WI: Convicted Sex Offender’s Appeal Prompts Ordinance Change
Following an appeal from a convicted sex offender, the Village of Forestville is revising an ordinance related to the distance convicted sex offenders may reside from “where children are known to congregate.”
The village’s ordinance, adopted in December 2007, prohibits a convicted sex offender from living within 2,500 feet of any school, licensed day care center, park, trail, playground, place of worship or library.
Village President Terry McNulty said the state’s sex offender registry showed a convicted sex offender who moved to the village lived around 400 feet from Forestville’s library.
The individual, more than 60 years old, has been registered since 1994 for a conviction in Brown County. At its June meeting, following a closed-session appeal, the board decided the individual could remain at the residence but may not have contact with, or loiter near, any park, library, church, or trail in the village.
McNulty said a 2017 federal court decision involving the Village of Pleasant Prairie in Kenosha County found a convicted sex offender can’t be prohibited “completely from the village” because of distance restrictions for residency, which was 3,000 feet in Pleasant Prairie, and Forestville’s village ordinance is being changed to lessen the distance to be enforceable.“Ours right now is 2,500 [feet], which we know is too restrictive,” he said. McNulty said the village has received legal advice from Pinkert Law Firm on an allowable distance based on the village’s size. McNulty said he hopes to have an ordinance revision to consider at the board’s Aug. 18 meeting after learning from legal counsel whether 1,000 feet would be allowed.
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I am currently working on a spreadsheet of every residency restriction in Wisconsin just like I have done for Nebraska, FloriDUH, and Texass so far.
There are a number of communities that need to revisit their ordinances. Many of them just parrot what other communities have done. There are villages that have as few as 399 people with ordinances that cover places I am certain don’t even exist there like ski lodges or bowling alleys.
I would be very interested in that spreadsheet.
fascinating detail that is often neglected.. The registry by the states very own words is “civil ordinance” only .Not to be confused with punitive or “punishment”… When all of the ramifications and ” unintended ” consequences both to registrant and satellite friends/family of the registrys plus the registrys over lapping and contradictory nature (fed, state town, county ect) is considered under the light of “civil codes” the correct definition is persecution.. NOWHERE else in standing American law does the court turn a blind eye to such an extremely obvious case of deliberate class persecution .. If the government at least admitted the registry was punitive then they could at least defend it as “punishment met meets the crime”.. As a NON – PUNITIVE collection of civil code though there is absolutely no defence for the spiderweb of bizentine persecutions enforced.. Even Hitler Germany attempted more legitimacy in their legal code then the USA employs.
When I was sentenced the judge in my case said that there would be no residency restrictions, I was free to live where I wanted and be around minors. They tried to violate me (I live right behind a high school), then I whipped out the judge’s sentencing orders and have left me alone ever since.
They don’t have any McDonald’s or Chic Fil A play places in this town? I successfully argued this point to the US Probation because they tried to restrict me from being at or near any location “where children congregate.” I pointed out that language prevented me from going to their office because of a park that had a playground on it within 1,000 feet of the courthouse. These proximity and residential restrictions are ridiculous.
This is a residency restriction, not a proximity ordinance.
Dear FAC-3: Yes, it is a residency restriction. I read that. I was making a point that both residency restrictions AND proximity restrictions are ridiculous. In fact, a residency restriction is effectually a proximity restriction.
Definitely some Constitutional questions here.
This is good news. They have to roll back their SORR.