Some Much-Needed Clarification

Sex offender ordinance hangs in legal limbo

Loganville Tribune

Published July 7, 2006

LOGANVILLE — Temporary restraining orders at the federal, state and county levels preventing enforcement of parts of the state’s new sex offender law won’t affect a more stringent ordinance the City of Loganville is considering, according to Councilman Austin Jones.

“In fact, we’ll need it even more if the state law isn’t upheld,” Jones said of the city’s sex offender ordinance he introduced. “With the Snellville one in place, we don’t want the sex offenders who can’t live there moving out here.”

The state law prohibits registered sex offenders from living 1,000 feet from where children congregate.

On Thursday, city officials will have the second reading and subsequent vote of the city ordinance, which adds 1,500 feet to the state law.

The state and city legislation both include school bus stops as places where children congregate and are the center of debate as the courts determine the constitutionality of this provision.

A U.S. District Court judge granted temporary relief for all of the state’s sex offenders from enforcement of this provision as a result of a class action lawsuit filed two weeks ago.

Walton County Superior Court judge the Hon. Maurice W. Sorrells also issued a temporary restraining order specifically preventing the Walton County Sheriff’s Office and the Walton County Probation Office from enforcing those same provisions following a suit filed last week by six Walton County residents on the sex offender registry.

“While the court recognizes and appreciates the importance of protecting the public, the court cannot approve of doing so in a manner that offends the Constitution,” the ruling read. “The court recognizes the importance of protecting children but finds that the temporary restraining order will not disserve the public interest, particularly since enforcement of the bus stop provision might result in greater difficulty in monitoring sex offenders.”

But Jones said the difference between HB 1059 and the city ordinance is that registered sex offenders already living within the prohibited 2,500 feet in the city ordinance would be grandfathered in.

“Our ordinance would not require anyone to move in order to comply with the law,” Jones said. “It prevents anyone moving into the restricted zones in the future. It’s more of a preventative measure.”

He said the city attorney had specifically considered the constitutionality of it when drafting the ordinance.

But the debate in the courts appears to hinge on more than whether anyone might be forced to move. They are also debating whether it is constitutional to create areas that effectively prohibit convicted sex offenders from finding somewhere to live after serving their time.

The lawsuit filed in Walton County states that the bus stop provision is “particularly, arbitrary, unreasonable and punitive. School bus stops change frequently. This renders it virtually impossible for anyone on the registry to buy or rent a home.”

A hearing in Walton County is scheduled for Wednesday in hopes that a more definitive ruling is made at Tuesday hearing of the suit in federal court.

The second reading of the Loganville ordinance will follow Thursday so by then council members voting on it should have a clearer view on how the courts are leaning.

In the meantime, the earlier debate as to whether city or county officials would enforce the city’s sex offender ordinance if it passes appears to have been settled. Loganville Police Chief Mike McHugh said the police department is geared up and ready to enforce any ordinance the city puts in place.

“We are prepared to do what is necessary to enforce this ordinance,” McHugh said.