Laserfiche WebLink
<br />2 <br /> <br /> <br />Penalties. <br />Violating a predatory offender ordinance is typically a misdemeanor, with each <br />day a classified predatory offender resides in a prohibited area being a separate <br />offense. <br /> <br />III. General Legal Analysis <br />To date, none of the Minnesota ordinances have faced legal challenge. The <br />United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit upheld an Iowa state law similar to <br />the Minnesota ordinances in 2005. <br /> <br />There does not seem to be much research supporting the findings contained in <br />many ordinances. Nor does there seem to be much research indicating the ordinances <br />promote appreciable benefits to overall public safety. <br /> <br />However, there appears to be at least anecdotal evidence that a predatory <br />offender ordinance does have a deterrent effect on classified predatory offenders being <br />relocated to the community it protects. An October 20, 2016 KSTP news article <br />suggests the Minnesota Sex Offender Program “purposefully look[s] for cities without an <br />ordinance that restricts were sex offenders can live” when it considers where to open a <br />group home facility for released sex offenders. <br /> <br />At least some political and legal opposition to a predatory offender ordinance can <br />be expected. Minnesota does have a chapter of an organization called the Association <br />for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, which has opposed predatory offender ordinances <br />and published papers referencing research by the Minnesota Department of Corrections <br />and others that appear to refute the findings contained in many ordinances. The <br />research cited suggests: there is no correlation between residency restrictions and sex <br />offenses against children; residency restrictions can have a deleterious effect on the <br />accuracy and completeness of the state sex offender registry; and there is a correlation <br />between residence restrictions and the number of offenders who go unaccounted for. <br /> <br />IV. Conclusion <br />A predatory offender ordinance may serve the public safety purpose of deterring <br />the relocation of released predatory offenders to it community it protects. Generally <br />speaking, an ordinance that is less restrictive will be easier to defend in public and in <br />court, especially in a state where some ordinances restrict classified predatory <br />offenders from living within 2,000 ft. of places where people dress like Santa Claus on <br />Christmas. Additionally, it may be prudent to omit from any ordinance findings not <br />based on a reliable record. <br /> <br />A proposed model ordinance based on these principles is attached.