{"id":7838,"date":"2007-08-07T18:14:51","date_gmt":"2007-08-07T23:14:51","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/2007\/08\/07\/nyclu-letter-threatens-lawsuit-ove"},"modified":"2011-08-05T14:53:45","modified_gmt":"2011-08-05T18:53:45","slug":"nyclu-letter-threatens-lawsuit-over-schenectady-county-sex-offender","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/2007\/08\/07\/nyclu-letter-threatens-lawsuit-over-schenectady-county-sex-offender\/","title":{"rendered":"NYCLU Letter threatens lawsuit over Schenectady County sex offender law"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

\"erasingS\"\u00a0\u00a0 <\/font>update<\/strong><\/em> (Aug. 14, 2007):\u00a0 See our posting “new Schenectady sex offender proposal<\/a>,” for a description of the bills proposed for a public hearing on Aug. 22, 2007.\u00a0 Click SchdyCountyProposedSOLawAug07<\/a>, 9-pp pdf., to see the proposed legislation.<\/p>\n

update<\/strong><\/em> (Aug. 11, 2007): Jim Murphy has an excellent letter to the editor in the Daily Gazette<\/em><\/a> today, “County should look at Iowa’s model for help with sex offender law.<\/a>” update<\/strong><\/em> (Aug. 10, 2007): According to an article in today’s Schenectady Daily Gazette<\/em><\/a>, “Towns mull initiative on offender issues<\/a>,” a majority of town supervisors oppose proposed changes” to the County’s SORR and are “considering their own initiatives.” It quotes Glenville Supervisor Frank Quinn saying the five supervisors are “gagging on” the proposals, which are “[not] really getting at the issue and managing it better.” Quinn argues that the “real answer is to get people who do this for a living to come up with recommendations on how to deal with all the issues.” Niskayuna Supervisor Luke Smith wants a comprehensive approach and says “Don’t put nine politicians in a room to find answers.” Rotterdam Supervisor Steven Tommasone said “Drawing circles on the map does not help anyone.” He wants the state to do more, with stricter laws, better enforcement. [Ed. note<\/em>: It appears that the town supervisors have learned from the mistakes made at the County level — wanting effective answers to the concerns of parents and politicians, not symbolic, “feel-good” laws that bash “predators” without making children safer or respecting the Constitution.] The article has a Sidebar comparing sex offender laws in Schenectady, Saratoga, Albany and Rensselaer Counties.<\/p>\n

update<\/strong><\/em> (Aug. 9, 2007): See “Dems to alter offender laws<\/a>: Legislators cite concerns of town supervisors,” Daily Gazette<\/em><\/a>, Aug. 9, 2007, which reports that likely changes would be repealing the law requiring relocation, exempting Level 1 offenders from the SORR, and “allowing towns to adopt more restrictive provisions if they choose” [Ed note: town laws would raise serious state pre-emption issues]; “Residency law faces possible challenge<\/a>,” Albany Times Union<\/em> (Aug. 9, 2007; reprinted<\/a>); and also Carl Strock, “Schenectady’s imaginary predators<\/a>,” Schenectady Daily Gazette<\/em>, Aug. 9, 2007, which is covered this morning in a separate posting<\/a>.<\/p>\n

update<\/em> <\/strong>(6 PM): WTEN.com News<\/a> just told viewers about the NYCLU’s Letter, and quotes Legislative Chair Susan Savage saying that the Legislature is considering making major changes to its sex offender residency restriction [SORR] laws. Savage insists the changes have been under consideration and are in no way a reaction to the NYCLU lawsuit threat. Note, however, that Savage is quoted<\/a> in yesterday’s Schenectady Daily Gazette<\/em> (Aug. 7, 2007) insisting that “There is no change in the law that I anticipate.” Channel 10 was not able to get any other County legislator to discuss SORR on camera. [WNYT<\/a>, Channel 13, had a similar story on its 6 o’clock news; at 10PM, FoxNews23<\/em>, ran “NYCLU Threatens Legal Action against Schenectady County<\/a>” (Aug. 8, 2007); and CapitalNews9<\/em> updated its story “Lawsuit could be filed over sex offender laws<\/a>,” to discuss possible changes in the law.] I’d bet that a combination of Ed Kosiur’s stunning SORR-related political defeat and the looming reality of incurring large legal expenses in a losing cause made Ms. Savage and her Posse see the light.<\/p>\n

11 PM update<\/em>: WNYT<\/a>13 reported that the Legislature is considering removing Level One offenders from the law, and grandfathering-in those living within the no-reside zones at the time the law was passed. That confirms my own information. I’m not sure this will satisfy the outlying Towns or remove the pre-emption issue, but it would eliminate two of the most troublesome aspects of the Schenectady County SORR.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n

In a four-page letter<\/a> joined by three area lawyers, the Capital Region Chapter<\/a> of the New York Civil Liberties Union<\/a> advises each member of Schenectady County<\/a>‘s Democratic-controlled Legislature<\/a> that the sex offender residency restrictions [SORR] enacted by the County on June 12, 2007 are unconstitutional and will be challenged in a lawsuit, if not immediately rescinded or drastically revised. (see Agenda<\/a>, at pp 68 – 74, for text of the law) The Letter declares: “it should be clear to all that this legislation was passed in haste, without careful attention either to New York state law or to constitutional protections.”<\/p>\n

Dated and mailed Aug. 7, 2007, the Letter is signed by Melanie Trimble, Executive Director of the Capital Region Chapter, and by Albany lawyers Terry Kindlon<\/a> and Kathy Manley<\/a>, of Kindlon Shanks & Associates<\/a>, and myself, David Giacalone, of Schenectady. Kindlon is a well-known criminal defense lawyer and Manley is experienced in appellate and civil liberty litigation.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In his recent unsuccessful special election campaign for State Assembly, County Legislator Edward Kosiur, primary sponsor of the County’s sex offender residency law, proudly boasted <\/a>that it is the \u201ctoughest sex predator law in New York State\u201d (see our July 30 posting “stop Kosiur<\/a>“). In a detailed discussion<\/a> at the time it was passed, we described the most outrageous features of the new law:<\/p>\n

\n

It requires sex offenders \u2014 at every level \u2014 to leave their homes starting Oct. 1, should they reside within 2,000 feet of public parks, pools and playgrounds, as well as schools, day care and youth facilities. In addition, should such facilities at any time in the future by located within 2000 feet of a sex offender’s residence, he or she has 90 days to relocate outside of the forbidden zone. The restrictions effectively ban sex offenders from living in the city of Schenectady and its close-in suburbs, and are therefor likely to cause relocation and future location of sex offender residences in more rural parts of Schenectady County and into Montgomery County.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The NYCLU Press Release<\/a> (Aug. 7, 2007) describes the Letter<\/a>, which:<\/p>\n