By Michelle Lee Libraries that ban all sex offenders from using their facilities should take note: it could be overturned in court. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver last month
affirmed an earlier ruling by New Mexico federal district court that found the city of
Albuquerque's 2008 law, which banned all sex offenders from libraries, unconstitutional. The ban was challenged in a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico on behalf of a sex offender identified as John Doe. "People have a First Amendment right to receive information in public and the government needs to explicitly justify its actions if it’s going to infringe on such a fundamental right," the ACLU New Mexico executive director
Peter Simonson said in a statement. While the appeals court was "sympathetic to the city's desire to ensure that its libraries provide a safe, welcoming environment for its patrons, especially children," the city did not provide any evidence or justification for its ban and did not provide any "alternative channels" for offenders to receive information at public libraries. However the ruling said Albuquerque's goal of restricting sex offenders from libraries could be achieved through a revised ordinance. Albuquerque's ban was put in place by former Mayor Martin Chavez after officials noticed more sex offenders frequented the main library branch - especially the computer section - when students from a nearby Catholic school went there after school, said Greg Wheeler, the assistant city attorney who litigated the case. The ban was modified in May 2010 by Mayor Richard Berry after the lawsuit, so that sex offenders were restricted to use of the main library from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Thursdays and Saturdays, times when fewer children used the library, Wheeler said. In addition, sex offenders need to check in with library security guards and are banned from the children's section. There have been no complaints other than the lawsuit, or incidents in which children or parents have been approached by sex offenders, Wheeler said. Wheeler said the city will not appeal the circuit court decision, and that he believed it upholds the current use policy for sex offenders. "If it’s narrowly tailored, it will survive," he said of a library ban. Brendan Egan, the attorney who handled the case for the ACLU of New Mexico, said they were happy their client's rights were vindicated by the courts. "You want to give anybody a chance for rehabilitation," Egan said. "You have to leave some access to the library open. If a sex offender wants to do something meaningful, it negates their ability to check out a book on auto mechanics, or accounting, and limits their ability to improve themselves." The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals covers several western states, including Oklahoma, New Mexico, Colorado, Kansas, Utah and Wyoming. One takeaway from the Albuquerque case "is absolute bans do not pass constitutional muster," said Deborah Caldwell-Stone, the American Library Association's deputy director for the Office for Intellectual Freedom. Caldwell-Stone noted that the court opinion could provide grounds for lawsuits to contest sex offenders library bans in other states. While the ALA does not have an official policy on the topic, Caldwell-Stone said they are generally supportive of laws with a "reasonable time, place and manner restriction." Caldwell-Stone noted that some libraries with bans, such as those in Massachusetts, makes a distinction among levels of sex offenses and only limits individuals with more serious charges. "As far as we're concerned, there are sex offenders who are not violent offenders or predators - the teen who was sexting, or was involved with someone younger - and aren't identified as predators," she said. According to Caldwell-Stone, other issues for lawmakers to keep in mind are that public libraries need to be supportive of rehabilitating adult criminals and "there needs to be a reasonable alternative for people who need access to library services." Caldwell-Stone said her office does not know of any other library bans that are being challenged, but her office will continue to track this issue in the future. No one affected by the local library bans has approached the ACLU of Massachusetts, spokesman Christopher Ott wrote in an e-mail. However, the ACLU believes such library bans are not particularly because most sexual offenses against children are committed by people who know the child. "The best way to protect the public is to educate parents and children about how to recognize inappropriate behaviors by any adults, not just strangers," Ott wrote.
Iowa passed a state-wide ban in 2009 that prohibits people convicted of a sex offense against a minor from being on library property without written permission from the library administrator, from loitering within 300 feet of library property, and from working or volunteering in a library. Mandy Easter, a law librarian for Iowa Library Services/State Library, wrote in an email that there do not appear to be any challenges against the law in the Iowa Court of Appeals or the Iowa Supreme Court. Easter wrote "both sex offenders and their attorneys are currently reluctant to 'test the waters' again. Perhaps this federal court decision will give them the argument(s) they need to take another chance." Library bans for sex offenders vary across the country and sometimes they can be hard to enforce, said Jennifer Ekblaw, a law librarian at Boston University who wrote
a paper on the issue for the Indiana Law Review. Instead of completely prohibiting library use, Ekblaw said libraries should consider putting in more security measures, such as hiring more guards, installing cameras to monitor more isolated sections of the library or using a filtering program to limit sex offenders’ access to websites that might violate their parole. "I think that would be a better approach because that would protect anyone in the library, whether they have any offenses or not, and protect people from any other safety hazard," Ekblaw said.
Knox County, TN, enacted a ban in September 2011.
Add Comment :-
Comment Policy:
Comment should not be empty !!!
Mike
I am a sex offender. I've had this label nearly my entire adult life, and I'm not what comes to mind when I hear that word. It's too bad that there is so much fear and frenzy over the subject and that misperceptions about sex offenders and recividism rule the discourse on the subject. I had consentual sex with a 14yo girl when I was 22. What I did was wrong, and I will never say otherwise, I had never been propositioned like that in my whole life-in the 6 months prior to that, she gad been with more people than I had been with in my entire life. I just got out of the army after catching my best friend and girlfriend in the act--talk about being on the rebound! I met the victim outside of a bar after midnight and was already pretty drunk and looking to have company. Because I was intoxicated and didn't know her, and had a relationship with her again the next day, the worksheet said I was a higher risk than if I was completely sober and forcibly raped an 18yo that I knew. The system is flawed. I know the perception is that an offender will always want to strike again, but I'm the LAST person who would ever reoffend! I'm more likely to win the lottery than to reoffend, because I still want to buy a lottery ticket. I'm a grown man now and don't see myself as a 'young person' like I did at the time. I'm not a gambling man, but I will LITERALLY bet you my life I never reoffend--you can put me to death if I ever committed another sex crime, or you could lock me away for life--you don't even have to feed me--it's not going to happen! I don't think that letting me have the presumption of innocence that all other citizens enjoy is the same as "having more rights than parents and children." No one fears sex offenders more than me: I share your disgust whenever a sex crime is committed, but also dread what kind of public/legislative backlash is going to be coming down the pipe when the real offender goes to jail. I went to Iowa when I got out of the army to take care of my dying grandfather, and when I went out to celebrate my freedom a week and a half later, I ended up losing it all--i spent 2 months in jail before I was bonded out to go to his feuneral. When the 2000 foot law was struck down in 2004, my fiancee (now wife of 8 years) and I got married and bought a house. The next year the law was upheld retroactively, so we were forced from our home and left the state. Our families have sufferred greatly and she still blames herself for her dad's death within 2 years of our leaving. We have had our property vandalized and I've experienced a lot of trouble finding work, as well as the constant fear that somehow there's going to be something that I won't know about having to register for everything all the time--take a day off work to go update with the sheriff because I got a linked-in account; can't take a weekend trip anywhere, etc. Believe me when I tell you I have been punished, but I'd take a lot more just to have it be over! But to justify this registry system and make it look like I might reoffend just isn't true and does a disservice to all involved and ties up scarce resources making the haystack bigger instead of pinpointing the real pricks in it. "But if it saves just one child..."Yes, please save one child--mine! We waited until after 10 years from my conviction date (for the misdomeanor charge I pled to) to have a baby, not wanting to ruin a kids childhood with this stain on them: have to live in a sex offender ghetto outside society, being ostracized, teased, bullied, and shunned by other kids and their parents--this isn't something I would wish on my enemies, and certainly not their children! She should not be exposed to such topics, and certainly not have to hear people ignorantly declare her dad to be a monster. Waiting to get off the registry is like waiting for it to strike midnight on a clock with no hands! You're told 10 years, and 10 years later they make it 25. Who knows what it will be next year, or whenever some sicko strikes again. You have my DNA, you have everything about me in the system--why the constantly jumping through hoops to stay 'compliant' OR ELSE...? There is no price I won't pay to provide a normal life for my daughter--but please stop applauding laws that make my family pay the price for a violent predator making the news! If you can believe there's a profound difference between being a 'dumb old boy' and a 'dirty old man' I'll never give you reason to regret it! I am a decent citizen and have done very well in Nevada. It doesn't seem right that my only hope is that states are going bankrupt and can't maintain these costly, innefective beaurocracies. For your sake as well as mine, focus the resources where they belong and lock up people who are truly dangerous instead of making it illegal for me to go to the library or take my daughter to the park. I've heard it said that "the most terrible sins are the ones we have not committed," and I think there's a lot of truth to that, but mine seems worse the older I get, especially now that I have a little girl of my own, but I can't take that mistake back--all I can do is offer my life in exchange for a 2nd chance and pray that my family quit suffering for my sin of 12 years ago.Posted : Apr 12, 2012 12:01
Wondering HUH? WHAT?!?
monday fever was a nerve hit? Other than blasting back at me, what comments or opionions do you actually have about this article? Where or how do you figure there is obvious trolling? Appparently your ignorant in your own way yourself, don't cry know that youve been blasted back at. Look at what josh voris wrote which is very bold of him. He admitted his poor judgement of sleeping with a minor and know deals with the punishment. We all do however know that you cant have consensual sex with a minor. So in societys eyes he will be looked at very differently when he is recognized as a registered sex offender. There will be people out there who will and do understand things happen in life. As I stated not all convicted sex offfenders are violent or predators, and yes of course some are, there are and always will be the people in society that will need help with these issues or problems of deviancy. It is very sad and unfortunate that someone could or would harm another in that way. So take this as you will i'm sure there's something said wrong here!Posted : Mar 22, 2012 12:40
Loco Jack
Wow, this is jist great. Now convicter felon sex offenders have more rights than parents of young children. Should we set up special playgrounds for our kids where these preverts can go to peruse their potential victims?Posted : Feb 17, 2012 08:43
Shana Rowan
Hopefully, this is the beginning of the end for overly-restrictive, feel-good sex crime laws that take away time, money, and focus from more effective approaches. I wonder how many children were being abused by family members or acquaintances in their own homes while legislators sat in their offices, patting themselves on the back, and parents were fooled into believing their children were somehow safer.Posted : Feb 17, 2012 05:44