10-6-1998: Pennsylvania: Issue: Sex Offender Registry - see below.

STATE LAW: Governor Tom Ridge sought to address this issue during the 1995 Special Session on Crime. During this session, legislation was introduced that would IDENTIFY those sexually violent offenders who are truly predators and allow the sentencing court to impose a life sentence on those offenders; REGISTER with the Pennsylvania State Police both sex offenders and sexually violent predators; and NOTIFY the communities when those persons, identified as sexually violent predators, move into their neighborhood.

On October 21, 1995, Governor Ridge signed into law Act 24 of 1995, which became effective on April 21, 1996. Act 46 of 1996 amended Act 24 of 1995 and became effective on May 22, 1996.

In a decision filed October 6, 1998 in the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, Appellee v. Edward James Hayle, the Superior Court found portions of "Megan's Law" to be unconstitutional.

On June 30, 1998, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Commonwealth v. Williams, (Revised: 11-12-98 Jay Paul Koller) struck down all relevant provisions of the Act relating to sexually violent predators, with one dissenting opinion. In a second ruling also released on June 30, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Commonwealth v. Gaffney, unanimously upheld the Pennsylvania Superior Court's ruling that the registration portion of the Act was constitutional.

The Pennsylvania Legislature unanimously reenacted Megan's Law and on May 10, 2000, the Governor signed into law Act 18 of 2000. Pursuant to statute, the law became effective July 8, 2000. Act 113 of 2000 amended Act 18 of 2000 by adding a new offense, sexual exploitation of children. Pursuant to statute, this amendment became effective February 18, 2001.

8-20-2004: Tennessee: Issue: Sex Offender Registration - Residency laws.

8-20-2004 Tennessee: Judge limits scope of new sex-offender registry law: Law applies only to those convicted after it went into effect

.A federal judge yesterday ordered the state not to enforce its new sex-offender registry law against those convicted before the statute went on the books. U.S. District Court Judge Todd J. Campbell's order arises out of a constitutional challenge posed by a Nashville man known in court as ''John Doe.'' He was convicted of sexual battery in 2000 but has since been living in a house and working at an office that are both within the restricted 1,000-foot zone proscribed by the new state law.

The statute, which went into effect Aug. 1, forbids sex offenders from living or working within 1,000 feet of a school or day care. Tennessee's sex-offender registry law was passed this year by the legislature and signed by Gov. Phil Bredesen, despite a warning from state Attorney General Paul Summers that if enacted, the statute was highly likely to be challenged as unconstitutional.

Campbell's preliminary injunction applies only to those who were convicted in Tennessee before the new law went into effect. He did not address the law as it applies to those convicted after its effective date. The plaintiff's attorney, Brent Horst, filed his federal complaint the day after the law went on the books. Horst argues that in banishing his client from a certain area, the law is twice punishing Doe, which constitutes an improper ''double jeopardy.''

Horst says the law improperly criminalizes a past action that was legal at the time. His client did nothing illegal in 2000 when he chose to buy a house within 1,000 feet of a Nashville school, Horst argues; furthermore, his client was doing nothing wrong when his employer set up its offices at a site that is also close to a school. Now that the law has gone into effect, Doe is required to report his whereabouts to the state — which would expose him to prosecution. Horst argues that requirement violates the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

The plaintiff asked to proceed under a pseudonym because if he were to identify himself in court as someone who lives and works within now-prohibited zones, he would be exposing himself to potential prosecution — or self-incrimination — even though the law may be unconstitutional. He cited further potential harm if, in filing the suit under his real name, the community reaction might force him to move — something he's specifically trying to avoid by filing the suit in the first place. Campbell has granted that request.

Soon after the suit was filed, Campbell issued a temporary restraining order instructing the state not to attempt to prosecute the plaintiff. That temporary restraining order expires today, but now the injunction is in effect as the case proceeds. During a lively hearing in Campbell's courtroom yesterday, Assistant Attorney General Michael Meyers refused to address the law's constitutionality, despite Campbell's repeated requests that he do so. ''I want to know if the state attorney general is going to come through this door and argue that this law is constitutional,'' Campbell said, his voice rising. ''I'm not going to let you keep dodging it.''

Instead, Meyers chose to argue only that Doe's claim was improperly raised and that the federal court should not rule on the constitutionality of the statute. Because Doe has not been arrested for violating the new law, Meyers said, the plaintiff's claims that he had been harmed were ''only speculative.'' He repeatedly tried to assure Campbell that the Davidson County district attorney general's office had no immediate plans to begin prosecuting sex offenders for living too close to a school. Campbell wondered aloud whether one had to wait to be handcuffed, placed in a squad car, paraded before the press and thrown in jail before claiming he had been harmed enough to warrant a federal lawsuit.

Campbell found that in Doe's case, the new state law ''goes beyond any intent to craft a civil regulatory scheme and is, in fact, punitive.'' Therefore, he wrote, the law ''constitutes a retroactive punishment'' that is unconstitutional. In motions filed before the hearing, Horst wrote that his client must live now while constantly wondering if and when the authorities are going to come arrest him, despite the district attorney general's current reluctance to prosecute violations of the statute.

Even if a district attorney quietly acknowledges the constitutional problems and declines to prosecute, Horst wrote, what happens when a neighbor finds a name on the registry and demands that the sex offender be arrested? ''The general public has a right to expect that laws, especially criminal laws, are constitutional, and that they will be enforced not only vigorously but uniformly,'' Horst wrote. ''A law that is neither is not in the public interest.''

Horst has indicated that he intends to seek that the ongoing case be certified as a class-action suit on behalf of all Tennessee sex offenders, who, like the plaintiff, found themselves afoul of the law only after the new statute took effect.

Case timeline:
1996 — ''John Doe'' begins contract work for a Davidson County firm, which now employs him. That company is within 1,000 feet of a school.

January 2000 — John Doe is convicted of sexual battery in Davidson County Circuit Court and receives a sentence of six years on probation.

Later in 2000 — Doe purchases a home in Davidson County within 1,000 feet of a school.

July 1, 2003 — Tennessee's sex offender registry law — TCA 40-39-111 — becomes effective. It prohibits a sexual offender from ''knowingly establishing a residence or accepting employment within 1,000 feet of a school, day care facility or other child-care facility.'' Violating this law is a misdemeanor.

Aug. 1, 2004 — Tennessee replaces the law with TCA 40-39-211, which changes the language to ''reside or work within 1,000 feet'' of a school or child-care facility. A violation constitutes a felony, with a maximum penalty of six years in prison and a $3,000 fine.

Aug. 6, 2004 — U.S. District Court Judge Todd J. Campbell issues a temporary restraining order allowing convicted sex offender ''John Doe'' to live and work within 1,000 feet of a school while a broader hearing in the case was pending. : by ROB JOHNSON, Staff Writer ..more..

8-8-2004 Tennessee
Sex offender can live and work near school for now, judge rules: Only this one offender!
He's also allowed to sue as 'John Doe': For now, one Nashville sex offender living and working within 1,000 feet of a school won't be subject to criminal prosecution, after a U.S. District Court judge issued a temporary restraining order yesterday arising from a legal challenge to a new Tennessee law.

He has filed a federal suit under a pseudonym because he believes that identifying himself would open himself to state prosecution — under a law that he contends is unconstitutional. The plaintiff also fears retribution from his employer and the community if his name were to become known, court records show. For the purposes of yesterday's hearing, U.S. District Judge Todd Campbell allowed the plaintiff to continue to be known publicly as ''John Doe.'' Campbell, however, has in hand a sealed affidavit that discloses the plaintiff's identity only to the judge.

Because the lawsuit has not been certified as a class action, Campbell's temporary restraining order applies only to the plaintiff in this case. In his filings, Horst argues that the new statute is unconstitutional on a variety of grounds. Among his arguments:

The law improperly criminalizes a past action that at the time was legal — in this case, living in a house and holding job within 1,000 feet of a school; In being banished from a certain area, Doe is being twice punished, which constitutes ''double jeopardy.''; The new law ''significantly infringes upon the offender's right to seek employment, especially in metropolitan areas,'' where there are scores of schools and child-care centers.

He says that, literally applied, the law would prevent sex offenders from becoming truck drivers, construction workers or delivery men, because it would prohibit them from working in many areas of the state, even if they are just passing through as part of their jobs; The state's conclusions in passing the law are ''irrational'' because many sex offenders were not convicted of crimes involving children and because many offenders ''have never shown any sexual or dangerous predilection toward children.'' ..more..ROB JOHNSON Staff Writer

8-4-2004 Tennessee
Offender sues over sex (residency) law
Within a day of taking effect, the state’s tougher sexual offender registry law has come under legal attack over a provision that restricts where offenders may live. A Davidson County resident, named only as John Doe, filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Nashville Monday, claiming the law is violating not only his constitutional rights but those of all sex offenders covered by the law.

The new law left intact the school-zone restrictions, which ”violates a number of constitutional provisions,” said the plaintiff’s attorney, Brent Horst of Nashville. Horst is asking the federal court to block enforcement of the law and grant class-action status to an estimated 7,000 sexual offenders, who would have very few choices in where they could live.

He also said the law doesn’t take into consideration the severity of the criminal conviction and whether the sexual crime was against a child. “For example, you can have a 19-year old kid who has sex with his 16-year-old girlfriend. Technically, that’s statutory rape, and now for the rest of his life he can’t live in a significant part of the community,” Horst said. A federal judge in Iowa last year struck down a similar law there that limits residency within 2,000 feet of a school, Horst said. ..more.. Chris Lewis | Nashville City Paper.com