Court Tosses “Wholesale” Ban of Registered Sex Offenders

Citing an individual’s right to receive information as paramount, the U.S. District Court of New Mexico has overturned a two-year-old mayoral regulation that banned anyone who is a registered sex offender under federal or state law from visiting the 16-branch Albuquerque/Bernalillo County Library. Albuquerque officials were considering their options in light of the ruling, according to the April 2 Albuquerque Journal.

Filed in October 2008, John Doe v. City of Albuquerque claimed that the plaintiff, who lives on a fixed income, had been a frequent library visitor until receiving a letter banning him from the premises and threatening him with prosecution if he violated the regulation. The American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico represented Doe.

“There can be no doubt that the City possesses a significant interest in protecting children from crime, in general, and from the danger and harm associated with their coming in contact with sex offenders, in particular,” U.S. District Court Judge M. Christina Armijo wrote March 31. Acknowledging the libraries’ after-school partnership with nearby public schools to offer homework programs on weekdays from 3 to 5 p.m. for young adults, Judge Armijo concluded: “A complete and wholesale ban that prevents all registered sex offenders from entering any and all public libraries within the City of Albuquerque imposes a greater restriction on the burdened parties’ protected First Amendment rights than is essential to further the City’s purpose.”

Judge Armijo went on to state that minors could be more precisely shielded from “the targeted evil” by tailoring such a ban to libraries’ time, place, and manner restrictions on patron behaviors similar to those that passed judicial muster in a 1992 ruling about the ejection of a homeless New Jersey man and a 2002 civil suit by an Ohio man.

The opinion cited a footnote in the city’s filing that may explain then–Mayor Martin Chávez’s motivation for imposing the ban. The footnote referenced the January 2008 molestation of a 6-year-old in the New Bedford (Mass.) Public Library by a registered sex offender as “hypothetically” precipitating the former mayor to issue the regulation some six weeks later. New Bedford library trustees tightened security by modifying NBPL’s patron behavior policy to forbid conversation between adults and children in the library unless the adult is the minor’s caregiver.

Elsewhere, library service to registered sex offenders is usually handled on a case-by-case basis; many ex-convicts have as a condition of their release banishment from public areas frequented by children. Iowa officials enacted a law in 2009 that bars those convicted of a sex offense against a minor from setting foot “upon the real property of a public library without the written permission of the library administrator.” The Iowa Library Association has posted a webpage of legal information about compliance.

American Libraries, Tue, 04/06/2010 - 17:36

Comments

Thirty years ago I was

Thirty years ago I was convicted for my part in a car theft ring. My last offense was committed just before my 21st birthday. I got out of prison when I was 23, got my B.S., went to grad school, obtained a professional license and went on with my life. I am not eligible for expungment because the prosecutor demanded a plea to at least two felonies to preclude that option.

Thirty years later, I’ve never been in trouble with the law, have been happily married, and have never had any police contact (except for the occasional speeding ticket). For the first twenty-five years of my post-prison life, I had most of the rights of the average Joe, but this new craze in laws is steadily stripping me of civil rights for a crime I paid my debt on a quarter of a of a century ago.

I’ve lost the right to sit on a jury (three years ago by legislation), to own a gun (eight years ago when the NRA pushed pack and strap laws through while stripping us of the provision that allowed ex-cons to prove rehabilitation) to travel to Canada (a waiver provision exists), and there are a number of new bills introduced this term. Most of those I don’t care about (I’ll be excluded from our medical marijuana law), to be a parent on a field trip, or to be nurse’s aid.

Right now it is sex offenders, but across the country folks like me are losing rights on the assumption that we can be rehabilitated or trusted no matter what we have done in the intervening time. Zero tolerance policies have steadily replaced individualized judgment calls.

I understand the enhanced scrutiny I receive, but this stuff is really frustrating. The one right I do obtain in my state is the right to vote and you better believe that I intend to pull the lever against folks like this.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 07/17/2010 - 14:26.

A great ruling. But also a scary one.

In my neighborhood and surrounding area, the libraries all have "safe place" signs somewhere on the premises. With that in mind, it’s a little scary to think that sex offenders are potentially on the prowl in that same building. However, I’m totally for rehabilitation (even if there is evidence that suggests sex offenders can’t be) and allowing people to serve their time, correct their behavior, and get on with being a contributing member of society.

Submitted by Book Slug (not verified) on Thu, 04/08/2010 - 16:48.

Those who would sacrifice liberty for security ...

You damn moron. Do you really think someone who’s “on the prowl” **to molest a child** is going to give a crap about a trespassing law? I am so sick of you armchair moralistic experts who parrot every sensational media “fact” as if it came from God Almighty. Do the research. So-called “sex offenders” have a recidivism rate that is far far far LOWER than nearly every other class of criminal.

With every passing day, the laws on sex offenders are getting worse and worse, and they are setting precedents and are slowly but surely infecting other areas of life. All of these laws that restrict and command people not under any sentence are based on government OPINIONS that they are “dangerous” to “the public” or some subset of it. Once you have case law supporting “It’s okay to take away freedoms for this person because they’re dangerous”, all you need to do is change the definition of “dangerous” and they can apply to anyone else. Please, for the love of God and the love of liberty, wake up and think for yourself. People like you are destroying this great nation.

“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.” - Thomas Jefferson

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 10/23/2011 - 23:56.

Great Ruling

If the courts are going to let people out of prison, or not put them to death.. then they need to allow them to live.

Many of these laws are unconstitutional… but the wimpy politicians and judges rule in favor of the money.. not justice and the constitution.

I do not agree with protecting pedophiles and rapists… but you know, even murderers do not get ostracized like this.

Best practice is to evaluate a person upon conviction.. if that person is dangerous, get that person sentenced to help, or lock them up, or put them to death…. do not let them out then add punishements to them decades later.

Citizens for Change, America

Submitted by cfcamerica.org (not verified) on Wed, 04/07/2010 - 15:55.