CT: Press Release from One Standard of Justice, Inc. re: Windsor Locks federal suit re: “Child Safety Zones”

[onestandardofjustice.org – 2/7/19]

On March 27, 2018, Stamford attorney Audrey Felsen of Koffsky & Felsen filed suit in federal court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the town of Windsor Locks. The suit, on behalf of plaintiffs One Standard of Justice, Inc. and a Windsor Locks resident identified as John Doe, challenges the constitutionality of Windsor Locks’ “Child Safety Zones” ordinance.

“This suit is for declaratory and injunctive relief from an overly broad ordinance that clearly violates the first and fourteenth amendments of the United States Constitution,” said Felsen. “The plaintiffs are subjected to substantial discrimination, prejudice and irrational fears because of false concerns of an “alarmingly high” recidivism rate among a discrete category of citizens.”

The Windsor Locks ordinance, which is similar to ordinances adopted in at least nine other Connecticut municipalities, cites “evidence that the recidivism rate for released sex offenders is alarmingly high, especially for those who commit their crimes on children” as rationale for prohibiting access to public facilities, including parks, Town Hall, schools, and the senior center.

Working with attorney Felsen on the suit is North Carolina attorney Paul Dubbeling. Dubbeling, a former U.S. Army Ranger and prosecutor for the Army’s Judge Advocate General’s Corp, has successfully litigated similar issues in North Carolina. Mr. Dubbeling said, “This ordinance effectively denies these citizens access to almost all public areas and therefore the opportunity to substantially participate in adult education, sports, nutritional programming, and community social and political events, and even their own children’s education.”

Mr. Dubbeling continued, “By ostracizing these citizens, by shutting them out of public life, we do nothing to make our towns safer. In this, and in all government action, we should demand thoughtful, reasoned laws that materially advance the public good.”

Cindy Prizio, executive director of One Standard of Justice, said, “Ordinances like the one in Windsor Locks, as well as in other Connecticut towns, seeks to perpetuate a myth that a narrowly defined segment of our population is an ongoing, permanent threat to public safety. The facts tell a completely different story.”

Read more

Related links:

Town repeals sex offender restrictions amid lawsuit [apnews.com – 3/24/19]

 

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.  
 

1 Comment
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

What a great line–“If the monetary and statutory efforts to stigmatize were re-directed toward prevention, including services before offending occurs, and appropriate services for survivors, we would be much better off as a society.” Think of the waste in time and money, and the damage done by people like Lauren and Ron Book who devote so many resources into punishing, shaming and banishing people they have no information on other than they are on the registry.