Sex Offenders Win at Mo. Supreme Court
CrimeSceneKC : Sex offenders win at Mo. Supreme Court.
The Missouri Supreme Court says that registered sex offenders do not have to comply with new regulations that were passed after they were originally sentenced. So if you were convicted of a sex crime before Aug. 28, 2008, you wouldn’t be affected by laws forbidding RSOs from living within 1,000 feet of a school. Same goes for the rule that makes RSOs stay home on Halloween.
Read the court’s decision here: http://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=36535
Opinion issued January 12, 2010
In the first of these cases, F.R., a convicted sex offender, challenges the constitutional validity of section 566.1471, Missouri’s “School Residency Law,” which prohibits convicted sex offenders from residing within 1,000 feet of any school or child-care facility. Because F.R. was convicted and sentenced before the “school residency law” was enacted (retroactively) , section 566.147, as applied to F.R., is unconstitutionally retrospective in its operation. Judgment is reversed.
In the second case, Charles Raynor, a convicted sex offender, challenges the constitutional validity of section 589.426, which prohibits convicted sex offenders from going outdoors, turning on their outdoor lights and handing out candy on Halloween, and which requires them to post a sign stating “no candy or treats at this residence.” Because Raynor was convicted and sentenced before section 589.426 was enacted (retroactively) , section 589.426, as applied to Raynor, is unconstitutionally retrospective in its operation. The judgment is affirmed.
The new obligations and duties imposed on F.R. and Raynor are solely the result of their past criminal acts, and the failure to perform these new duties and obligations carries a criminal penalty. The obligations and duties, imposed after the fact of their criminal convictions and based solely on those prior convictions, violate F.R.’s and Raynor’s rights under article I, section 13.
As applied to F.R., the school residency requirement of section 566.147 is unconstitutional. The judgment of the trial court is reversed.
As applied to Raynor, the Halloween requirements of section 589.426 are unconstitutional. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed