Registered sex offenders are now barred from stepping foot inside any of the 19 libraries in Knox County, TN, following an executive order issued Sept. 12 by county mayor Tim Burchett. It's believed to be the first such ban enacted in the Volunteer State, and within days the policy yielded its first arrest as well as a rebuke from the ACLU of Tennessee.
All Knox County residents listed on the Tennessee Sex Offender Registry were notified of the ban by letter, to begin five days after its mailing. Library officials at Knox County Public Library, Knoxville, cross-referenced names on the registry with their current list of 150,000 card holders to identify those targeted. Notices were also posted outside all 19 branches.
Sex offenders still have access to library services online, Burchett said, or they can use materials checked out by another borrower.
"I'll take some heat and I realize that, and I know that a lot of folks are going to come to the defense of the poor child molesters and poor rapists, but I'm not going to be one of them," Burchett told the Knoxville News Sentinel. "I have no sympathy whatsoever for them. They can go to a bookstore."
Violators of the ban face a charge of criminal trespass. Less than four days after Burchett's order was announced, a convicted sex offender was arrested after entering a Knox County library, although a legal technicality prevented him from being charged under the new regulation.
On Thursday, David Michael Jarnigan, 35, was taken into custody at the Lawson McGhee Library in downtown Knoxville after a librarian called police, identifying the man as a known troublemaker at the branch.
Jarnigan had a Knox County library card, with a county address, although the suspect's name turned up on the state sex offender registry as a resident of Hamblen County. The person did not list a current address on that database, so his status is listed as "absconder." He was led away from the library by Knoxville police officers and later charged with "sex offender registry reporting violation," a Class E felony, according to police spokesman Darrell DeBusk.
Because Jarnigan, convicted of statutory rape in 1996, entered the branch within the five-day notification period, he could not be charged under the new sex offender ban.
ACLU calls ban overly broad The day after Jarnigan's arrest, the ACLU officially asked Burchett to rescind the ban.
"This policy is overly broad and raises a host of constitutional issues," Hedy Weinberg, executive director of the ACLU-TN, wrote in a September 16 letter to the mayor. "There are surely less severe ways to balance the government's important concerns about ensuring safety without trampling on the free speech rights of all Knox County residents."
Before receiving Weinberg's letter, Burchett said of the ACLU: "I have no fear of them." He added, "It's not a constitutional right to have access to a library. I'm going to restrict them [sex offenders]if I can."
The Knox County ban does have precedent for a potential legal challenge. In 2008, a similar restriction for sex offenders was adopted in Albuquerque, N.M., only to be challenged by that state's ACLU. Two years later, a federal judge, citing "an unacceptable risk of the suppression of ideas," ruled the law was unconstitutional, saying it served to infringe upon the First Amendment rights of the sex offenders. Albuquerque libraries now permit on-site access to registered sex offenders two days a week, provided they check in with security personnel and avoid children's areas.
In a recent telephone interview, Burchett said there are approximately 560 registered sex offenders living in Knox County, which is located in East Tennessee and home to about 434,000 residents.
Burchett gained the authority to issue the ban in July, after the state legislature passed a law allowing library directors to "reasonably restrict the access of any person listed on the sexual offender registry." That law passed unanimously and was signed on June 22 by Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslem.
County, library, and law-enforcement officials quickly lined up to support Burchett's initiative.
"I applaud the state of Tennessee for putting tougher regulations on these dirt bags who prey on our children," County Sheriff Jimmy "J.J." Jones said in a widely quoted press release, "and I'm pleased that the Knox County Library system has a policy in place that will help protect the public."
In the same statement, county library director Myretta Black said, "Safety, especially for our young patrons, is a primary concern." Neither Black nor Jones returned phone calls from LJ seeking additional comment.
As a follow-up to the initial notification from libraries, Michael Grider, the county's communication manager, said registered sex offenders would receive a letter from law-enforcement agencies warning them to heed the new restriction.
"One of the challenges is enforcement," Grider said. "We know going in that it's going to be a problem. ... If someone goes into a library, and he's a registered sex offender, and he doesn't self-identify, they've still broken a law."
Before being elected mayor in September of 2010, Burchett served 16 years in the Tennessee General Assembly, and he called sex offender victim rights one of his signature issues. "It used to be Tennessee was a safe harbor for sex offenders," the mayor told LJ. "I know people will say they have paid their debt to society...but the truth is, they've given their victims a life sentence."
Posted by Dallas King on September 20, 2011 04:34:52PM
My only concern is this, in Florida a teen having sex with
someone of a certain age, even if it is consentual can be
charged and branded a sex offender. Sexting can label a
teen a sex offender. When we ban enough people we won't
need libraries. We can go to e-readers. Now understand I
as a teacher check out close to 200 books a year from my
library and I encourage my students and parents to visit the
library. Maybe what we need to do to protect our children
is to set up libraries just for children and only parents
with proper security and ID can get in. Of course parents
who are also registered sex offenders can go the route of
having a spouse take them or just getting their little one
started on e-readers at an earlier age. In a day when
libraries are closing down I'd think they would want
patrons. Who are we going to ban next, gays?, those who
don't have blond hair and blue eyes?
Posted by Sandra Stiles on September 20, 2011 09:42:21PM
Several years ago our small rural library contacted the
police department about registered sex offenders who were
living near the library. As mentioned in the previous
comment, we found out that the four listed had been teen sex
offenders for statutory rape, three of whom later married
the girl in question. The police informed us we had nothing
to fear from any of them. While in a perfect world it would
be wonderful to know who and who not to allow into our
libraries for the protection of others, libraries are
supposed to be here for everyone. Whether you agree or
disagree, I'll side with the ACLU on this one.
Posted by Karen Hopkins on September 21, 2011 03:17:36PM
"Who are we going to ban next, gays?, those who don't have blond hair and blue eyes?"
???
I agree that there should be some differentiation between a young person who committed "statutory rape" and an adult child molester (there are also different classes of rape), but I sure hope LJ Readers can see some differences between a child molester, and someone who is gay or who does not have blond hair and blue eyes. That is not a fine line.
I'm not sure a complete ban is the answer, but that was not a logical comparison.
Maybe if one is aware that if he harms a child that way, he is going to lose certain "rights" as a citizen, he will be discouraged from behaving that way. And, no, library access is not a "right", it is a privelege. Books, computers, and services are available outside of the library.
Posted by Andrea Edwards on September 22, 2011 02:34:06PM
Outright is too much. It's a purely punitive step. Something like the New Mexico approach is more defensible.
Posted by teetop on September 22, 2011 07:31:07PM
This is getting ridiculous. I would start digging into the past of all your congressional leaders and find out their pasts. Knowing Tennessee, I would say perhaps their still living parents, relatives, or even themselves were married before they turned 18. Therefore they should be labeled accordingly.
Posted by mark on October 3, 2011 07:58:26PM
This is ridiculous. Convicted sex offenders have served their time in
prison. Why is everyone so against letting them live their lives in a
normal fashion? They are punished and do their time. They should have
an equal opportunity to make their dreams come true. They are human.
They made a mistake and should be given a chance to learn from it, not
be branded for life as an outcast. What is wrong with you people? There
is only One Judge and we will all meet him on judgement day. What
would Jesus do? I think we all know the answer to that question. Instead
of trying to be all mightier than thou, we need to look in the mirror.If
you want to make the world a better place, take a look at yourself, and
then make a change. I am starting with the man in the mirror, I am
asking him to change his ways. And no message could have been any
clearer. If you want to make the world a better place, take a look at
yourself and make a change....make that change.
Posted by KAYE on October 20, 2011 02:15:18AM
Libraries are a place where a person can locate materials to better themselves. If a sex offender could have access to free materails, educate themselves, and perhaps stop a cycle of abuse that has been perpetuating itself for a very long time, then that is evidence that this system of ours works. If, however, we ban them from the very materials that could better them, then what message are we sending? Keep doing what you are doing, just not in my library ...?
Posted by Andrea on October 22, 2011 06:27:58PM
I am a "registered sex offender". This is what the world knows me as and has labeled me as being. But what does it mean to be a "registered sex offender? Is this a good thing or a bad thing?
I know that to the public it is as bad as it can get, but this is not what is was supposed to be. You see the problems began because of one seemingly minor mistake. This mistake has been overlooked for 20 years now and has led to some of the most dangerous laws ever created by the States. I spent many months researching to find this one mistake. The mistake I speak of is not what was done but what was not done.
It all started with the creation of the Federal laws that created the "registered sex offender" classification. What wasn't done is defining what this classification is. Without knowing what a "registered sex offender" is, means, and entails has led to a new criminal class rather then what it was meant to be. It was originally meant be a protective class. By not defining the term "registered sex offender" the laws had led one person to begin the process of criminalizing that class.
Former US Attorney General Gonzales had created rules and statements that criminalized the "registered sex offender" and opened the doors to further criminalization by the States. The SMART office set about creating guidelines that covered up the mistakes the AG Gonzales made without correcting any of them. These guidelines set the criminalization of the "registered sex offender" in stone.
Can one definition really make that much difference? To answer this you need to know what this definition should be according to the laws that created this classification. After much research and many attempts to define this class the final result is one based on not only the law that created it but many other Federal and State laws along with court rulings and legal documents dictating how it should be written.
Registered Sex Offender
A registrant of the Sex Offender Registry who is, through the process of registering in the registry, giving advantage to the law enforcement and public, by providing information that can assist with the prevention of sex related crimes and granting some assurance that public safety issues are being addressed by the registrant.
If like me you are a "registered sex offender" this is what you are and are doing. This is what it was meant to be. If you are being criminalized for being on the registry just tell it like it is. I am a "Registered Sex Offender" and am to be seen in light of this fact. I am to be defined as such in accordance with the laws that have created my current classification.
Posted by Scott Dean on October 23, 2011 10:40:59AM
Do not enough cash to buy some real estate? You should not worry, because it is available to receive the <a href="http://goodfinance-blog.com/topics/home-loans">home loans</a> to work out such kind of problems. Hence get a small business loan to buy all you want.
Posted by Genevieve30Oneil on December 7, 2011 02:08:21PM
The real problem is that politicians cannot seem to understand who is a real 'sex offender' and who is not.
Many states now place people on the sex offender registry for urinating down a back alley. Yet, what male in the US hasn't done this at one time or another? What does this even have to do with sex? This means that just about anyone in the US could potentially be charged as a sex offender.
Many sex offenders are people who had consensual relationship with someone under the US legal age. Even when these people marry the person in question they are still labelled as 'sex offenders'. These are cases that are obviously consensual and the 'offender' is no danger to anyone. Placing them on a registry merely ensures that they are condemned to a life of menial labor.
Denying access to a library is another way to deny access to job resources.
It's as if the state can't make up its mind if these people are a danger or not.
Posted by Peter P on December 21, 2011 02:51:37PM
According to my monitoring, billions of people in the world receive the personal loans at good banks. Hence, there is a good possibility to receive a auto loan in all countries.
