A win in Illinois! A Court last week found that a law that prevented more than one person required to register from living at the same address cannot stand as it is being applied by the defendants (Illinois Department of Corrections) against persons required to register.
The statute precludes convicted sex offenders on mandatory supervised release from living “at the same address or in the same condominium unit or apartment unit in the same condominium complex or apartment complex with another person he or she knows or reasonably should know is a convicted sex offender or has been placed on supervision for a sex offense[.]” has been the cause for an extreme lack of available housing. The few residential facilities that accept persons required to register have been under attack for housing more than one.
Aside from the limited victory, the case was also important because the Court examined social science in making their decision (this almost never happens). The decision referenced a report that contrary to popular belief, there are no negative effects from such close living and, instead, identified a handful of benefits.
Many people in Illinois are being kept in prison beyond the date the could otherwise be released, simply because they cannot find affordable, compliant housing.
The decision can be read here: Barnes v Jeffrey – Order
Good news to see another win, especially out of the seemingly worthless courts in IL, both State and Federal. Did anyone else notice that IDOC was performing some “pre-crime” work? From the decision:
So to be clear, IDOC was denying co-location based on the chance of what can only be termed “recidivism through association.” Wow.
This case makes me wonder about the possibility of success against AWA/SORNA in regards to the on HUD housing for lifetime RCs. Taking the finding in Goldberg v. Kelly (397 US 254 (1970)), it would seem there’s an Equal Protection violation by automatically barring lifers. Or does the holding in CT DPS v. Doe cover every possible 14th Amendment claim any RC can ever have? I would hope there’s some sort of limit on how far collateral consequences can ripple out from one’s conviction.
If nothing else, it seems there should be a case for a lifer who is denied but a non-lifer is not. The RC has zero control over his/her status as a lifer, and that determination can change at any time based on the will of the legislature(s). Again, how is that not an Equal Protection violation? I could be okay one day but then I get re-tiered (read: status change and involuntary act) to life and suddenly the Feds kick me out? Hmmm…
Is there a possibility (or a way) of doing something similar to this new decision for civil commitment in Rushville TDF in Illinois? If so, where do we start? If not, why not??? Thanks.
@r:
I don’t know the details of the civil commitment in IL or Rushville, but the neighboring 8th Circuit Court ruled against the RCs suing over MN’s civil commitment program (See: https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/17/01/153485P.pdf). SCOTUS denied cert., so it clearly didn’t see anything demanding review (yet?). In other words, it’s probably a steep uphill climb.
The literature around this issue states unequivocally that those registrants who have stable housing, a job and “pro-social support” are at much lower risk of sexual offense recidivism. The fear that the community chooses to embrace around repeat sexual offenses is not justified. Communities that make it difficult if not impossible for men and women with a sexual offense in their background to live in their community are increasing the risk for sexual offending by making people homeless, friendless and jobless!
This is an identical issue in the State of Florida. There are laws that prevent multiple sex offenders, or simply unassociated people from living in the same residency. I can understand the law in regards to health reasons if there’s an outrageous amount of people under one roof, but simply saying multiple sex offenders or unassociated people in general, is quite biased and ridiculous.
Tereto
When I go to register, I sometimes see a van load of guys. They live on a street where the owner bought all the houses on the street over the years and made a sorts of sex offender village. He drives them to their registrations and I overheard there are up to 7 to 10 offenders living in one house.
AND many of them are on probation living with other felons and the Sheriffs office and the probation office has approved it according to overhearing the conversation with the clerk. (Yeah everyone hears your private information while you register)
The sheriffs and probation officers can check on mulitple ex offenders at once. AND that is not the only location I know of where entire mass groups live together. There is also a trailer park that has about 20 or more offenders living together. All you have to do is check the map and see the numerous red dots in a single location or neighborhood.
My thoughts are something, somewhere, somehow is going to burst. If we keep getting run off from places, we are going to be like the roaming masses of zombies in those films where we travel from town to town.
Can we say a judge for once not only used their brain and common sense, but also some compassion. Nawww they stated the obvious, it was discrimination and supression, regardless if we are a protect class.
And, just maybe, they had some inner compassion as well. Now if we can get some wins on the retroactive application of the registry, many of us can do some good for our families and communities. I have been turned away from volunteer opportunies so many times it is not funny.
But a win is a win. Bless those that are being held down by laws meant to continue to punish long after sentences were completed. That pretty much covers all of us. Most of us have the highest advocate in our corner.
Psalm 121:5-8
5 The LORD watches over you— the LORD is your shade at your right hand; 6 the sun will not harm you by day, nor the moon by night. 7 The LORD will keep you from all harm— He will watch over your life; 8 the LORD will watch over your coming and going both now and forevermore.