Residency Restrictions In Lynn Mass. Knocked Out – Read why it's important to FAC
In March, we were contacted by Attorney Amy Belger from Massachusetts. Ms. Belger was working on an Amicus Brief to be filed in the case of Doe v. City of Lynn, on behalf of registered citizens in the City of Lynn Massachusetts who were subject to a residency restriction.
Since Florida had been the “birthplace” of the residency restriction and South Florida, in particular, was where some of the most glaring examples of unintended negative consequences of these ordinances (see: Julia Tuttle Causeway) emerged, she asked for FAC’s help in supporting the pleading with some details about our situation, including the situation at the railroad tracks.
With the help of studies by Jill Levenson and pictures taken by Jeff Borg of the ACLU, the debacle in Florida provided a scary example of what could potentially happen in Lynn, Massachusetts if the ordinance were able to stand.
Fortunately, it did not stand and today the judge issued that opinion, rendering the residency restriction in Lynn invalid. (Decision can be read here: https://floridaactioncommittee.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/CITY-OF-LYNN-DECISION-8-28-15.pdf)
Although the reasons were unrelated to the effectiveness of the ordinance or the tragic consequences in Florida, the court did recognize those on whose behalf the brief was issued by stating, “We acknowledge the amicus brief filed by Jacob Wetterling Resource Center, Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, Massachusetts Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, Inc., Reform Sex Offender Laws, Inc., and Florida Action Committee.”
While it’s not a decision that helps us down here, in turn, the help will hopefully come back around when one of our challenges make their way up the court’s ladder. That’s why it’s important for all US Registered Citizens to stick together. With Unity Comes Change!
Discover more from Florida Action Committee
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Now 40 communities are affected by the new ruling in Massachusetts.
Read this to a better understanding http://sexoffender-decisions.blogspot.com/2015/08/news-sjc-ruling-threatens-sex-offender.html
Good news here is another City about to change.
http://sexoffenderresearch.blogspot.com/2015/09/is-springfields-sex-offender-ordinance.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2FSLIBz+%28Sex+Offender+Research+and+News%29
As quoted from the Article:
“We have an ordinance that is likely impacted by the ruling,” Council President Michael Fenton said. “The purpose of the meeting is to evaluate what action if any will be required to alter our municipal ordinance.”
Fenton called the meeting, as requested by Councilor Bud L. Williams.
Williams said the ruling creates “serious concerns” as the Springfield ordinance, designed for the protection of children, is aimed at keeping sex offenders from living near places such as schools.
The Supreme Judicial Court ruled that Lynn had no legal authority to adopt its 2011 ordinance because it is inconsistent with state laws governing the oversight of sex offenders. Lynn’s law prohibited Level Two and Level Three sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of parks or public, private or church schools. The levels are state designations reflecting those with a moderate chance of reoffending and those most likely to reoffend, respectively.
In Springfield, a registered offender “is prohibited from establishing a permanent residence or temporary residence within 500 feet of any school” with some exemptions.
The Springfield ordinance also created “child safety zones” that prohibited sex offenders from entering a school unless specifically authorized, and also prohibiting an offender from entering a park or other recreational facility when children are present, among other provisions.
Fenton said he will ask the Law Department for guidance, and believes there could be a number of future outcomes.
“If it has invalidated our ordinance, then we will consider appealing it,” Fenton said. “If it has invalidated some but not all of ordinance, then we will amend it accordingly. If it requires us to reconsider the way the ordinance is written to preserve its spirit, we will rewrite it to be reconciled with the court decision.”
The council meeting is not a regular meeting, but listed as a “Committee of the Whole” meeting, for discussion of the one item on the agenda.
Mayor Domenic J. Sarno has also raised concerns about the court ruling. ..Source.. by Peter Goonan
NOTICE: One of the provision was about Parks when children were present. So, what does this mean. Can sex offenders go to the park after hours that children would normally be there. I know some of the parks do not allow visitors after 10 PM or camping or camp fires.
But there has been clubs that got permission to be there and do such recreational activities.
I found out the source of why one state’s regulations were found unconstitutional.
But the counties tried to bypass the law by adapting their own form of the same law.
http://www.wbur.org/2014/03/26/mass-court-sex-offender-retroactive
Quoted from article:
BOSTON Massachusetts cannot retroactively post information about thousands of registered Level 2 sex offenders on the Internet.
The Supreme Judicial Court did not strike down the new law, but ruled that it could not be applied retroactively to sex offenders who had already been classified as Level 2 prior to the date the law took effect.
The Supreme Judicial Court did not strike down the new law, but ruled that it could not be applied retroactively to sex offenders who had already been classified as Level 2 prior to the date the law took effect. Level 2 offenders are considered to pose a moderate degree of dangerousness to the public.
Shortly after passage of the law, the Committee for Public Counsel Services, representing several Level 2 sex offenders, got a preliminary injunction from a judge blocking the state from posting information about the more than 6,000 individuals who had received Level 2 classifications prior to July 12, 2013.
The justices, in making the injunction permanent, said making the law retroactive “would be unreasonable and inequitable, and therefore unconstitutional as a violation of due process.”
Residents can obtain information about Level 1 or Level 2 sex offenders from their local police departments. Defense attorneys have argued that posting names and addresses online hurt their clients’ ability to get housing and hold jobs, and can even pose a threat to their personal safety.
Retroactive application of the community “special” laws are Ex post facto.
The irony arising from another defeat for the Witch Hunters in Lynn is the fact that these communities, e.g., Marlborough, Waltham, refuse to repeal the geographical prohibitions much to the beleagured taxpaying
citizens in those communities! They lose and suffer the revenue drain
followed by the insurance increase that comes. It is here, in these local communities that the battle should be pitched, as well with the federal
government’s largess that supports registration “at any cost.” We will
never prevail in this witch hunt simply by the refusal of sex offenders to stand up for their rights. They hide in plain sight while the rest of us take the heat. Worse, as a veteran and recently-lowered level 2 offender, find that my fellow veterans are now prohibited from the veteran shelters and rendered homeless. The apathy persists, however,
which will only fill our correctional institutions while the drug dealers and career felons walk out the front door to make room. It encourages the politicians to seek banishment and/or castration that they add to their resume.
Thank you and everyone for all you do!