SCHR: Litigation Challenging HB 1059: Georgia's Sex Offender Law

Update on the Mann v. Dept of Corrections case

December 13, 2007

Dear friends,

We write to let you know about a temporary setback regarding the Mann case. The Georgia Supreme Court has issued the following clarification:

Atlanta, December 13, 2007 -- The Georgia Supreme Court today made a slight change to its recent ruling in Mann v. Georgia Department of Corrections et al. (S07A1043). In its order of November 21, the Court wrote, “We therefore find that OCGA § 42-1-15 (a) is unconstitutional because it permits the regulatory taking of appellant’s property without just and adequate compensation.” In today’s order, the Court substituted the word, “because” with the phrase, “to the extent that.” The rest of the 16-page order remains unchanged.

The Office of the Attorney General has interpreted this clarification to mean that the Mann ruling applies only to homeowners. We disagree with this interpretation and believe that the decision should be interpreted to protect the rights of people who rent as well since the courts in Georgia have made it clear that renters’ property interests are protected by the 5th amendment.

We realize that the Georgia Supreme Court’s language is confusing. Unfortunately, we do not have any further information about exactly how law enforcement will respond to it. As always, we urge you to comply with the orders of law enforcement. We will keep you updated as we obtain additional information.

Please know that we will continue to fight vigorously in Federal Court to challenge this unconstitutional law. 

All the best,

Sarah, Sara, Lisa, James, Shareef, Gerry and Mica


AG: Sex offender law only applies to homeowners

By Bill Rankin
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
December 13, 2007

The Georgia Supreme Court ruling that struck down residency restrictions for registered sex offenders now applies only to offenders who own their homes, the state Attorney General's Office said Thursday.

Last month, the state's highest court issued what appeared to be a sweeping decision that struck down the residency restrictions for all 15,000 registered offenders, regardless of whether they owned or rented a home or lived in a place for free. The decision was condemned by legislators who sponsored the law and praised by civil rights advocates who contend the restrictions are too draconian.

The 2006 law passed by the Legislature prohibited registered sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of day care centers, schools, churches and other places where children congregate. The court struck down the provision in favor of Anthony Mann of Clayton County, who purchased his home before a day care center was built nearby. The court said forcing Mann to move unconstitutionally deprived him of his property rights.

In late November, Attorney General Thurbert Baker asked the state Supreme Court to clarify its ruling, saying it had "engendered some confusion." The question, Baker said, is whether the ruling applies only to those who own property and face circumstances similar to Mann's.

On Thursday, the court changed only a few words of its initial opinion, but narrowed its breadth enormously. The clarification says the residency restriction is unconstitutional "to the extent that it permits the regulatory taking of...property without just and adequate compensation."

The attorney general is pleased with the new ruling, Baker's spokesman, Russ Willard, said. "The court's ruling should only protect property owners, not all registered sex offenders, from the residency restriction," Willard said.

Sarah Geraghty, a lawyer for the Southern Center for Human Rights, disagreed with the attorney general's office's interpretation of the decision. "Courts in Georgia have repeatedly held that people who rent their homes have a property interest protected by the Fifth Amendment," Geraghty said in a statement.