{"id":10533,"date":"2009-01-23T23:59:02","date_gmt":"2009-01-24T04:59:02","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/?p=10533"},"modified":"2011-08-05T14:53:12","modified_gmt":"2011-08-05T18:53:12","slug":"preemption-sinks-rockland-county-sex-offender-residency-law","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/2009\/01\/23\/preemption-sinks-rockland-county-sex-offender-residency-law\/","title":{"rendered":"preemption sinks Rockland County sex offender residency law"},"content":{"rendered":"

update<\/strong><\/em> (Jan. 26, 2009): Click for the decision in Peo. v. Oberlander<\/em><\/a>. (via Kathy Manley<\/a>)<\/p>\n

afterwords<\/strong><\/em> (Feb. 20, 2009) See our post<\/a> on Peo. v. James Blair<\/em>, in which an Albany City Court judge follows the Oberlander<\/em> precedent.\u00a0 follow-up<\/strong><\/em> (March 27, 2010): The Schenectady County sex offender residency law was voided yesterday by State Supreme Court Justice Barry Kramer, who held that the law was pre-empted by New York State laws covering restrictions on where sex offenders may live. See \u201cSex offender law tossed out<\/a>\u201d (Albany Times Union<\/em>, March 27, 2010).\u00a0 The case was brought pro bono<\/em> by the Albany law firm of [Terence] Kindlon Shanks & Associates, which has successfully challenged similar laws in Albany, Resselaer and Washington Counties.\u00a0 Attorney Kathy Manley handled the Schenectady County case for the Kindlon law firm.<\/p>\n

W<\/strong><\/em>e’ve been lax covering sex offender residency news since our marathon posting<\/a> in 2007.\u00a0 I’m pleased to report tonight, however, that Supreme Court Justice William Kelly struck down the Rockland County sex offender residency law<\/a>, in a decision released today. Peo. v. Oberlander<\/em><\/a> (Jan. 22, 2009) It is the first case in New York decided on the basis that the State has pre-empted the field, leaving no room for a county or other government unit to impose further restrictions.\u00a0 See “State judge throws out Rockland’s housing law for sex offenders<\/a>” (The Journal News<\/em>, Jan. 23, 2009; via David Hess, TheParson.net<\/a>).<\/p>\n

According to The Journal News<\/em>:\u00a0 \"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

“Justice William Kelly, in an eight-page decision, found that state has specifically taken the responsibility for sex offenders.<\/p>\n

“Kelly also wrote the state law specifically empowers local probation officers to decide where sex offenders can live without any borders. He also cited a similar decision banning residency boundaries in New Jersey by a judge in the Garden State.”<\/p>\n

Attorney David Goldstein represented the defendant in the case of People v. Yoel Oblerlander<\/em>, which charged a Violation of Probation based on the defendant’s having\u00a0 \u201cmoved to a residence within 1,000 feet of a \u2018Rockland County pedophile-free child safety zone\u2019 in violation of Local Law No. 1 of 2007.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 Under the Rockland County law, sex offenders were prohibited from living, working, and loitering within 1,000 feet of schools, day care centers, libraries or any facilities. Goldstein told the Journal News <\/em>that Rockland’s 1,000 feet restriction, or any boundary, is arbitrary and meaningless as far as protecting the public.<\/p>\n

“The state law of letting probation officers use their discretion is more effective,” Goldstein said. “The county law was an over-reaction with a nebulous 1,000-foot magical line.”<\/p>\n

There are 80 similar laws across the state that could be affected if challenged under the preemption doctrine. (See our prior post<\/a> from October 2007, discussing a lawsuit challenging the Albany County sex offender law under preemption doctrine).<\/p>\n

Rules passed by counties and towns often cause ripple effects. Ulster County is currently considering its own sex offender residence restrictions, after a sex offender moved there from Rockland County (see, Sex Offender Issues<\/em><\/a> weblog, Jan. 15, 2009).\u00a0 Ulster County Legislator Glenn Noonan told the The Daily Freeman<\/em><\/a> that:<\/p>\n

\u201cI\u2019m trying to get Ulster County on board with several other counties who have passed similar legislation. Then it forces the (state) Assembly to get off their butts and do something about this on a state level.\u201d<\/p>\n

More thoughtful minds will hopefully remind our state leaders that our current State laws and policy work well, and that there is no reason to believe banning offenders from particular zones protects our children. (see, e.g.<\/em>, our post “Sunday papers question sex offender laws<\/a>“)<\/p>\n

update<\/strong><\/em> (Jan. 28, 2009):\u00a0 At his Sex Crimes<\/em> weblog,<\/a> Prof. Corey Rayburn Yung points out that “As was the case in New Jersey [G.H. v. Township of Galloway<\/em>, 401 N.J. Super. 392 (App. Div. 2008)], the state could cure the conflict by either expressly allowing localties to implement residency restrictions or by adopting a statewide residency restriction law.”<\/p>\n

update<\/em><\/strong> (Feb. 2, 2009): State Senate Majority Leader Malcolm A. Smith has already proposed a bill — S.1300 — that would impose 1000-foot no-residence “safety zones” around schools, parks, day care centers.\u00a0 See our post “don’t let a bad idea go statewide<\/a>” (Feb. 2, 2009).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

update (Jan. 26, 2009): Click for the decision in Peo. v. Oberlander. (via Kathy Manley) afterwords (Feb. 20, 2009) See our post on Peo. v. James Blair, in which an Albany City Court judge follows the Oberlander precedent.\u00a0 follow-up (March 27, 2010): The Schenectady County sex offender residency law was voided yesterday by State Supreme […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":94,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[3513],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-10533","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-lawyer-news-or-ethics"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p6kP1R-2JT","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10533","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/94"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=10533"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10533\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":12055,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10533\/revisions\/12055"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=10533"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=10533"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=10533"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}