IN: Senate approves bill limiting when sex offenders can move, workplace contact with kids
House Bill 1687, which was unanimously approved by the Senate Monday, gives communities more control over who’s moving in. Under the bill, offenders looking to move will need to show a local judge that they have employment, housing and a familial relationship waiting in their new community. Group housing, notably, would not be acceptable
Michael Harris, director of sex offender law reform group Indiana Voices, has argued the bill is too restrictive.
“It seems a bill aimed at keeping registrants from going to counties where services are available,” Lewis said. The broad workplace provision could keep sex offenders from working in placed like fast food restaurants, he added.
Discover more from Florida Action Committee
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
So they continue chipping away at The Constitution. I’ve been watching it for decades. If you knew who was ultimately behind all this, you’d be even more furious. But then real change might happen if everyone knew the whole truth.
“The illegal we do immediately; the unconstitutional takes a little longer.”
-Henry A Kissinger, War Criminal
The description of this bill in both the article and the FAC post is very misleading. The law only applies to probation transfers from one county to another and only affects those on probation. Such a law would be patently unconstitutional if applied to all persons forced to register, if not on community supervision or other sanctions. It is well established law that the constitutional rights of probationers can be curtailed provided that the government has a rational purpose for doing so. In some states (such as Florida), probation conditions cannot be imposed retroactively. I don’t know what Indiana caselaw is on that point.
Thanks RM. I believe this was an excerpt from the article. Appreciate the correction.
Ah yes, the states just keep stripping away your rights, and the SCOTUS sits by doing nothing. Amazing what America has become.
if the ACLU was more interested in the violation of American citizens rights then violent Tren DeAguira illegal terrorists non-rights Perhaps the government wouldn’t get away with creating a subset of Americans for abuse, slavery, and inhumane treatment…Seems any case involving RSO is defended lackluster and designed to fail while cases to defend drug Lords and gangsters are defended like they have JAG corps lawyers in a movie. But of course how can I forget RSOs aren’t allowed to have jobs or homes so we can’t donate the millions of dollars that fund them which is really their only true concern . Sad but fact . USA is the new WW2 Germany. I was mocked when almost 30 years ago I said this was only going to get more Draconian.. anyone still laughing? It still has much worse to go …
Perhaps the government wouldn’t “get away with creating a subset of Americans for abuse, slavery, and inhumane treatment” if we ourselves refrained from labelling others as “violent illegal terrorists” with “non rights.”
Inalienable: unable to be taken away.
Inalienable rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
The states can not go against the constitution. If they are restricting your rights after your sentence is complete, it would mean they converted your sentence to a LIFE SENTENCE. That would be against the statutory maximum for most of us as well as violating other laws.
In Florida this could mean that if our rights are abridged it is equal to being under state control, meaning our sentence will never be complete. If our sentence isn’t complete, doesn’t that mean we don’t have to register? Just following the logic…