Source: webstercountycitizen.com 10/4/24
ST. LOUIS — The state of Missouri can no longer require sex offenders to post signs outside their homes on Halloween stating “No candy or treats at this residence,” a federal judge ruled this week.
Hazelwood resident Thomas Sanderson filed suit last year arguing the sign requirement violated his free speech rights because it forced him to make a statement with which he didn’t agree. This week, U.S. District Judge John A. Ross agreed, finding the sign requirement was a violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
“We’re very pleased with the court’s decision,” said attorney Janice Bellucci, who represented Sanderson. “People on the registry are protected from having to utter compelled speech.”
…
Two years later, in 2008, state lawmakers passed a bill requiring sex offenders to avoid contact with children on Halloween, remain inside the house, turn off all outside lights and post a sign.
Sanderson’s lawsuit said he asked the police if he was subject to the requirements, and they told him he was not because he was convicted before the law went into effect.
…
But on Halloween in 2022, police officers showed up, arguing he had violated the sex offender law. Several tipsters had reported he was handing out candy. Hazelwood police arrested Sanderson, he was charged and eventually pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor.
…
The judge ultimately ruled Wednesday in Sanderson’s favor. His lawyer, Bellucci, said she believed it was the correct decision.
She said there were already other protections in the law to make sure children aren’t put in danger, and parents have a duty to help, too.
“They should check (the registry) themselves,” she said. “They should take the responsibility.”
Amen to “They should take the responsibility.”. It should be up to parents to look after their own children instead of parents relying upon the government to look after the children by taking away other people’s rights.
Thank you Janice and team! Once again, you bring the light of hope into the darkness of this abomination. Thank you.
Now…I feel a 5(0),000 word rant coming on…
First they pass an unnecessary, unconstitutional, humiliating, dangerous and cruel law, then they can’t even be bothered to enforce it properly?!?!? Grrrrrrr… I’ll take the rest off line. 😁
Thank you.
Good!
Thank you Janice! The world is a better place with you
Can the plaintiff who was represented here have his misdemeanor conviction appealed and overturned given he did not break the law according to LE initially and was subsequently convicted under the misrepresentation of the law against him? Did the law have an ex-post facto clause to it when it was initially passed and signed into law? It does not sound like it. Can, or will, he civilly sue the sheriff, the DA, and the state for mental and emotional distress related to the matter here given the events misrepresent the applicability to him? Should other PFRs do the same in the state of Mis-e-ry? Once the thirty days of the intent to appeal calendar has been completed, much to consider here, IMO.