Residency Restrictions for Sex Offenders

Residency restriction laws are a fairly new method some jurisdictions are using in an attempt to curb the actions of *** offenders. Alabama passed the first residency restriction law in 1996. The law was part of the states' Community Notification Act. It prohibited child molesters from living within 1,000 feet of a school. By January 2006, approximately 14 states had enacted residency restrictions. Moreover, some local governments have implemented their own residency restrictions.
Critics and supporters of residency restriction laws have watched Iowa's law with interest since its passage in 2002. The Iowa law applies to a "person who has committed a criminal offense against a minor, or an aggravated offense, ***ually violent offense, or other relevant offense that involved a minor." According to the law, "A person shall not reside within two thousand feet of the real property comprising a public or nonpublic elementary or secondary school or a child care facility." The law does not apply in certain circumstances, including where the "person has established a residence prior to July 1, 2002, or a school or child care facility is newly located on or after July 1, 2002," or where the person is a minor or a ward under a guardianship. It is an aggravated misdemeanor to reside within 2,000 feet of a school or child care.
The Iowa law took effect on July 1, 2002, but was almost immediately challenged in federal district court. The plaintiffs were three named *** offenders who contended that the law was unconstitutional on its face. The case was certified as a class action, on behalf of other *** offenders to whom the law would apply. At trial, the plaintiffs presented evidence regarding the scope of the law. In many cities, the law would effectively limit *** offenders to small areas of residency. In small towns, a single school or child care center could mean that the entire town was off limits. Expert witnesses on both sides testified to their beliefs in the expected efficacy of the law.
The district court enjoined enforcement of the law, and ruled that it was unconstitutional on several grounds, including:

• The law was unconstitutional because it was an ex post facto law for anyone convicted before July 1, 2002;
• It violated plaintiffs' rights to avoid self-incrimination, because registrants would be required to report their addresses, even when the addresses were not in compliance with the law;
• It violated plaintiffs' procedural due process rights;
• It infringed on fundamental rights to travel and decide how to conduct their family affairs; and
• It was not tailored narrowly enough to serve a compelling state interest.

[align=left]
In a ruling dated April 29, 2005, three judges from the United States Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously voted to reverse the district court's decision. The appellate court dispensed with each ground relied upon by the district court, and ruled that the law was not unconstitutional on its face. The court ruled that there exists no constitutional right to "live where you want." Therefore, the state only needed to show that the statute rationally advanced some legitimate governmental purpose. Plaintiffs acknowledged that the law was enacted to promote the safety of children, and that this was a legitimate legislative goal. They argued, however, that the law is irrational because there is no scientific evidence to support the conclusion that residency restrictions will enhance the safety of children. The court rejected this argument as well, noting that state policymakers are entitled to employ "common sense" when making a determination that "limiting the frequency of contact between *** offenders and areas where children are located is likely to reduce the risk of an offense."
Two judges agreed that the law did not amount to an ex post facto punishment. They ruled that plaintiffs did not establish by "clearest proof" that the law's punitive effect overrides the legislature's "legitimate intent to enact a nonpunitive, civil regulatory measure that protects health and safety" of the state's citizens.
Municipalities and counties have enacted their own versions of residency restrictions. For example, in Des Moines, Iowa, the state's largest city, officials added parks, libraries, swimming pools, and recreational trails to the list of protected buffer zones. A report in the Des Moines Register on January 22, 2006, reported that since the state's residency law took effect, more *** offenders are eluding tracking by authorities. The paper reported that 298 *** offenders were unaccounted for in January 2006, compared to 142 on June 1, 2005. Critics charge that the law has forced some *** offenders to become homeless; others may lie and say that they are homeless to hide the fact that they are not complying with the law. Iowa has approximately 6,000 registered *** offenders.
from

[/align]