State Supreme Court Hears Sex Offender Residency Case
Posted March 27, 2009

On Tuesday, the New Jersey Supreme Court heard arguments in a case that may ultimately determine if towns have a right to restrict where convicted sex offenders may live. The case stems from two 2005 ordinances passed by Cherry Hill and Galloway Township, respectively, and stating convicted sex offenders may not live within 2,500 feet of places where children are likely to congregate, such as schools and parks.

As the Philadelphia Inquirer reports, "Three [convicted] sex offenders affected by the laws quickly challenged." Lower courts overturned the ordinances, accepting the argument that they violate Megan's Law, which requires convicted sex offenders to register with the state and gives parole officers the authority to determine where offenders may live. Last year, a New Jersey State Appeals Court upheld the decision of the lower courts.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), arguing on behalf of one of the three convicted sex offenders, stated Megan's Law already addresses the issue of sex offender residency, and, as the Atlantic City Press puts it, "Letting municipalities create their own restrictions would disrupt the consistency of the system." According to this line of reasoning, Megan's Law preempts municipalities from acting on the issue of sex offender residency.

This, however, is an inaccurate interpretation, as noted by attorney Demetrios Stratis, who, working with the American Center for Law and Justice, represents Galloway Township in this case. Stratis, who is also the Chairman of the NJ Legal Resource Council, the legal advisory arm of the New Jersey Family Policy Council (NJFPC), argued before the Court that there is a "gap" in Megan's Law. In essence, the law does not specify where children congregate - locations that are different for each town. Indeed, instead of conflicting with Megan's Law, Stratis stated town ordinances actually complement the law as parole officers may be unfamiliar with towns and unaware in which areas the residency of a sex offender would pose the greatest threat to children.

Additionally, Stratis noted that under the Home Rule Doctrine, outlined in our state's constitution, towns and municipalities are entitled to enact measures that protect the health, welfare, and safety or their citizens. Based on this, towns have the right to provide for the safety of their residents by establishing buffer zones to protect children.

At its core, the issue is really whether towns can exercise their right - and responsibility - to protect their most innocent residents or whether they must cater to convicted sex offenders. Make no mistake about it: the recidivism rate among sex offenders is astronomical, and allowing them to live within close proximity to children is tantamount to enabling access to potential victims.

Galloway Township and Cherry Hill are not alone in recognizing this fact, as more than 100 towns across the state have similar ordinances on the books - although the enforcement of these ordinances now hinges on the Supreme Court's ruling.

The Court's decision is not expected for a least a month, and we will be sure to keep you apprised of any developments. In the meantime, the NJFPC continues to stand with Galloway Township, Cherry Hill, and towns across New Jersey that are committed to protecting our children against sexual predators.

Archive