Indiana Court of Appeals considers RFRA’s application to registered citizens

By Olivia Covington . . . Shortly after the controversial Religious Freedom Restoration Act went into effect in Indiana in 2015, the unlawful entry by a serious sex offender statute, which prohibits certain sex offenders from accessing school property, also became law. Now, those two statutes are at odds with each other as the Indiana Court of Appeals decides whether an interpretation of the statute that prohibits three men from going to church constitutes a RFRA violation.

Under the unlawful entry by a serious sex offender statute, Indiana Code 35-42-4-14, offenders convicted of certain sex offenses cannot knowingly or intentionally enter school property without committing a Level 6 felony. The Boone County sheriff determined that statute meant sex offenders in the county, including John Does 1, 2 and 3, could not attend church if their churches offered programs for children at least 3 years old who are not yet in kindergarten. The Boone Superior Court agreed, determining that anytime churches offer such programs, they are considered “school property,” and, thus, are unavailable to the John Does.

But because each of their churches offer children’s programming simultaneously or nearly simultaneously with adult services or Bible studies, the three men told the Indiana Court of Appeals during oral arguments in the case of John Doe, et al. v. The Boone County Prosecutor, et al., 06A01-1612-PL-02741, the sheriff’s letter effectively prohibits them from attending church at any time. The appellate case turns on two central issues that divided counsel for the state and the offenders: whether churches can be considered “school property” and whether the prohibition against the Does attending church violates their rights under RFRA.

According to the ACLU of Indiana legal director Ken Falk, who brought the case on behalf of the sex offenders, the trial court erroneously determined that churches can be considered school property because they are not “owned or rented by” an educational institution, language used in I.C. 35-31.5-2-285, which defines “school property.” Further, that statutory definition does not permit a building to cease to be considered school property when children are no longer present, Falk said, so the trial court erred in determining the Does are only prohibited from attending church when children’s programming is in session.

While deputy attorney general Aaron Craft agreed with Falk on the latter point, he pointed to additional language in the school property statute that defines such property as owned or rented by a “program or service operated to … benefit children … .” Churches that offer programming for kids would qualify as school property under that portion of the statutory definition, Craft said.

But Judge Margret Robb pushed Craft on that assertion, telling him that church babysitting services don’t seem to qualify as the “developmental” programs defined in section (D)(iii) of the school property statute. Similarly, Dan Conkle, a constitutional law professor at the Indiana University Maurer School of Law, said the statute defining “school property” is ambiguous as it applies to churches. If the statute were to apply to churches, then it would seemingly ban sex offenders from attending any church at all, because nearly every church offers classes for kids, Conkle said.

Please read the remainder of this article at

Help us reach more people by Sharing or Liking this post.

Viewing 0 reply threads
  • Author
    • #23250 Reply


      Hmm, int3eresting point this Religious Freedom Restoration Act. When I got entangled up in all this and it was all said and done by the courts I requested to my PO to go to church. He said you had to have a chaperone. My sister and a lady friend that is now in a Nursing home were my chaperones. My sister doesn’t much care about going to church but I can’t really speak for her. Sure we went to church a time or two by me coaxing her and me and the other lady went to church. Now church is sort of up in the air at this time. Church is for everybody if they wish to attend. Church is one thing but spiritual enlightenment is another.
      Sure we can all refresh ourselves but when police put a hold on some of this endeavor, the way they see it, it makes it a bit more frustrating. Is their any restrictions on the teenager that got caught up with dope, or the person that shoplifted, or the person that did some type of property damage? Its not what’s on the outside of a person its what’s on the inside of a person.
      Now if you look at the law, protecting and serving are one thing, but they are human also and prone just the way everybody else is.
      God is no respecter and a person can take that to the bank. You do the crime you pay the time and that should be it. Did they find any fault in Jesus or should we all use that as an example.

Viewing 0 reply threads
Reply To: Indiana Court of Appeals considers RFRA’s application to registered citizens
We welcome a lively discussion with all view points provided that they stay on topic - keeping in mind...

  • *You must be 18 or older to comment.
  • *You must check the "I am not a robot" box and follow the recaptcha instructions.
  • *Your submission must be approved by a NARSOL moderator.
  • *Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • *Comments arguing about political or religious preferences will be deleted.
  • *Excessively long replies will be rejected, without explanation.
  • *Be polite and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • *Do not post in ALL CAPS.
  • *Stay on topic.
  • *Do not post contact information for yourself or another person.
  • *Please enter a name that does not contain links to other websites.

Your information:

<a href="" title="" rel="" target=""> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <pre class=""> <em> <strong> <del datetime="" cite=""> <ins datetime="" cite=""> <ul> <ol start=""> <li> <img src="" border="" alt="" height="" width="">