N.J. Supreme Court Rules Town Cannot Ban Where Sex Offenders Live

rockin'robin

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
24,418
Reaction score
551
NEWARK, N.J. — New Jersey's Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that towns cannot ban sex offenders from living near schools, parks, or other places where children gather.

The court struck down two municipal ordinances that restricted where convicted sex offenders could live, a ruling that invalidates similar laws in more than 100 other towns across the state.

The two cases, Cherry Hill and Galloway townships in southern New Jersey, highlighted Megan's Law, the landmark 1994 state legislation that requires convicted sex offenders to register their whereabouts with law enforcement.

The broader issue, though, centered on whether towns have the authority to pass ordinances that may conflict with state laws.

In its 6-0 decision, the Supreme Court echoed a 2008 appellate ruling that sided with the plaintiffs. Justice John E. Wallace Jr. did not participate.

"Cherry Hill Township's and Galloway Township's ordinances, establishing residency restrictions that formed buffer zones for convicted sex offenders living within their communities, are precluded by the present, stark language of Megan's Law," the justices wrote. "It is that language which controls."

All 50 states have some version of Megan's Law, but the cases decided Thursday are the first of their type to reach a state Supreme Court, said Frank Corrado, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union who represented the unidentified plaintiff in Galloway Township. The ACLU filed a lawsuit in Vermont this week challenging a similar ordinance in the town of Barre, near Montpelier.

"We continue to feel these laws are counterproductive and don't accomplish their purpose," Corrado said Thursday. "There's no real connection between limiting where someone can live and a sex offense occurring in a park or public place."

Attorneys representing Cherry Hill and Galloway townships argued before the Supreme Court in March that local ordinances fill gaps in Megan's Law and that towns should have the right to expand on state laws under New Jersey's home rule statute.

"I'm obviously very disappointed that the Supreme Court didn't recognize the home rule doctrine of our constitution, which permits towns to act on behalf of the health and safety of our residents," Demetrios Stratis, an attorney representing Galloway Township, said.

Stratis said supporters of the ordinances will now have to rely on the state Legislature to expand Megan's Law or explicitly authorize towns to craft their own rules.

Iowa's legislature recently revised a state law to relax restrictions on where lower-risk sex offenders can live, but also created buffer zones that prevent them from entering areas where children congregate.

Under Megan's Law, convicted sex offenders may only live in a residence approved by a parole officer, and must notify authorities when they change addresses and employment. The law forbids anyone from using an offender's criminal record to deny housing.

Both New Jersey towns have ordinances that prohibit sex offenders convicted of offenses against minors from living within 2,500 feet of schools, parks, playgrounds and day care centers. In all, about 120 towns in New Jersey have passes similar ordinances.

The Galloway Township case involved a Stockton College student who had served two years' probation for criminal sexual contact committed when he was 15 against a 13-year-old girl. He was designated under Megan's Law as a Tier I offender, meaning he was considered to have the lowest risk of re-offense.

The township sent him a notice telling him he could not live on campus since his dorm was within 2,500 feet of a day care center.

The two plaintiffs in the Cherry Hill case, James Barclay and Jeffrey Finguerra, moved into a motel within 2,500 feet of Camden Catholic High School while they awaited approval for a new residence from their parole officers. The township found them guilty of violating the ordinance and fined them.

New Jersey Supreme Court Rules Towns Cannot Ban Where Sex Offenders Live - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News - FOXNews.com
 
How do you feel about this Robin?


I feel that the term Sex Offender is too broad.

I know of a person that urinated in public... A child saw him. Reported it. He was prosecuted and labeled as a Sex Offender.

I know bunch of guys that urinates outside.

Should he be denied to live where he wants to live..
 
I get email alerts whenever a sex offender is living within 1 mile of my home. I have 3 boys, and their well-being is important to me!

I despise and detest sex offenders. Scum of the earth. And no, I don't want them living even 25 miles of me.

Sex offenders, IMO, should not live near schools, playgrounds or libraries, anywhere that children congrete....I don't really care where they have to live, as long as it's not near me, or my children.

As far as a man "urinating" in public and in front of children, he is a very sick person, exposing himself. Needs to be locked up. And yes, labeled as a sex offender.

If a sex offender "was allowed" to move in next door to me, then I would have to move. Why should he make my everyday living a nightmare? Wondering if he was going to attack my child?

These sex offenders need to be casterated, even shipped off to an island.

Any man who preys upon children, rapes, molests and even kills, does not deserve the air we breathe.
 
I don't think we should round them up to certain places either. because I feel that they would form an organization if we do.
 
I get email alerts whenever a sex offender is living within 1 mile of my home. I have 3 boys, and their well-being is important to me!

I despise and detest sex offenders. Scum of the earth. And no, I don't want them living even 25 miles of me.

Sex offenders, IMO, should not live near schools, playgrounds or libraries, anywhere that children congrete....I don't really care where they have to live, as long as it's not near me, or my children.

As far as a man "urinating" in public and in front of children, he is a very sick person, exposing himself. Needs to be locked up. And yes, labeled as a sex offender.

If a sex offender "was allowed" to move in next door to me, then I would have to move. Why should he make my everyday living a nightmare? Wondering if he was going to attack my child?

These sex offenders need to be casterated, even shipped off to an island.

Any man who preys upon children, rapes, molests and even kills, does not deserve the air we breathe.


Well again I will stand my ground.. The term sex offender is too broad. Even in Florida. Tampa area. Two teens were taking nude images of themselves on the cell phone. Consenting and sending each other explicit images. Both of them are charge with Distributing Child Pornography and both were convicted of it. Both are labeled as sex offenders. So does that make them want to prey on children?

Should she be fixed and he be castrated?

I know they're some sickos out there. But Like I said... The term Sex Offender is too broad.

The web site does not tell you what type of charges they have on them... It is just states Offender or predator.

What did they do, to get the charges?

Some of the Sex offenders offended Adults. Not children.

So I just wish that they would list what type of offense that person did.
 
Well again I will stand my ground.. The term sex offender is too broad. Even in Florida. Tampa area. Two teens were taking nude images of themselves on the cell phone. Consenting and sending each other explicit images. Both of them are charge with Distributing Child Pornography and both were convicted of it. Both are labeled as sex offenders. So does that make them want to prey on children?

Should she be fixed and he be castrated?

I know they're some sickos out there. But Like I said... The term Sex Offender is too broad.

The web site does not tell you what type of charges they have on them... It is just states Offender or predator.

What did they do, to get the charges?

Some of the Sex offenders offended Adults. Not children.

So I just wish that they would list what type of offense that person did.

The email alerts I get do say where the offense was.....where....and when. Male or female...Most all are "children under 16"...The alerts I get are just for my zip code and city. It's from a news TV station here in Jax. Some have "failed to register" and we are warned to be on the lookout....as they no longer live at the address they are supposed to live. They are required to report where they live, and whenever they move.
 
The email alerts I get do say where the offense was.....where....and when. Male or female...Most all are "children under 16"...The alerts I get are just for my zip code and city. It's from a news TV station here in Jax. Some have "failed to register" and we are warned to be on the lookout....as they no longer live at the address they are supposed to live. They are required to report where they live, and whenever they move.


It tells you where they live and if they are on probation or released... but it does not tell you WHAT the offense was.
 
Well again I will stand my ground.. The term sex offender is too broad. Even in Florida. Tampa area. Two teens were taking nude images of themselves on the cell phone. Consenting and sending each other explicit images. Both of them are charge with Distributing Child Pornography and both were convicted of it. Both are labeled as sex offenders. So does that make them want to prey on children?

Should she be fixed and he be castrated?

I know they're some sickos out there. But Like I said... The term Sex Offender is too broad.

The web site does not tell you what type of charges they have on them... It is just states Offender or predator.

What did they do, to get the charges?

Some of the Sex offenders offended Adults. Not children.

So I just wish that they would list what type of offense that person did.

Agreed. An 18 year old boy having consentual sex with his 17 year old girlfriend can get labeled as a sex offender. Yet he offended no one. He does not prey on children. He did not rape anyone. He did not even take a leak in public.
 
Yes, this happens. I know of someone who is in his 30's, and had sex with a girl that was 14. He said she told him she was 18....hmmmm? So, his pix remains on the sex offender list.

As for an 18 yr old having sex with a 17 yr old girl, if it were my daughter, I'd be upset too, but if it was consenual, then no, I don't think he should be labeled a sex offender. Even tho' some other parents would disagree on that. If the girl was mentally challenged, then yes, he's a sex offender!

The email alerts I get are for those who commit sex offenses against males/females "under the age of 16".

I honestly don't know how we're gonna "wade through" and judge who is a "sex offender/predator".....

And I do believe, that most sex offenses are committed within the family members. And there's a lot of "hushing up/covering up" on this.

As for "exposing" urself in public. I do admit...sometimes we "gotta go", and find the nearest bush to urinate....and if a child sees it, then ur busted! But if someone urinates in public, just "whips it out" and pisses, not caring who sees it, is either drunk or just don't care! Big consequences there!...Probably be best just to piss in ur pants, than risk getting caught! Especially by a child, and an "overprotective" parent.
 
Agreed. An 18 year old boy having consentual sex with his 17 year old girlfriend can get labeled as a sex offender. Yet he offended no one. He does not prey on children. He did not rape anyone. He did not even take a leak in public.

I was told if the age difference isn't all that much, they don't get arrested.
 
I was told if the age difference isn't all that much, they don't get arrested.

That isn't always true. A 17 year old is still a minor and the parent has the option of pressing statuatory rape charges against the 18 or 19 year old.
 
Back
Top