The Oklahoma Municipal League recently filed an Amicus Brief in a case brought against the City of El Reno related to the right of a municipality to enforce the provision of the Sex Offenders Registration Act.
A suit was brought against the City of El Reno for applying a retroactive application of the Sex Offenders Registration Act. Because the offender was sentenced prior to current changes to the Act, they are not required to follow current law. The offender is being allowed to relocate their residence to a location that would be prohibited if they were convicted today.
“Municipalities have a duty to protect their citizens, especially the most vulnerable among us,” said Mike Fina, Executive Director of the Oklahoma Municipal League. “Our Law Enforcement Officers know the dangers presented to their communities, and there should be one set of rules to follow to keep habitual and aggravated offenders away from daycares, parks and schools.”
The rules to the SORA change depending on when the offender was sentenced. OML’s position is that all offenders should be required to comply with the current setback rules at the time of their relocation for all prospective residency decisions.
(833) 2-REPEAL
[email protected]
Isn’t it funny how the states that do not have the registrant residence restrictions proposed by Senator Coleman don’t have the issues that he is supposedly so concerned with? In those states, when sex offenses occur at schools, it’s always by a staff member, not the registrant across the street. When they occur at churches, it’s always by a clergy member, not the registrant around the corner. At parks, always by someone from out of town, not the registrant that resides 995 feet down the road.
Perhaps in committee, Senator Coleman could provide something besides unverified anecdotes to show his proposal’s purported need. Or something showing the effectiveness of such policy in other jurisdictions. Or how he intends to address the ex post facto lawsuits that will surely follow.
This makes as much sense as requiring someone who paid a $25 traffic fine 30 years ago to now pay a $130 fine because the laws changed and the fees went up. Or make someone who served 3 days in jail 20 years ago to now serve 27 more days because the crime now requires a 30 day jail sentence.
There would be a nationwide protest and civil unrest if crap like that happened, but no one seems to care when new laws are retroactively applied to registered citizens.
Disgusted in Michigan; Well said. 🥳🤔👍
Why can’t all these entitled entities who don’t want to be around registrants move away from the registrants on their own instead? They have plenty of places they can go.
GL
I hate when people use the name “Karens”, but in this situation, it fits. (I apologize in advance to anyone named Karen)
GL…exactly!
I was living in a mobile home Community and was told to move with a letter saying that I was on the sex offenders list. After living there for eight years. It took the supreme court to get me off the retroactive part. This case was in Michigan. I’m hoping this lawsuit open some eyes here in Michigan.
Would it not be a constitutional violation for attempting to apply this to all those currently forced to register? I tried to leave a comment on the source article but it said that I was a spammer.
Oh…this should be good! The only thing those LEO’s know is the myths that have been perpetrated regarding residency restrictions.
DMC
I use to work in law enforcement. Although not all cops are bad, there are those who truly believe, that if you are not law enforcement, that must mean you are a criminal. And if you really are a felon/ex felon, their philosophy is “Once a felon, always a felon.
There is so much I want to say.
“Municipalities have a duty to protect their citizens, especially the most vulnerable among us,” said every publicly accountable employee ever, however, are bank robbers allowed to open an account post prison? Can a car jacker purchase a car? Other than welfare programs, do drug dealers face residency restrictions post prisons?
Okay, you see where I’m going with this. With the exception of murder, those other crimes come with a much higher recidivism rate yet here we are.
The Navy has some pretty big guns but they nor anyone has one big enough to get me to harm a child but dont let the media or politicians acknowledge that.
I have a theory; The consortium of they know those others will come back. Job security. So, they come down on with ever restrictive rules with what seems like shooting fish in a barrel to those of us that will likely not provide them with the saught after job security they so fervently seek and we as those required to register on the list that shouldn’t exist are just easy pickin’s. Not that we jump after any excuse to reoffend but are easy to target for new and restrictive rules.
“Our Law Enforcement Officers know the dangers presented to their communities, and there should be one set of rules to follow to keep habitual and aggravated offenders away from daycares, parks and schools.”
It already exists. Its called sentencing. Habitual and Aggravated would carry a stiffer penalty.
The only danger would be to fail to be re-elected because they didn’t come up with more rules and/or laws.
Job security. Just sayin
Thanks
This, in and of itself, should be the golden calf proof that registries are punishment. If someone has done nothing wrong past their original crime, show me anywhere where the judge ruled you must forfeit your home? And if one city gets away with it (I think some have already done so or tried at least) then we may all be living on an island in the Pacific.
And we all know that if one city/county gets the ok, there may not be a single place for us left to live except maybe in a swamp, the edges of a landfill or any other dehumanizing location. Stop the steal of our lives, property, sanity, peace, safety and rights we may have remaining.
‘Standardize the rules to eliminate legal loopholes.’ These are the sorts of justifications we can expect to encounter from advocates of ex post facto punishment. In addition to characterizing just living somewhere as an ‘incident.’