This Halloween, the city of Jacksonville will stop enforcing a local ordinance that required registered sex offenders to post a “no candy or treats here” sign every year. The city agreed to stop enforcing the law in response to a federal lawsuit it faced challenging the law’s constitutionality.
The lawsuit had cited a recent decision by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that said a Georgia county had violated the U.S. Constitution when it placed signs in the yards of registered sex offenders that said, “No trick-or-treat at this address!!”
Ahead of a Thursday hearing requesting U.S. District Judge Timothy Corrigan strike down the ordinance, a lawyer for the city said it would voluntarily agree to stop enforcing the law while the case was pending.
The plaintiffs’ attorney, Ray Taseff, told the judge that the plaintiffs would accept a modified version of the law that banned displays intended to attract children, but he argued the term “primarily targeted to” children is too vague of a standard, especially around Christmas when children are particularly attracted to holiday displays.
The city’s lawyer, Craig Feiser, claimed the plaintiffs’ manger and cross displays wouldn’t have violated the city ordinance, and he said that the ordinance already requires police officers to show that a sex offender knew that a display would attract children, even if the law doesn’t specifically say that.
“There should be no expectation that normal decorations will invite children onto properties during most holidays,” the city said in a court filing. “The prohibition does not prohibit simple displays of speech, lights or flags on Plaintiffs’ property.”
A legal filing from a Sheriff’s Office lieutenant said that police initially give warnings and don’t arrest people who violated the ordinances. But arrest reports contradict that.
Last year, for example, someone was arrested for having “a pumpkin on the front porch, a paper pumpkin cutout, a picture of Winnie the Pooh trick or treating and a picture of a jack-o-lantern attached to the front door.” The sex offender said he had a daughter and didn’t know the decorations were outside the house, according to the arrest report. He asked if he could get a warning. Instead, the officer arrested him. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to two days in jail.
In 2019, the Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office used the holiday-display ordinance to arrest a sex offender for having a Christmas tree inside his home “in clear view from the street.”
That year, officers arrested another sex offender for having “18 plastic candy canes and 4 red bows on the front gate as well as two wreaths on the two posts of the carport.” He was held in jail on a $2,503 bond for that.
The office also arrested another suspect for having “numerous Christmas Decorations displayed.” The sex offender said his wife had put them up for their grandchild. The arrest report claimed that “he is not allowed to put up Halloween or Christmas decoration [sic] at his residence and he was currently in violation of a city Municipal Ordinance. The suspect advised he did not [know] he was not allowed to put up decorations at his residence because no one told him. He explained he will let his wife [know] she cannot put up decorations.” He was held in jail on a $5,003 bond.
Here is reason website response from the yearly witch hunt
https://reason.com/2022/10/24/halloween-covid-masks-safety-kids-trick-or-treat-danger/?amp
Slate on Halloween, ‘the deadliest day of the year’:
https://slate.com/business/2022/10/ban-cars-on-halloween.html
My understanding of city ordinances is that they are not criminal they’re civil so how a policeman but arrest you on an ordinance his not right at all
Lucky, this is the penalty for violating the ordinance:
Penalties. With regard to enforcement of this section, the City and the Sheriff’s Office may pursue any enforcement action or legal remedy available under the controlling state law and any legal remedy available to the City, to include, but not limited to, injunctive relief, arrest, a fine not exceeding $500.00 for each occurrence, or by imprisonment for a term not exceeding 60 days or by both a fine and imprisonment for each occurrence, unless prohibited by law.
If it was up to me, I’d have a haunted house that once a kid entered, they’d have a 5% chance of getting out. Those 95% randomly who succeed in entering would be transported to non-USA, a world where common sense prevailed, a world where people are not scared of the boogie man, a world in which those chosen to represent the majority do so, a safe world where one can just be; a world to flourish, procreate without reference to background, race, color, religion, sexuality, and most of all, be happy.
Why the hiding of Christmas decorations? Why the law/ordinance that you cannot display Christmas decorations?
Pardon me but… when was the last time a random child went up to a random house because of a damn Christmas tree or Christmas lights?
It takes a complete moron to come up with this level of fear mongering. Did the world just start yesterday? Do people not remember a time BEFORE all this crap?
In Louisiana, RSOs cannot give a gift to a minor. This means it is illegal for me to give my four children a birthday present or Christmas presents. I could go to jail if I did.
I also am not allowed to hand out candy on Halloween. However, I can hand out candy on any other day of the year (except Easter, Valentine’s Day, etc.).
The world is soooooo safe now because I am not allowed to give my children Christmas and birthday presents.
Those lawmakers that made such laws are going to be judged one day for what they have done.
I personally could understand the Halloween thing even though I don’t agree with it: But Christmas!! Come On now who is BSing who. This is definitely cruel and unusual punishment. For everyone involved.
Hi Jerry. Please read this short statement from a group of experts (The Association for the Treatment and Prevention of Sexual Abuse) regarding halloween and sexual offending:
https://www.atsa.com/policy/ATSAHalloween2019.pdf
Its a BS ordinance to begin with. Even if a registered person completely complies with the ordinance, what would stop a trouble making neighbor from sneaking onto an RP’s property and putting a jack o lantern on the porch, then calling the cops to report him for trying to lure children?
And a Christmas tree inside the guy’s house that was visible from the window? How the F is that supposed to lure a child onto the property? What if the same guy had a jungle gym in his back yard for his kids to play on that was visible from the street?
The public needs to stop believing that ALL registered persons are trying to lure children because that simply is not the case. There may be a few bad apples who haven’t learned their lesson, but these blanket laws and ordinances that do nothing to protect the public, and only further limits RPs from enjoying holidays with their families need to stop.
Luckily where I live in Michigan, we don’t have stupid ordinances like this. I simply have a fenced in yard with “No Trespassing” signs clearly posted. I have no interest in luring or harming a kid, but if one were to climb my locked fence and hurt themselves, that’s not my problem. I wouldn’t want that to happen, but warnings are clearly posted.
And they say it’s not punishment. Even our loved ones get to suffer as well even though they haven’t done anything wrong. So sad that we ( SO’s and SP’s) are not allowed to enjoy holidays and that we have to let our families know they cannot either. It’s okay though if someone me killed someone while drinking and driving or robbed a store at gun point. You can celebrate the holidays live wherever you need to so you are not homeless. Turns my stomach!
I feel like the plaintiff’s attorney should have doubled down instead of agreeing to let the city change the statute.
He had the on the ropes and he flinched!
Half measures are anathema to our cause. This cancer must not be modified, it must be completely eradicated from our nation! It is government sponsored hatred. A stain on our society!
I feel like you don’t know enough about the case to make this assessment
I have to agree with JJJJ. I live here in Jacksonville and have dealt with the signs, the hide my holiday decorations from being seen from the road (and I live on a corner so have extra windows to worry about), having to explain to my grandkids that we cannot decorate or … or … or. I see the Jacksonville City Council lawyer has no real idea what the ordinance mandates… note that word MANDATES, nor the impacts to the family. The ordinance is just another example of draconian laws mean to scarlet letter and shame. Follow the ordinance to the letter or get arrested. JSO will enforce, nothing less.
I had my Det conducted my re-reg on Sept 6th. When I asked is anything new being discussed concerning Registered Citizens, He shared an internal email JSO leadership put out indicating there was a lawsuit and the City Council lawyers do not believe they can win, so the JSO will not be conducting checks this Halloween and signs do not need to be posted while the legal process takes place.
I shared this info with FAC and FAC Duval to further share with the legal team. I thought the legal team would demand the internal email be provided and then used to support the argument at hand. Long story short, I agree with JJJJ, for the first time in a long time THEY are on the defensive. I don’t agree with any level of mitigation, I do agree with removal of the ordinance in its entirety.
JJJJ & Al imply that plaintiffs attorney agreed to a deal. Not sure that’s correct. Are we willing to lose this lawsuit just to make a point?
I quote:
“…The plaintiffs’ attorney, Ray Taseff, told the judge that the plaintiffs would accept a modified version of the law that banned displays intended to attract children…”
Does anyone else see the slippery slope here?? (It is very vague.)
No doubt if the ordinance is amended instea dof removed, we will be having this same conversation 3 years from now!
Maybe I am wrong. OK, if I am, they why am I wrong?
In my opinion, the law doesn’t need to be modified. It needs to be taken off the books! It is blatently unconstitutional!
Jacob,
Not trying to start an argument but isn’t half a win the same as half a loss? IF the suggestion is for Duval County to rewrite the ordinance to make it “more” legal then we just have to once again go to court to prove our point. Currently, I think we need to push for the full win and anything less should still be considered a loss. My humble opinion.
I also reiterate how the City lawyer really does understand the ordinance and how it works (in the real world we all live in).
There’s some major confusion here. The lawsuit focused on two things; the Halloween sign and the holiday decorations. The City voluntarily agreed to forego the Halloween sign thing, so there’s no sense in beating that dead horse if the ordinance will be re-written to remove that. With respect to the holiday decorations, the case is still going forward. If they rewrite the ordinance with something reasonable, such as “you can’t decorate with the intended purpose to lure children to your home in order to sexually assault them”, there’s a chance the attorneys will take that win and move on.
To be clear, they didn’t agree to ANY deal. There was no deal. The hearing was for a temporary injunction to block the Halloween sign thing in advance of the holiday and since the city announced that they voluntarily agree not enforce it, the injunction is moot. Also, people have to remember that plaintiffs here and in Brevard are not paying FJI for their fees or expenses. They are fronting their own costs, expenses and legal fees on behalf of us in the hope that plaintiffs prevail and they come back to them. FJI is in Miami, the hearing was in Jacksonville. I’m sure there were travel costs associated. Taking on a case like this without a retainer is a huge ask to begin with. To now sulk and say “they should have litigated this thing no matter what the risk” is a bit arrogant when the risk is not JJJJ’s and the money is not coming from his pocket.
It’s a big longshot in light of 11th Circuit precedent, but what if the District Court judge doesn’t care and upholds the ordinance? Longshot, but always a chance. Does JJJJ or Al want to cover a potential appeal or roll the dice on behalf of everyone in Jacksonville? These attorneys are doing a GREAT job. A HUGE service to our population. On Halloween night I hope every registrant in Jacksonville drinks a toast to FJI.
If the ordinance is modified, it will be a total win or partial win, depending what the modification is.
I think we can all agree that there is nothing inherently harmful about a county having an ordinance that contains language.
At the end of the day, plaintiff’s lawyer cannot decide the outcome. The court does. The lawyer’s job is to make the best argument.
Chief Judge Corrigan is highly respected by attorneys throughout Jacksonville. It’s apparent that plaintiffs’ attorneys here share that sentiment.
Agree they’re doing well, but I hope they don’t agree to modification of the ordinance. Using your example, would such a modification define what is considered “intent to lure minors”? Very unlikely, leaving interpretation of such in the fair-minded and loving hands of Grady Judd and his staff.
I’m hoping they did the lawyer thing and only agreed to a modified ordinance to sound reasonable to the court. Presumably the city council will try to modify it for the sake of dismissing the suit, and I for one pray that every modification is rejected as unreasonable (I doubt that will be too hard) to the point they just repeal the stupid thing.
If these are supposed to be known rules, maybe these rules could be excused if they were specifically part of a sentence for probation. Outside of that, anything that’s put up in your yard short of a “children welcome here” sign, should be considered free speech. If I can make a 4×8 sign with a middle finger directed at passersby then pretty much anything goes.