IN: Appeals Court Rules RSO Parent Can’t Attend Son’s School
A registered sex offender previously able to attend his son’s school activities per a trial court-granted request was denied that exception Monday when the Indiana Court of Appeals determined an amended statute barred him from entering school property.
Upon pleading guilty to child solicitation in 2010, Douglas Kirby received a 10-year sex-offender registration requirement and an 18-month sentence, suspended to probation. Although his probation conditions forbade Kirby from entering schools, he received an exception to attend his son’s school activities.
Three years after completing probation, however, Indiana Code section 35-42-4-14 made it a Level 6 felony for a “serious sex offender” to knowingly or intentionally enter school property. At that time, Kirby was still attending his son’s school events but ultimately had to stop, as child solicitation was a qualifying offense under the statute. A post conviction court denied Kirby’s request for relief when he argued that he did not “knowingly” plead guilty because he didn’t know at that time that he would be eventually barred from entering school property. He further asserted that the new statute was an unconstitutional ex post facto law because it added punishment to an already-committed crime.
When Kirby filed a declaratory judgment action, Howard Superior Court found the statute unconstitutional as applied to his circumstances after noting that he had been previously able to attend his son’s school functions and sporting events before the statute’s amendment.
But an Indiana Court of Appeals reversed that judgment when it found the statue was not unconstitutional under the “intent-effects” test in State of Indiana v. Douglas Kirby, 18A-PL-2334.
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
As the world turns the marry go round goes round and round and the circus just keeps on going. Can’t these judges see the the insanity and hypocrisy of of there flip flop decisions. And there mindless ability to toss out the constitution and replace it with their emotional opinions based on former false assumptions that were based on false information.
He was allowed or received an exception to see his son and now taken away from that. Even when finishing probation they added this law that would affect something that he was already doing with no incident ? It’s crazy.
Howard superior court is correct and called it for what it was….BS…. But that Indiana superior court ruling is just straight up idiocy.
Unfortunately they took this train off the Ex Post Facto rails in Doe V. Snyder long ago.
If they do not overturn that in SCOTUS, this will be a lose. It sucks for the kids who are collateral damage, but that will not be enough to change this. Especially if they are delineating for minor victims.
Case in point here: felons of any sort cannot chaperone, coach, etc in schools.
I know it sucks. I know change happens. I know people rehabilitate, but they see it as letting the wolf loose in the henhouse. That will be a tall, steep hill to climb.
Doe v. Snyder is the law in the 6th Circuit.
SCOTUS denied cert in that case.
Smith v. Doe is what I meant
Could this be, theoretically, appealed all the way to the SC and serve as conflicting Ex Post Facto decision (vs 6th circuit)?
So it seems that there is NO consensus among these judges as to what is unconstitutional in Indiana.
Maybe the NEXT one will reverse this finding.