«««FOR
IMMEDIATE RELEASE—WEDNESDAY MAY 15, 2008, 9:00am«««
Georgia Sex Offender Law
back in Federal Court moments after being signed by Governor Perdue
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
May 14, 2008 – Late Tuesday, Governor Sonny Perdue signed Senate Bill 1, a
modified version of Georgia’s sex offender residence and employment
restrictions. Immediately following his signature, attorneys from the
Southern Center for Human Rights (SCHR) renewed their legal challenge to the
sex offender law. For the last two years, SCHR has represented a class of
people on the registry in Whitaker v. Perdue, Civil Action No.
4:06-cv-140-CC (N.D. Ga. 2006). The pleading filed today is the fourth
amended complaint in the Whitaker case.
Civil rights groups are not
the only ones challenging Georgia’s sex offender law. During the 2008
Georgia General Assembly, several advocacy groups for women and children,
including Georgia Network to End Sexual Assault and Voices for Georgia’s
Children, voiced their opposition to SB 1. They stated that SB 1 will once
again commit taxpayer resources to efforts that have no demonstrated
positive effect and that may, in fact, place women and children at greater
risk of victimization by forcing sex offenders underground, increasing the
likelihood of subsequent sex offenses by severing their ties to stabilizing
forces like their church, families, and treatment providers.
“There is simply no evidence
that 1,000-foot restrictions reduce sexual offenses, as recognized by the
many women’s and children’s advocates who opposed SB 1” said SCHR Attorney
Sarah Geraghty “It’s unfortunate that our legislature has again chosen
political posturing over the safety of women and children.”
On November 21, 2007, the
Supreme Court of Georgia held Georgia’s sex offender residency restrictions
unconstitutional in Mann v. Georgia Department of Corrections. The
Court held that Georgia’s sex offender residence restrictions violated the
takings clause of the state and federal constitutions which prohibits the
government from taking someone’s property without adequately compensating
him for the property loss.
Senate Bill 1 failed to properly address the Court’s findings,
and will likely similarly be struck down by the courts for the following
reasons:
- No Provision for
Renters: People who enter into a
valid lease to rent property have rights to that property protected by the
takings clause of the Georgia Constitution. SB 1 carves out an exemption
for homeowners who purchased property, but makes no provision for
renters. Under SB 1, the moment a child care center or a church opens
within 1,000 feet of a sex offender’s residence, that person is required
to break his lease and move. Because it makes no provision for renters,
SB 1 will be held unconstitutional under Mann, the very case that
struck down the previous sex offender residency law.
- All Offenders
Treated the Same: Under SB 1, a
17-year-old who engages in consensual sex with a 15-year-old is subject to
the same residency and employment restrictions as a serious sexual
offender.
- No Exemption for
Nursing Home Residents and Others Who Do Not Pose a Threat:
SB 1 makes no exemption for people in nursing homes, hospice care
facilities, and others who no longer pose a danger and may not be able to
safely relocate due to health problems.
The practical effect of SB 1 is that all people on the sex
offender registry – with the exception of certain homeowners – will have to
comply with all of the same residence restrictions as in HB 1059. The
school bus stop provision remains a part of the law. There are no
exceptions for persons who are physically incapacitated by illness or age.
The prohibition against working at or within 1,000 feet of a church remains
in the law. The law retains the provision making it illegal and punishable
by 10-30 years in prison to be homeless.
The ostensible purpose of sex offender residence and
employment restrictions is to keep Georgia’s children safe from sexual
offenses. No one would dispute that this is a laudable goal. Senate Bill
1, however, is yet another wrong approach that has once again forces the
State into court to defend the General Assembly’s ill-advised and
unconstitutional actions.
Read the Motion
to Amend the Complaint
Read the Fourth
Amended Complaint in Whitaker
Return to
SCHR's Litigation Challenging HB1059: Georgia's Sex
Offender Law