled it. When I was fixing to move in, then I went again.” Gaspar said after checking for a second time, he was once again given the approval by Lamesa police officers to move into the home his family purchased.”
Mr. Gaspar, you were “fixing” to get screwed by the poh-lice 😩