ST. LOUIS COUNTY, Mo. – A long-standing Missouri Halloween statute for registered sex offenders has been abolished, striking down the requirement for posting warning signs outside of their homes.
Since 2008, state law mandates that offenders stay indoors, keep their lights off, and display the signs to warn trick-or-treaters.
Hazelwood resident Thomas Sanderson challenged the law after he was arrested days after Halloween 2022 for having a large display and handing out candy. Sanderson claimed the law forced him to express a message he didn’t agree with.
Judge John Ross agreed it violated Sanderson’s freedom of speech, ending the sign requirement while leaving the rest of the restrictions intact.
Megan Marietta with the Children’s Advocacy Center reminds the community, “Sex offenders are among us, whether they have a sign in their yard or their light on or off, so having that due diligence no matter where you are is very important.”
The debate highlights a broader discussion about balancing public safety with constitutional protections.
Marietta added, “It’s our responsibility as a community to make sure that children are safe, whether that’s in our own homes or in the greater community.”
Glad this came about. We here in AZ don’t have anything prohibiting us once we are off paper. … Kids are in more danger from drunk drivers than us.
shouldn’t parents always be responsible for their kids
Isn’t forcing someone to keep their light off at their front door also compelled speech even though there’s not any verbiage to it? You’re telling me that I have to make me and my family unsafe by turning the light off. You’re tacitly telling the public that no front door light means no one’s welcome to that house for whatever reason. You’re tacitly telling the public that you may not even be home and it’s okay to try and break in for robbery purposes or other. It communicates that message even though it’s not spoken. I’m not saying that when a front door light is lit it is even communicating please come to the front door. For all we know, it illuminates the front yard as well as the sidewalk and maybe even parts of the neighborhood.
You would think in the name of safety, which is what the politicians are all about of course, allowing lights to be on for the safety of the family therein, the residents, would be all right and anything prohibiting it would be compelling them to make their property a potentially unsafe location because of society. If something happens to a person forced to register or their family because they were made to turn their front porch light off, then can they could sue for damages or press charges? I would never want someone to be injured or their property damaged because of this stupid policy the state of Missouri has, but just once, if something was to happen, may the legal hammer strike that forlorn state once again and with the power of large monetary damages (and a permanent injunction against it).
Sure nice to know that there’s an advocacy group reminding parents and other people of course that parents are responsible for their children as they are minors. It seems in this world that gets easily and completely forgotten. Even the courts don’t hold parents very accountable these days anymore when they should.
And there’s nothing wrong with that. I mean these people made the decision to bring these children into the world. Therefore, they are primarily responsible for them and their welfare. Not the state.
More interesting was the story under that article regarding the Missouri Attorney General wanting to appeal. Doubt it’ll happen- this issue has already been eaten to death in the 11th Circuit last year. But if the next court does agree to hear it, I would hope that our movement would cross appeal on the ruling regarding the other restrictions. Maybe even drag it out to encompass the (un)constitutionality of the registry as a whole.
The AG is just posturing here. If he really believed that trick or treating was dangerous because of neighborhood registrants, moreso if there’s no stupid sign out (both extremely unlikely), he and his lapdog sheriffs and police chiefs would be strongly recommending not doing it all.