This topic contains 14 replies, has 2 voices, and was last updated by Jonathan Waters 1 week, 2 days ago.
May 14, 2019 at 4:21 pm #55628
By Larry . . . In 2015 Rhode Island extended residency restrictions from 300 to 1000 feet for level 3 offenders and retroactively applied the increase
[See the full post at: Rhode Island residency restrictions update]
May 14, 2019 at 9:28 pm #55633
A nice abstract of this case and how Federal suits work. State uses their inexhaustible resources to delay, delay and delay again even when the aDA knows a loss will result. I suspect the judge knows it too as previously federal cases have identified residency restriction as a punitive in intent by the people. IMO residency restrictions by local jurisdiction are the lawlessness based upon the registry itself.
May 14, 2019 at 11:41 pm #55640
It is total bullshit they both sat on there hands and did nothing that is why four years latter they are still at a stand still the aclu really don’t care they just as well let this case go away I know because I lie in Rhode Island and asked the aclu help me challenge sorna but was told it was a privacy issue instead of constitutional issue on well life in R I.
May 14, 2019 at 11:41 pm #55637
I am strongly opposed to retroactive laws in the United States of America. No matter what circular logic is used, ALL things fall under ex-post-facto or contracts clause. It is incredible the land of the free allows retroactive laws.
May 14, 2019 at 11:41 pm #55638
This country THRIVES on laws. Making laws, testing laws, and making sure they can employ billions of dollars to lazy workers to make even more laws to prove their useless existence as a government paid employee with endless benefits, Holiday and vacation time that is crazy, awesome retirement, the best medical insurance on the planet. IE a politician/lawmaker. Like My Grandpa said ” Going against this crooked government is like farting at a Hurricane to try to stop it”. SO TRUE!!
May 15, 2019 at 5:27 am #55648
In 2018 the California Supreme Court has ruled that the resident restriction was a violation of the Ex Post Facto rule. thus claiming a blanket restriction is a violation of the consitutions.
May 15, 2019 at 5:27 am #55656
Mr. stand up!
How many damn Years of delay BS is going to be enough…..or Allowed !!!
Who in the HELL would say the LAW is doing right!!!!!!
IT IS ILLEGAL TO DELAY SO LONG !!!!!!!!!
DEFENDANTS ARE LOSING THEIR LIVES !!!!!!!!!
WHAT PROOF DO THEY NEED TO UNDERSTAND THIS !!!!!
Vilates a Right To Fair and Speedy Trial or COURT CASE !!!
May 15, 2019 at 7:53 am #55663
Thanks, Larry for the understandable synopsis of this case, and for keep us all abreast of its status. We appreciate all that you and others at NARSOL do on our behalf!
May 15, 2019 at 9:19 am #55669
My question is why? Is there any reason for their actions to do this? Has there been any proof that sex crimes have been committed by any of the SVP in the restricted areas being 300 feet. What is the need for the increase? If there is no need why do it!
May 15, 2019 at 9:19 am #55670
I also live in Rhode Island and have also asked the ACLU for help with the residency laws. I bought a condo prior to the enactment of the 300’ residency law. I was told I could not live there again because I wasn’t living there when I committed my crime (I was renting it at that time). So, when searching for housing after my arrest, I could not move into a property I owned. Sadly, the ACLU did not take my case.
May 16, 2019 at 10:15 pm #55830
Come on Tom you live in Rhode island and you make excuses for the aclu you are aware that they have many attorneys who help them with there case log and it also the Cali who decides what cases they are going to help with Harrington hall was helped by the aclu because of the publicity because the state was trying to tell them how many homeless people could stay in the shelter in a daily based namely the speaker of the house so to make an excuse for them has never entered my mind.
May 24, 2019 at 7:01 am #56111
As a sex offender, I am reluctant to criticize the ACLU. Sadly, these are the only people who fight everyday for the most unpopular members of society. I send the ACLU my money because of the numerous lawsuit they file on behave of sex offender and of their continuing efforts to lobby against legislation seeking to further marginalize sex offenders. They will continue to get my money.
May 18, 2019 at 8:51 am #55906
Since, “The statute contained no definition of “school,” leading to conflicting interpretations of what entities it applied to.” Homeschooler’s can by definition constitutes a “school”…Thus any neighbor or neighbor with children can start homeschooling their kids; thus, forcing the registered individuals to move or face imprisonment. This law has is nothing more in my thinking BARBARIC, DRACONIAN and PUNITIVE in and of itself, subjecting the registrant to the whim of “mob rule” and not rule of law. Too many of these laws are on the books and they need to be struck down for they are in and of themselves an outright threat to democracy as a whole.
May 18, 2019 at 4:54 pm #55926
We’ll, it is unacceptable and should be stated very clearly to any and all Authorities that excessive bails, fines , imprisonment along with ridiculously long case reviews and court delays and all other legal Crap is well beyond just ok !!!
Individuals who are have and will suffer and die at the hands of any laws subjecting people to violence and murder and degradation and lega, Societal Disabilities is not and Will not be TOLERATED !!!
THE LAW HAS NO RIGHT TO OPPRESS PEOPLE KNOWINGLY WILLINGLY PARTICIPATING IN ACTS THAT DESTRO THE RIGJT TO LIFE LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS BECAUSE OF PAST CONVICTIONS…ETC !!
May 24, 2019 at 7:01 am #56112
All residency restriction are unconstitutional. Especially, after a sex offender has completed their probation and paid their debt to society. Sadly, as far as sex offenders are concerned, the Constitution has become a mere suggestion to the courts with virtually no apparent impact of poor legislation and poor court decisions. (ie:, Smith v Doe)