How Far Will the Government Go to Keep a Registrant Out of a Neighborhood?
A recent decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit illustrates just how far the system can go to keep a person on the registry from living where he wants to live—even when the proposed residence is otherwise perfectly lawful.
The facts in Sera v. Zimmerman are remarkable.
Steven Sera was was granted parole in February 2024, subject to approval of a parole plan. His family trust purchased and developed a residence for him after the sheriff’s office determined that it was lawful for Sera to live there. Then came the problem.
Sera’s parole officer, Randy Zimmerman, rejected his proposed residence, claiming that a daycare called “Hollys Daycare” was located within 800 feet of the home. There was just one problem: there was no daycare there.
The person who lived at that location did not operate a daycare center. Sera notified the parole authorities that the denial was based on a false claim. Eight days later, the person registered a business called “Hollys Daycare LLC” with the Secretary of State. Sera submitted another parole plan after verifying that there was no daycare center at the location. It was rejected again.
This time, the parole officer claimed that “Hollys Daycare LLC” was a licensed business and that its license was current. According to the complaint, both statements were false. Sera subsequently learned that he was prohibited from submitting a third parole plan proposing the same residence.
You can’t make this stuff up. It’s what happens when the system becomes determined to keep someone out of a particular neighborhood.
The Eighth Circuit ultimately ruled against Sera, but importantly, the court’s decision was not a finding that the alleged conduct was acceptable. The court held that Sera did not have a constitutionally protected liberty interest in parole under Arkansas law. The court specifically acknowledged the allegations that the parole plan had been rejected based on a lie, but held that even “deplorable conduct” does not, by itself, create a federal due-process claim.
The court even noted the distinction between how awful an official’s conduct may be and whether the Constitution provides a remedy for it.
If the government can manipulate and totally manufacture restricted locations until virtually any residence can be disqualified, at what point does a residency restriction stop being a reasonable safety measure and become something else entirely?
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
There must be some agency that can hold Holly’s Daycare to the fire. Let’s see the equipment needed to sustain the daycare, supplies, paper trail, bank records, lists of clients and there must be a YELP or GOOGLE rating page where you can say that had 1☆, the food was bad, never had enough supplies, there was dog poop everywhere and more. Then when the owner complains that none of that is true it can be told that there is no daycare at all.
There’s no claim that the day care is real.
Similar something happened to me about 25 years ago. I moved into a house while I was on probation. The neighbors got notifications and things went crazy. The HOA president used an empty lot in the community that was 50 feet from my house and put a swing set on it and called it a playground.
When my probation officer came over, I asked her about it, and she said if they put it up after you were already living in the community, you cannot be retroactively forced to move. I lived there for 4 years until I got tired of all the harassment, and although I am a nice person, I gave the HOA president an ear full when I left, mostly about how much hate he had in his heart, even after 4 years of living there, I never had a complaint from a single homeowner in the community. (I also moved because I was then off probation and was time to spread my wings)
Someone should report whoever filed the business documents for the daycare LLC as submitting false information to the state since it is not a real day care.
It’s not false information— the LLC is actually called Hollys Daycare!
Jacob, stay with me here, it is false information if there is no actual daycare! Yall said it yourselves.
Having a business license for a non-existent physical business where specific laws are in place for the physical business to be satisfied does not mean there is a physical business in place. You cannot say it is there or will be there by a business license only without the physical domicile being present and the specific license inspections completed. Many people have business licenses without a physical front to it, but that does not mean an exclusion zone is applicable, e.g., a tutoring business that meets in a library where the license for it is at someone’s domicile.
Going after the PO is the first step in challenging this as well as proving there is nothing there under this business license category. Randy was just trying to avoid the rest of their job should there have actually been a licensed physical day care there. Should it come to be, then one needs to start calling in potential violations in the name of child safety to help move the business along.
He proved there was nothing there and was still denied parole.
I’d be going after the PO in this case by submitting a formal complaint to the state Commission on Law Enforcement Standards and Training, first for fabricating a claim in his case (the non-existent daycare) and then for arranging a license for the non-existent daycare. Odds are better than average that the licensee hasn’t taken in one dollar since issue, and therefore not paid any taxes. Circumstances like this are precisely why the Brady list was created, though in all likelihood not used or updated in years.
Probably wouldn’t be a bad idea to post a Youtube video summarizing the POs conduct, read the court opinions detailing it, it implicate the leadership that allowed it.
Time to investigate the daycare. If this person was truly operating a daycare there would be a paper trail. Is this daycare fraudulent and reaping monetary gain? If so that’s a case in itself. If not then whomever did this needs to cease their registration. The timing is all very fishy to me.
There is no day care to investigate.