Fort Mitchell neighbors wanted a playground to displace a sex offenders
FORT MITCHELL, Ky. – In a neighborhood of broad lawns and trees, residents wanted one of their neighbors to leave – and they seized on an unusual way to try and get the city’s help to force him out.
The drama involved a local prosecutor, a sex offender, and a tiny sliver of land along Dixie Highway with a handful of benches and a doggy bag dispenser.
In the spring, a registered sex offender moved in next door to Kyle Burns, who also happened to be an assistant Commonwealth attorney for Campbell County.
Burns had an idea: Get the Fort Mitchell Park Board to put a playground in that space. That playground would change everything for everyone; It would be publicly owned – and would force the offender to move.
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
So disgusting that a government ‘attorney’, with city government approval, is using tax payer dollars to harrass and make homeless a citizen on a forced government list. At the least, the so called ‘upholder of the laws’ is guilty of attempting to divert public money to build his kids a park. At the worst, he and his boss are no different than the government officials and townspeople who donned swatiskas before driving public government registrants from their homes. Shame on Fort Mitchell, Campbell County and Kentucky, for looking the other way.
Or the Salem witch trials. Many of them were found guilty of being a witch and hung in a public setting.
Agreed!
I think this weekend I’m going to look into filing a formal grievance with the Kentucky Bar Association. Suggest others do the same.
Will you share with us how that can be done?
According to my limited research, neither the city of Fort Mitchell nor Campbell County have residency restrictions. However, the KY state law has no grandfather clause, thus is in violation of post ex facto constitutional protection.
“(3) For purposes of this section:
(a) The registrant shall have the duty to ascertain whether any property listed in subsection (1) of this section is within one thousand (1,000) feet of the registrant’s residence; and
(b) If a new facility opens, the registrant shall be presumed to know and, within ninety (90) days, shall comply with this section.
Ky. Rev. Stat. § 17.545”
https://casetext.com/statute/kentucky-revised-statutes/title-3-executive-branch/chapter-17-public-safety/sex-offender-registration/section-17545-registrant-prohibited-from-residing-or-being-present-in-certain-areas-violations-exception?ct_exp_group_COLD_DOCUMENT_LAND=SIMPLIFIED_DOCUMENT_PAGE&PRICING_PAGE_GROUP=C&ct_spg=c&PDF_DOWNLOAD_GROUP=P&PDF_DOWNLOAD_LANDING_PAGE_GROUP=P&NEW_LEARN_MORE=P&PHONE_NUMBER_GROUP=C
This only applies to registrants that their crime was after July of 2006.
Yes, but the requirement to move out of a residence that you lawfully occupied prior to a park being created is punitive, thus violates ex post facto. Read FAC’s comment below.
if the park is put in AfTER the guy moved in, wouldnt he be “grandfathered” in? Isnt this situation exactly what Ipso Facto is supposed to prevent?
Ex Post Facto – and yes.
This “pocket park” concept originated in Florida – CA was able to get these knocked out.
We have seen time and time again, many judges interpret the law how THEY want it to read, not the way it was intended to be. That is why we have courts of appeals. Unfortunately it is a catch 22. While on appeal would the person have to move and then come back if they win or be able to stay and only leave if they lose?
I may not be alive to see it, however eventually all these laws are going to blow up in their faces when registered citizens just start giving up, but not in the way they would like them to. In a way where we all lose our minds and 100,000 of us chain ourselves to the front of the Supreme court building in Washington D.C and refuse to leave until our voices are heard. (ok I can dream anyway)
They have tried that in a few places but if you are not on probation and have already established a residence, the courts ruled they cannot make you move. Even if on probation, if you own a house, hard to say it would be legally under “After the fact”, but what do I know. I live 2 blocks from a school but have lived here 30 years. The school bus use to stop in front of my house but they moved it after someone complained.
In the specific case of this person, it is obvious it is being done not legally but due to a personal reason from the assistant attorney, using his position of influence. Very unethical.
Normally in these situations, a person can’t simply be told to leave if a park, playground, day care, school, bus stop, or some such “pops up” simply because the person was there first. It’s called a grandfather clause. If these are supposed to be civil cases, no judge would allow this precedent to be set in their courtroom just because of torts and property laws alone, also civil cases. Slippery slope.
Various case law provides that if a sex offender lives at a residence prior to the placement of a daycare, park, or what have you, that they cannot do so and the offender is not required to move. Do your research!
Florida case law is not binding in this case.
Unfortunately, in some states they can. See Vasquez v. Foxx from Chicago: https://harvardlawreview.org/2019/06/vasquez-v-foxx/
Don’t call people “sex offender” or “offender”. That is what the criminal regimes do.