RI: Federal judge rules sex offender residency law is unconstitutional

Source: turnto10.com 3/17/23

A state law that makes it a crime for Level 3 sex offenders to live within 1,000 feet of a school was ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge on Thursday. 

The American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island challenged the statue when it was first enacted in 2015, and it’s been subject to a preliminary injunction barring its enforcement since then.

Currently in Rhode Island, state law says sex offenders are barred from living within 300 feet of a school. In the wake of Thursday’s ruling, it will not be going up to 1,000 feet.

Some residents said they believe it should be even more than 1,000 feet.

“That’s probably the most vile crime that could happen to a child and I think we should be strict and stronger on that sort of thing,” said David Campbell, a resident.

The federal judge found that the statute would require individuals subject to the law to guess whether they were in compliance with it, and potentially face a criminal trial if guessed wrong.

“Judge McConnell today ruled that summary judgement should be granted for the plaintiffs, essentially us, on the basis of a constitutionally void for vagueness statue,” said Attorney John MacDonald.

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.  
 

28 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Looks like good news in Rhode Island

Residential restrictions are in essence ‘Geographical Incarceration’

Of course, I am very happy for this judge’s ruling, but I am soooo confused. Why, in Rhode Island, is 1,000 ft unConstitutional, but 300 ft is, apparently, Constitutionally acceptable?? WTF?? 🤷🏻‍♂️

It has been soooo many years that these battles have been ongoing in so many states. In California, thanks to the very hard work of ACSOL and it’s unrelentingly determined Executive Director Janice Bellucci, all residency restrictions have been defeated. 🤗 👏🏻 👏🏻 👏🏻 👏🏻
But then there is Florida ( 😫 ) that has an insane number of residency/presence restrictions everywhere all the time.
How can this be so????
I guess I understand, but I am nonetheless extremely frustrated by the nightmarish restrictions that our fellow Registrants must suffer through. 😫

One overlooked facet of having a DDI with SORs as it applies to residency restrictions is enforcement potential. Without easily available SOR database residential restrictions would be nearly impossible to enforce these unconstitutional efforts. But you know that extends to other circumstances too as in here in this YouTube vid of police attempting ” what they already know is unconstitutional action before they go in.”

It his trend says a lot about why America is losing faith with law enforcement system. Who follows those who cheat regularly and suffer no consequences. Who thinks any of those who contemplated the unconstitutional ordinance, wrote the unconstitutional ordinance, and voted Aye on the unconstitutional ordinance will suffer a consequence for their premeditated action?

“That’s probably the most vile crime that could happen to a child and I think we should be strict and stronger on that sort of thing,” said David Campbell, a resident.

More vile than murdering a child?

“it is the most vile crime to happen to a child.” Really? How about getting killed or mained by a drunk driver? Should all DUI ofenders, including the numerous congress members that have been convicted of DUI, be banned from living…say (random number)… 6000 ft from a school, day care, or similar facility? Many times more children are killed by drunk drivers every year than are by sex crimes, so why aren’t the laws equal?

Hats off to the judge for doing the right thing!!!!

its all 100% illegal being FORCED to SHOW up and being FORCED to fill in paperwork, just as ILLEGAL What ever happened to the 5th admentmant on HAVING to TALK ot WRITE to a cop and fill in some same BS Paperwork ? Janice already STOPPED theCDCR TYRANTS on forcing to COMPEL SPEECH by putting a sign on doors, the FORCING of REGISTRATION is also 100% ILLEGAL.

If anyone has ever been to Rhode Island, it’s an extremely densely populated state. So schools, daycares and parks are a lot closer to each other than say, Oklahoma City where they can get away with their 2000 foot ordinance. And Oakies don’t make a distinction between level 3s and 1s. All yah will be pushed out into the trailer parks or sticks

Good to hear.

Last edited 1 year ago by Anonymous

For the curious among us, this case is Chapdelaine v. Neronha and the PACER ID is 1:15-cv-00450-JJM-LDA for the RI District Court.

Though only persuasive outside RI, it’s still another brick to throw in a lawsuit anyone chooses to try.