Indiana HOA bans sex offenders

Yesterday I saw that an HOA here in Indiana passed a covenant change to ban sex offenders. If they are already living there, they will be allowed to stay. From this point forward, sex offenders will not be able to move in. Also, any resident that becomes a sex offender will be required to move. Over 75% of the residents voted to approve the covenant change. A spokesman for the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana said the ban was not unconstitutional because the homeowners association is a private organization and not a government body.

What are your thoughts on this?

The link:
http://www.theindychannel.com/news/17093589/detail.html?taf=ind

This one says it all. And all this time I thought I should keep an eye on my children. I didn't know that I could simply pass a rule and shove my head in the sand. Parenthood has just gotten easier.

(Oh, that is right if you happen to be the parent of a teenager you should be very afraid since one amorous night sits between you and the HOA.

I will wait for the class action civil rights suit to be filed.

I wonder if you can deny a person the right to purchase a home based on past criminal activity.

I agree 100% that Yeah it would be MUCH safer without a sex offender living in a HOA. My kids could play without me having to watch them....just HOPE the sex offender isn't living in the first house outside the HOA which would be like 20' here! Yeah, my kids will be MUCH safer...so long has the sex offender doesn't cross that invisible line surrounding the HOA. hehe

By the way, does everybody know about

Family Watchdog on the internet?

http://www.familywatchdog.us/

You can sign up to get e-mails whenever a registered sex offender moves nearby or moves away. There are also some great maps showing where registered sex offenders live and work.

Scott,

Since I have the information at hand, here is the Appeals Court holding regarding sex offender laws on May 13, 2008:

For all of these reasons, we hold that Indiana Code section 35-42-4-11, otherwise known as the residency statute, is an ex post facto law as applied to a person in Pollard’s circumstances. The residency statute is a criminal statute that criminalizes residency because of the resident’s status as a sex offender. In addition, the statute’s effect is punitive because it is applied retroactively to sex offenders who established ownership and property rights in a residence prior to the effective date of the statute, and because it forces them to relinquish some or all of their ownership rights or face a felony charge. Perhaps most importantly, Indiana’s residency statute does not exempt ownership
established prior to the statute, provide a constitutional taking procedure, or exempt ownership impacted by later construction of a protected facility or area.

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/05130807pdm.pdf

Since this is a fairly clear statement of public policy, the Pines of Greenwood may have a fight on their hands if someone chooses to file suit. (The facts in Pollard are not quite the same as a potential purchaser, however.)

Also check out:

http://www.wthr.com/Global/story.asp?S=8701311&nav=menu188_2

Life sure is interestin', ain't it?

IMHO it would be much better and easier to amend the Documents to allow a qualified pre-school or daycare operate in the HOA since most State and local laws prohibit a sex offender from living within X number of feet of them. You just have to decide what you hate worse - screaming kids or sex offenders.

George,
I read the Pollard case and it would not apply to the Pines of Greenwood. The entire issue in Pollard is the fact that he owned the property before the law was passed. The Pines of Greenwood will not be attempting to ban offenders living there before the covenant change. The was clearly stated in an article in the Johnson County Daily Journal. It requires a subscription, so I cannot provide a link.

I think I need a law clerk. I am citing too many cases. There is no wonder you are confused. Sorry.

As to Pollard, you are correct, the facts are not the same.

However, combined with the court's explicit statement of how covenants are to be interpreted, as stated in Johnson v. Dawson, et al., it would suggest that the court would tend toward disfavoring covenants in preference of individual property rights.

From the Channel 6 report, "The ban also stipulates that if a current resident is convicted of a crime that would qualify them as a sex offender, they will be evicted," appears, on the surface at least, to be contrary to the Appeals Court finding in Pollard.

This will be a fruitful area for a civil suit and for continued legislation. I hope the Pines of Greenwood homeowners association is prepared for multiple tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees.

I don't know where I stand on this issue. I do know two things. First registered sex offenders have to live somewhere. Second, the repeat rate for sex crimes is very high.

I do know that by prohibiting sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of schools, day cares, churches, parks, playgrounds, etc. means they will end up being highly concentrated in very few areas. And we know that high concentrations of convicted felons leads to all sorts of nefarious outcomes.

I am not sure I want to be living next to a registered sex offender. Yet, not all offenses that must be registered (e.g. public nudity) are heinous crimes.

Not an easy situation to deal with at all.

Michele,

That is exactly the problem I see as well. You hit the nail on the head.

All sorts of prohibitions about where they can live, means they will be concentrated in a very few areas, such as apartment complexes. And even though police will keep an eye on them, it doesn't mean that they will be able to prevent repeat crimes.

The law of unintended consequences is at work here. I think our legislatures need to think again about this whole thing. Maybe, not all "sex crimes" require such restrictions.

I don't know.

Just wait.

Soon, the AMA will classify some sex offenders as an illness: either genetic, or environmentally or behaviourally induced. Just like alcoholism, schizophrenia, depression, etc.

And once they do, SO's are protected by the ADA and FHA....

as for the earlier question: I would rather live with 300 sex offenders in my neighborhood than 2 screaming kids. but that's me.

I need to correct my former post. This middle aged man who was not an offender but a predator and abused a child for six years, was sentenced to 22 years in prison but served only 8. I figured since he had a place to live for the next 14 years (prison) there was no reason for my grandchildren to have to walk past his house every day to get to the school bus.

I was searching for some info on the web and read that until it is constitutionally challenged, SO's will continue to be banned from living in neighborhoods, regardless of the proximity to schools or parks. So, I guess, until the Supreme Court gets involved, the banning will continue. The problems created by this deal with tracking the SO's which is crucial.

George,

I'm sorry, I didn't bookmark the site and I can't find it again. :-( However, in my search I did come across two interesting articles you might want to read:

www.missingkids.com click on "site search", type in "sex offenders", then click on "Sex Offenders - History"

www.aclu-nj.org click on "Issues", click on "Criminal Justice", scan down to "Op-ed" and click on "Why Sex Offenders Laws Do More Harm Than Good"

The ACLU has had several sex offender cases and they've argued that some of the laws are unconstitutional, mainly because there is no appeal process. I think it all stems from the fact that the title "sex offender" is applied to anyone who has been convicted of a "sex crime". In one case the sex offender had raped a 20 year old, he did not molest children. However, the law stated no sex offender can come w/i so many feet of a school or park. Most of the laws banning sex offenders deal with protection of children.