The American Center for Law and Justice is representing Galloway Township, New Jersey in its effort to restrict where where convicted sex offenders may live. The Galloway case is now before a New Jersey appellate court. Below are two news stories focusing on the issue.
March 5, 2008
Sex offender restrictions end up in court
By Lisa Grzyboski, Gannett News Service, New Jersey
The Daily Journal, Vineland, NJ
Lawyers for Cherry Hill will appear before a state appellate court today to defend a township ordinance that prohibits convicted sex offenders from living anywhere near places where children tend to gather.
A Superior Court judge in Camden County struck down the ordinance one year ago and Cherry Hill decided to appeal the ruling on the basis that the ordinance protects some of the township's most vulnerable residents -- children -- from potential sexual assault.
Immediately after Cherry Hill's hearing, attorneys for Galloway Township in Atlantic County will present a similar defense of its own sex offender ordinance, which a Superior Court judge rejected in February 2007.
Both municipalities want the appellate court to overturn the lower court decisions so they can get back to enforcing their ordinances, which have been suspended throughout the appeal process.
The three-judge panel won't issue a ruling on the Cherry Hill and Galloway ordinances today. But when the court does make its decision, officials say it will have a statewide effect since it's estimated that more than 100 municipalities across New Jersey have sex offender ordinances on the books. Vineland, Millville, Buena and Franklin are among those towns.
"It will at least govern the language of the ordinances," said defense attorney Scott Schweiger, who is representing the two male sex offenders fighting the Cherry Hill ordinance.
Local governing bodies began adopting sex offender measures in 2005 as a way to both protect their communities and scare away would-be sexual predators. In the case of Cherry Hill and Galloway, sex offenders are banned from residing within 2,500 feet -- think seven football fields lined up end-to-end -- of any school, park, playground, or day-care center. If offenders don't move within 60 days of being notified, they are subject to hefty fines, imprisonment and community service.
Under the ordinances, sex offenders are banned from living in nearly two-thirds of Galloway and most of Cherry Hill, with the exception of a high-income neighborhood of $400,000-plus houses and an undeveloped area.
Superior Court Judges John McNeill in Camden County and Valerie Armstrong in Atlantic County rejected the ordinances. Their main point was that Megan's Law, a state law requiring sex offenders to inform local police where they live, trumps the local ordinances. The judges said the ordinances violated the constitutional rights of convicted sex offenders and punished them again for their crimes. The measures were also overly broad because they didn't attempt to assess a particular offender's actual risk to the community, the judges stated.
Vincent McCarthy, a lawyer representing Galloway, considers the judges' reasoning faulty.
"The town has a compelling interest in creating these setback zones because these people are felons who have been convicted of sexual attacks, some of them against young children," said McCarthy, a senior attorney at the Washington D.C.-based American Center for Law & Justice, a conservative nonprofit law firm specializing in constitutional law issues.
It's one of the few situations where local government has a reasonable and rational basis for burdening some people's constitutional rights, McCarthy said.
In its legal brief, Cherry Hill argues New Jersey municipalities have broad entitlement to adopt ordinances for the safety and protection of their residents. The township says sex offenders, particularly those who target children, have a high recidivism rate and can go years before striking again. The ordinance, therefore, is regulatory in nature and not intended to punish offenders again for their crimes, the township asserts.
"The mayor's primary job is ensuring public safety," said Dan Keashen, Mayor Bernie Platt's spokesman. "Bernie and town council believe this ordinance is an additional layer of protection . . . Keeping convicted sex offenders from living near public places where Cherry Hill families convene is an important part of this local legislation and the township will continue to support that concept."
These ordinances actually impede the rehabilitative objectives of Megan's Law, according to the legal brief filed by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of a Richard Stockton College student battling the Galloway measure. The ordinance would banish the student, who was convicted of criminal sexual contact as a juvenile, from living on campus and prevent him from fully taking advantage of what the college has to offer.
"The question I get all the time is: "How would you feel if these guys moved next to you?' " said Schweiger, who got the case when he was a Cherry Hill public defender.
But the fact is these ordinances don't stop sex offenders from visiting parks, malls, playgrounds, movie theaters and other places where children and teens go, he said.
March 6, 2008
Two towns argue sex offender laws case
By Lisa Gryzboski, Gannett News Service, New Jersey
Courier-Post Staff, Cherry Hill, NJ
A state appellate court heard arguments Wednesday on ordinances that two South Jersey townships adopted to ban convicted pedophiles from living close to places where children congregate.
Lawyers for Cherry Hill and Galloway defended the sex offender residency restrictions as essential to public safety and asserted the townships' governing bodies have the power -- and the obligation -- to enact ordinances that protect their residents.
They cited statistics that show pedophiles who target girls average nearly 20 victims during their lives while those who target boys average 150 victims.
"The risk of these people reoffending and harming our children is so alarming," said Demetrios Stratis, an attorney for Galloway, Atlantic County. "I believe they are all recidivists."
But attorneys representing sex offenders fighting the Cherry Hill and Galloway ordinances and measures like them asserted the residency prohibitions ostracize offenders, which conflicts with Megan's Law, a state law aimed at protecting the public from pedophiles and rehabilitating the offenders.
They cited their own research that shows stopping sex offenders from living near schools, parks, playgrounds and day-care centers in no way decreases recidivism.
"These ordinances create an undue burden," said Lynette Siragusa, a staff attorney with Legal Services of New Jersey.
The three-judge panel led by Judge Mary Catherine Cuff heard the arguments at the Richard J. Hughes Justice Complex in Trenton. The panel said it will issue a written decision in the near future. Lawyers said a ruling would likely be released between 30 and 60 days.
The decision will affect an estimated 115 municipalities across New Jersey that have adopted sex offender ordinances. There are many more towns in the state that want to enact such ordinances, but are waiting first for the appellate court decision, Stratis said.
Superior Court Judges John McNeill in Camden County and Valerie Armstrong in Atlantic County struck down the Cherry Hill and Galloway ordinances respectively in early 2007 and ordered the townships to stop enforcing them. The measures barred sex offenders from residing within 2,500 feet of any school, park, playground or day-care center. They were subject to hefty fines, imprisonment and community service if they didn't move within 60 days of receiving a violation notice.
The Superior Court judges said Megan's Law pre-empted the local sex offender ordinances. They also stated the measures punished convicted sex offenders again for their crimes, violated their constitutional rights and treated all offenders the same regardless of their threat level to the community.
The appellate court focused most of its attention Wednesday on whether local sex offender ordinances are at odds with Megan's Law, which intends to protect the public and foster rehabilitation. Cuff, the presiding judge, questioned whether such ordinances infringe on state parole officers, who already must approve where pedophiles live and work.
"What we're basically saying is the two (Megan's Law and the ordinance) work together and are not in conflict. Their purpose is to protect the community," said Walter Kawalec III, who represented Cherry Hill.
Judge Joseph Lisa asked why the townships lumped sex offenders together rather than make case-by-case decisions as is done under Megan's Law.
"All sex offenders are at risk of being recidivists," Stratis said. "We are hereby removing the temptation so they won't re-offend."
Cuff questioned: If every municipality in New Jersey enacted such an ordinance, wouldn't that prohibit sex offenders from living in the state?
Stratis said most of the ordinances don't completely bar pedophiles from towns. For example, they can still live in one-third of Galloway, he noted.
"Effectively they are banned from Cherry Hill," countered Scott Schweiger, a public defender representing two male pedophiles fighting the ordinance. Each of the men assaulted juvenile girls. One of them assaulted a girl under 13 years of age.
Schweiger said offenders have two options in Cherry Hill: an upscale neighborhood of $400,000-plus homes and an empty field.
Frank Corrado, the lawyer for a Richard Stockton College student who can't live on campus because he was convicted of criminal sexual contact as a juvenile, said sex offender ordinances have no termination clauses. By contrast, Megan's Law makes concessions for some juvenile offenders and people who committed one sex offense and went 15 years without committing another, Corrado said.
"These individuals face imminent homelessness. They face loss of their jobs. They face displacement from their loved ones," Siragusa said of sex offenders. "They also face significant financial and emotional stress."
That argument has no validity for Lisa Kmiec, Cherry Hill's solicitor.
"It's a matter of the rights of the innocents versus the rights of the offenders," Kmiec said. "Cherry Hill will be on the side of the rights of innocents every time."
|