MO: Janice Bellucci needs to remind the Hazelwood PD to obey court’s ruling
In Hazelwood, Missouri, the police department seems to have trouble taking “unconstitutional” for an answer. Recently, in the midst of the city’s appeal of a lawsuit that struck down its Halloween ordinance, the Hazelwood Police Department sent a letter to its registrants attempting to enforce that very same ordinance.
The ordinance, which required individuals forced to register as sexual offenders to post warning signs on their front doors stating that no candy or treats were available at the residence, had been successfully challenged and declared unconstitutional. Yet despite the ruling, the police department’s letter ordered compliance — as if the court’s decision didn’t exist.
Whether it was arrogance or ignorance, it’s hard to imagine what led the Police Chief to send such a letter — especially while the case is still under appeal. Until the appellate court says otherwise, the lower court’s ruling stands: the ordinance is unlawful, and it cannot be enforced.
It took a swift and firm response from ACSOL’s Janice Bellucci to set things straight. After being notified of the violation, the Hazelwood Police Chief mailed a second letter to affected residents essentially saying, “Remember that letter we sent last week? You can disregard it. We won’t be enforcing the ordinance.”
While the correction is appreciated, the damage was already done. As anyone on the registry knows, receiving a letter from the police can be an anxiety-inducing experience. Many Hazelwood residents likely spent days fearing consequences for disobeying a law that no longer existed.
This incident serves as an important reminder: if we don’t stand up for our rights, even well-settled constitutional protections can be quietly trampled by those sworn to uphold them. Thankfully, advocates continue to hold law enforcement accountable.
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Here is my biggest issue with this.
So, the Sheriff doesn’t follow the law right. Someone gets “arrested” under false pretenses and guess what. “Sorry, you are not eligible to come off the registry because I see here you were arrested.” “Yes, your honor but ………….”
This story is about Missouri. It has nothing to do with Florida. Does Missouri have the same law as Florida? If not, your biggest issue makes no sense.
I always appreciate your feedback. I am well aware of the state. My point is that a rogue sheriff just arresting people is not just a “Opps, I am sorry” That was point
I see your example and understand. If someone breaking an injunction creates an issue for someone else that shouldn’t have taken place in the first place, then the exception to the rule should be held that the incident did not happen because it was illegal in the first place by LE who shouldn’t have been doing it.
TS. That was my point. You got It. If it can happen in another state it can happen here. AND here even an “opps, my bad” arrest negates your registry removal.
These signs are just giant targets on ours and our family’s backs.
For the last 3 years, my probation officer has ordered me to put the same sign on my door. They actually print it out for me and tell me to put it on my door. I have told them time after time that it’s unconstitutional. On Halloween day, a minimum of 3 probation officers show up and search my home and make sure the sign is on my door. Are they allowed to do this?
If you are on probation you likely have to give them permission to search your home. You should consult with your attorney about the conditions of probation that you are under.
According to my probation stipulations, they are allowed to do unwarranted searches of my home, but it doesn’t say they are allowed to put signs on my door. Probation always threatens me and says you have to follow my orders and they are allowed to do it…. Last year I crumpled it up then unfolded it and hung it on my door with duct tape
That does not mean they can compel you to post the sign. Your atty or a civil rights atty can help discern their actions and court action to take if they are willing.
TS
From being on probation myself in the past, if you stand up for yourself against a probation officer, there is HELL to pay. When I went to get off probation, my lawyer asked the P.O to cooperate. Well in court she cooperated alright, but not for me, but against me. My lawyer asked why she did that and she said she had changed her mind and I needed to stay on probation.
A few years later, we tried again with a different judge, and the same probation officer once again said she was not ok with me getting off probation. The judge asked her one question “How many probation violations I had”, she said “None” and the judge immediately released me from probation and P.O was none too happy, but I about peed myself with joy. And even more special, I hugged my mom in court, and we both started crying, which made my attorney cry as well.
If that judge hadn’t retired, I would be off the registry already (My attorney told me that) but most of those judges have since retired as my case was from 1991.
I hear you @Cherokee Jack, but they cannot unilaterally add conditions post-contract signed between them and the person they are in charge of, only the judge can. Standing up for oneself while documenting it (usually with an audio or video recorder under 1A) is not illegal. It may make it hard on you but once it is proven in a court the action being taken by the other party and why it needs to be reviewed by the judge, then a contractual understanding will be had, especially with evidence one can prove was outside the contract signed.
To my knowledge, it’s ok for probation officers to issue an instruction to parolees to post a sign.
At the same time, if the sign is causing a specific problem, it’s legit to discuss with them.
I’ve dealt with probation officers here in Georgia claiming they can just make up new terms and conditions on the fly and threats to revoke if I didn’t abide by them. My response has always been “Put it in writing and I’ll see you in court.” It worked every time – each PO dropped it. Once or twice they threatened to revoke on the spot. But when I offered my hands for the cuffs, they (amusingly) backed off with some lame excuse of having too many other things to do that day or a repeated threat to revoke later for non-compliance with the new, unwritten condition (neither of which ever happened).
Every appellate court in the US has held at one point or another that while the courts (not the POs – the courts) have the authority to add new terms, there must be a rational basis and proper written notice must be given. Also noteworthy is that no appellate court has ever bought into the idea that POs don’t have time to provide written notice of new terms. All appellate courts that have addressed that have summarily said “If a new term is important enough to impose and important enough to revoke if violated, then it’s important enough to put on paper and serve proper notice.”
Personally, I would add that if POs are overworked, the blame is solely on the courts that sentence inordinately long probation terms and, especially for those involving sex crime convictions, refuse to allow early termination under any circumstance.
Janice is a rock star!! We are blessed to have her defending our rights!