Residency restrictions lawsuit settled in favor of three registrants

By Patty Dexter . . . The city of Apple Valley has agreed to settle a class action federal lawsuit filed in 2020 that challenges the constitutionality of a 2017 city ordinance that limits where some sex offenders can live in the community.

The Apple Valley City Council, without discussion, approved a settlement agreement as part of the consent agenda during its March 25 meeting. . . .

“Although the city disagrees with the premise of the challenge to the ordinance’s constitutionality and maintains that the ordinance is appropriately enforced, the city felt it was in the best interests of the parties to resolve the case. This resolution avoids additional time, expense, and uncertainties of the litigation process. Also, this settlement does not affect the lawful authority of the ordinance, going forward,” the statement [by City Administrator Tom Lawell] says. . . .

In the original lawsuit filed Feb. 12, 2020, three unnamed sex offenders sought an injunction to prevent the city from enforcing the ordinance. They also sought judgment to recover attorney’s fees and costs incurred in bringing the action.

The lawsuit alleged that the restrictions imposed by the ordinance “are so severe that they effectively ban individuals subject to the ordinance’s restrictions from residing anywhere in Apple Valley,” according to court documents.

The attorneys representing the offenders argued the ordinance violates the Constitution’s ex post facto clause, the lawsuit said. According to Cornell Law School, the clause prohibits governments from passing laws that “retroactively criminalize behavior.”

Read the full article here at the Sun.


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

Viewing 1 reply thread
  • Author
    • #82621 Reply

      Tim in WI

      “…does not resemble incarceration….” (Smith v Alaska, 2003)
      What part of residence restrictions doesn’t keep a person out of the environment, be it a neighborhood, township, commonwealth, burrough, or city. Affirmative restraint in intent therefore proven even when weighting public interest in public notification. No honest person could imagine a time when an Attorneys Genera,l or King George for that matter, wouldn’t always insist ” the necessities ” when including the already criminally disposed?
      In fact every bill or edict ever authored by anyone in the history of mankind have such proponent authorities insisted upon “the good and necessities ” of bill proposed! Which politician or third party would publicly admit to authoring a law NOT in the public intere?
      Therefore we may not rely on any notion of “need” when confronted with easily identified prohibited use of language in codified statute that applies to findings of criminal guilt as a prerequisite for both inclusions ( kept on property~jail) AND precautions ( residency restrictions). Janice over at ACSOL has made many a case to the same facts, I’ve stated here, but she’s in CA. Others have made headway in other states too. Wisconsin local jurisdictions too has been confronted with state law supremacy, but that doesn’t change the fact that residency restrictions of the sort were unimaginable before the advent of the internet. No way could any such conflicts would have occurred without the advent of the registration regime and worldwide broadcast. Proof the database can be used to impose affirmative restraint.

    • #82638 Reply


      i dont think most slaves could live any where they wanted either. so good thing the city conceded the obvious here for they may have faced a more serious compounded problem.


Viewing 1 reply thread
Reply To: Residency restrictions lawsuit settled in favor of three registrants
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="">