An anonymous resident and an advocacy group that represents accused and convicted sex offenders have filed a federal lawsuit seeking to strike down the town’s 10-year-old policy barring people on Connecticut’s sex offender registry from a number of public places. Full Article
Related posts
-
CT: New Fairfield proposes ordinance to ban sex offenders from public places frequented by children
Source: newstimes.com 10/16/23 NEW FAIRFIELD — The town is proposing a new ordinance that, if adopted, would... -
CT: Connecticut disclosure rules for sex offenders deemed unconstitutional
Source: courthousenews.com 9/14/23 But the ruling only applies to the man who brought the case, since... -
CT: ‘Just existing, not living’: CT residents retroactively added to sex offense registry seek reprieve
Source: ctmirror.org 9/10/23 Twenty-five years after Connecticut required them to register as “sex offenders” ex post...
How if this can be legal in IL
IL: Public Parks Ban is Constitutional
https://all4consolaws.org/2018/04/il-public-parks-ban-is-constitutional
http://www.illinoiscourts.gov/Opinions/SupremeCourt/2018/122034.pdf
Ahh…Connecticut….
Wait…isn’t this the birthplace of the Connecticut DPS V Doe 2003 SCOTUS decision where Connecticut won to put people on a public sex offender list with no hearing or evaluation because it claimed :
*****
[DPS] has not considered or assessed the specific risk of reoffense with regard to any individual prior to his or her inclusion within this registry, and has made no determination that any individual included in the registry is currently dangerous. Individuals included within the registry are included solely by virtue of their conviction record and state law. The main purpose of providing this data on the Internet is to make the information more easily available and accessible, not to warn about any specific individual.
*****
and SCOTUS ruled the list ok because:
*****
due process does not require the opportunity to prove a fact that is not material to the State’s statutory scheme. Injury to reputation in itself, even if defamatory, does not constitute deprivation of liberty
*****
So, how is it that this ruling stands if the list, that doesn’t indicate anyone is dangerous, is suddenly depriving people of their liberty interests?
Color me confused.