U.S. judge overturns Colorado city's sex offender residency law

DENVER Thu Aug 22, 2013 5:33pm EDT

Related Topics


Air strikes in Gaza

Our latest photos from the scene.   Slideshow 

DENVER (Reuters) - A federal judge has struck down a Colorado city's ordinance that restricts where registered sex offenders can reside, ruling that it conflicts with a state law requiring parolees to be reintegrated into society.

U.S. District Judge R. Brooke Jackson in Denver ruled that the city of Englewood, a Denver suburb, could not impose restrictions that "leave essentially no place for such offenders to live for all intents and purposes."

The city's ordinance barred convicted sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of schools, parks or playgrounds, or within 1,000 feet of day-care facilities, recreation centers and trails, swimming pools, bus stops and school routes.

Jackson noted in his 24-page opinion that cities may impose reasonable constraints on where sex offenders can live, but he said Englewood and five other Colorado cities with similar laws have gone too far.

"In theory, every city and county could enact a similar 'not in my backyard' ordinance and effectively ban sex offenders ... from the entire state," he said.

A number of local governments and states across the country have enacted laws banning sex offenders from living near parks and schools, including California, Texas, Kentucky, Florida and Georgia.

The ruling stemmed from the case of Brett Ryals, a former soccer coach who was sentenced to seven years on probation after pleading guilty to having an unlawful sexual relationship with an underage girl who was one of his players.

Ryals was sentenced to two years in prison after violating his probation by continuing to see his victim. He completed his sentence and other requirements and was ultimately paroled.

He then purchased a home in Englewood. But when he registered as required with police in the suburb of 30,000 people south of Denver, he was told that his residence was within a restricted area.

A lawsuit challenging the restrictions was brought on his behalf by the Colorado chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. Mark Silverstein, the ACLU's legal director in Colorado, said cities that pass such laws provide "a false sense of security" to their residents.

"Instead, they make communities less safe by interfering with offenders' efforts to reintegrate into safe, stable, and supportive environments," Silverstein said. "And when town after town enacts similar restrictions, it poses the risk that sex offenders are driven underground and disconnected from treatment and supervision."

Jackson said the ordinance pushes offenders into neighboring communities, creating a conflict with the "the state interest in the uniform treatment, management, rehabilitation, and reintegration of sex offenders during and after state supervision."

Officials from Denver also complained that Englewood's policy was forcing offenders into their city, he added.

Silverstein said the ACLU has challenged similar laws in other states, but the Colorado case was different because the agency charged by the state legislature with monitoring paroled sex offenders publicly opposed the measures in Englewood and other towns.

"What sets this apart is the Sex Offender Management Board urged them (municipalities) not to enact theses ordinances," he said.

Englewood's deputy city manager, Michael Flaherty, said the city's legal staff was reviewing the opinion before deciding its next step.

(Reporting and writing by Keith Coffman in Denver; Editing by Steve Gorman and David Gregorio)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (5)
Alphonse2 wrote:
for crimes not-yet committed: Civil Commitment. Nor have they addressed the fact that civil commitment trials hinge upon creating jury outrage for past crimes, crimes for which time has already been served. So, as applied, it is double-jeopardy. They have never addressed the fact that these offenders can be detained for years without trial, and when committed may be held even after the treating facility states they are ready for release. The ACLU used to have power – but now they are simply safe.

Aug 23, 2013 11:51am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Rob_Curtis wrote:
Lets break this down there should NOT even be a sex offender Registry. The numbers don’t justify it. The latest Department of Justice report states there’s only a 1.9% recidivism rate among registered sex offenders. The registry is a form of LIVING DEATH it is Evil and it is Wrong. As an online HIT-LIST that has already caused countless deaths it should be removed. Why do we have probation and parole Departments? That’s right to sift through the sex offenders over a 3-5 peroid and require them to be in therapy and responsible citizens. The Registry only acts as a means to give politicians a whipping boy for votes. TRUTH

Aug 23, 2013 10:02pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Valigator wrote:
Keep in mind sex offenders are like “sludge” they follow the path of least resistance. Judges are increasingly bucking the will of the people when it comes to this issue. The people must take their streets back. “liberal” judges are in cahoots with the DOJ aka Fast and furious, Who do not want to pay to house, feed or bury convicted sex offenders. While in the same vain are releasing the worst of the worst back out to feed off its citizens. I highly suggest communities take a no tolerance postion on this issue. Make your neighborhoods as “unfriendly” to these bottom feeders as possible.

Aug 26, 2013 8:49am EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.