Ruling favors some sex offenders

By JEFF PARROTT, Tribune Staff Writer

Tools

By Tiffany Griffin

The Indiana Court of Appeals Tuesday declared unconstitutional a 2006 state law barring registered sex offenders from living near schools, parks and youth centers in cases where the offender had already owned his home when the law took effect.

The three-judge panel’s unanimous decision, upholding a Blackford County trial court judge’s ruling from June, determined the law was “ex post facto,” meaning it effectively criminalized conduct that had not been criminal before the law took effect July 1, 2006.

Defendant Anthony W. Pollard, charged with a Class D felony sex offender registry offense, has lived in and owned his home for 20 years. In appealing the trial court ruling, the state had argued that since Pollard had violated the residency law after July 1, 2006, he was being punished merely for that violation.

“However,” the appeals court wrote, “that punishment restricts an ownership interest in property that Pollard acquired before the statute came into effect; it is not just a potential penalty for continuing to reside within the exclusionary zone after the effective date of the statute.”

St. Joseph County Police Detective Sonny Oakley, in charge of the county’s sex offender registry, said he was disappointed in the ruling but didn’t think it would have a huge impact locally. When the law took effect, there were about 30 registered offenders living within the 1000-foot exclusionary zones — about 10 percent of the county’s 320 registered offenders, Oakley said.

Oakley sent letters to the 30 offenders, 20 of whom already had moved, he said. St. Joseph Superior Court Judge John Marnocha granted relief to another six offenders who filed court petitions asking to remain in their homes, a sign that, in light of Tuesday’s ruling, Marnocha “knows the law,” Oakley said.

Marnocha could not be reached for comment late Tuesday.

Wednesday, May 14 at 6:34 PM jyssika wrote ...

what wi=ould be a realated amendement to the article above?

Wednesday, May 14 at 5:44 PM anom wrote ...

First of all the punishment that some of these offenders face should be harsher. I know in some cases the offender may have had consentual (spelling?) sex with a minor and may not be a predator. Either way most of these offenders should never see the light of day again. Considering there are harsher punishments for other crimes of a lessor degree. Long sentences for the sickos and creeps, let thier next and only block they live on be a cell block. I'd gladly pay taxes for that!

Add a comment

Name:

Comment: 500 Characters Left

Comments are moderated and will not appear on this story until after they have been reviewed and deemed appropriate for posting.

WSBT and its affiliated companies are not responsible for the content of comments posted or for anything arising out of use of the above comments or other interaction among the users. We reserve the right to screen, refuse to post, remove or edit user-generated content at any time and for any or no reason in our absolute and sole discretion without prior notice, although we have no duty to do so or to monitor any Public Forum.

WSBT Weather

More On Demand

Stock Quotes

This content requires the latest Adobe Flash Player and a browser with JavaScript enabled. Click here for a free download of the latest Adobe Flash Player.

Tonight On WSBTFull Schedule

7.00
Wheel of Fortune
7.30
Jeopardy!
8.00
Ghost Whisperer
9.00
Numb3rs
10.00
Boston Pops FIreworks Spectacular
11.00
WSBT News
11.35
Late Show with David Letterman

Question of The Day

Do you think the Founding Fathers would be proud of America today?

For more information, read CNN Poll: Most say Founding Fathers wouldn't be impressed.

  • Yes
  • No