(c) 2007-2012 Derek Logue/Once Fallen. No part of this website may be reproduced without expressed written consent of Once Fallen
Banishment By Attrition: The Truth About Residency Restrictions
Derek W. Logue
July 28, 2012

The Ordinance appears to attempt to ensure public safety, in certain parts of Allegheny County, by isolating all
Megan’s Law registrants in localized penal colonies of sorts, without any consideration of the General Assembly’s
policies of rehabilitation and reintegration
.” -- Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice CJ Castille, Fross et al. v.
County of Allegheny, No. 17 WAP 2010 [


In recent years, restrictions against where registered sex offenders may live have become commonplace. These
restrictions were created on the premise that proximity to areas where children congregate would tempt those
convicted of sexual offenses into re-offending. These laws have been very popular with the public, and in recent
years have grown so restrictive, they effectively banished registrants altogether, hence the title of this article,
Banishment by Attrition. However, despite their popularity, residency restrictions have not shown to be effective,
may actually increase recidivism or failure to register cases, and at best only gives a false sense of security. Within
the past couple of years, a growing number of courts and locations that once favored these laws are looking to
reform or abolish residency restrictions altogether.


The first state law restricting where sex offenders can live was passed in Florida in 1995. This law only applied to
registrants on probation who had abused minor victims, this law created 1,000-foot buffer zones around schools,
parks, playgrounds, day care centers, and other places where children congregate. By 2004, 15 states had enacted
similar legislation [2]. As of 2011, at least 30 states have residency laws prohibiting sex offenders from living within a
specified distance of schools, day cares, parks, wherever children congregate, ranging from 500 to 2500 feet; in
addition, about 400 municipalities have similar ordinances [3].
Of the 30 states with residency restrictions:

  1. Five prohibit offenders from coming within 2,000 feet of a restricted area
  2. Two prohibit them from coming within 1,500 feet
  3. Twelve prohibit them from coming within 1,000 feet
  4. In eleven states, offenders are required to maintain a distance that is less than 1,000 feet, variable, or
    undefined, or there are special prohibitions on specific locations (such as college dormitories)
  5. Only nine specify that the sex offense that led to the restriction must have involved a child

In addition, some state ordinances have effectively banished sex offenders from entire cities, where population
density makes it almost impossible to find legal residences that meet the standards of the residency laws [4].


"They don't work." -- Kansas Corrections Secretary Roger Werholz [5]

Residency restrictions do not work, and they actually make things more dangerous rather than make them safer.
That was the conclusion of the state of Kansas after researching the impact of residency restriction laws. To early
and important studies have in circulation for years, one from Colorado, and the other from Minnesota, which it
already shown residency restrictions to be an effective and possibly counterproductive.

In 2003, the Minnesota Department of Corrections conducted a study on residency restrictions; using case studies
of recidivism, they found no correlation between proximity to schools and recidivism. They added, “Enhanced safety
due to proximity restrictions may be a comfort factor or the general public, but it does not have any basis in fact [
A follow-up study in 2007 also failed to find any correlation between geography and recidivism. Of the 224 offenders
who met set criteria that included a previous offense to the offender’s residence and had a minor victim, not one
offense would've been deterred by a proximity law. Recidivism was correlated to “social or relationship” proximity
rather than residential proximity; 49% of the recidivists committed their offense more than a mile from their homes.
The possible deterrent effect was therefore “slim” due to the rarity of the offenses it was trying to protect [

In 2004, the Colorado Department of Public Safety's Sex Offender Management Board also released a study failing
to find any correlation between proximity to schools and recidivism. In addition, the study found recidivists were no
more likely to live close to schools by choice than those who did not reoffend. The study found that so-called
“shared living arrangements” benefited those on the registry and made them less likely to reoffend [

Residency restrictions were based upon the premise that those who sexually offend against children would be more
likely to live close to where children congregate, like schools were day cares. However, the 2008 New Jersey study
found that those on the public registry with child victims actually lived further from schools than the average
population and even other sex offenders [9]. Thus, he more likely scenario is that individuals on the registry are
more likely to live in low income urban areas as a result of higher limits, and as a consequence, are more likely to be
forced to live near schools and other areas where children may congregate[10].


In 2007, a report by the Cincinnati Enquirer on residency restrictions found that a local ordinance increasing the
number of restricted zones from the statewide restriction against schools and day care centers and adding YMCAs,
Boys and Girls Clubs, public pools, and city run recreation centers increased the number of unavailable housing
units from 44% to 60% [11]. While theoretically, 40% of Cincinnati's apartment units are available to those on the
registry, the reality is few people are willing to rent to one on the registry. A 2006 study by Once Fallen found out of
131 apartments found in the newspaper renting for $400 or less, only three of them (1.5%) were willing to rent to a
registered person with the property known to meet the state requirements of 1000 feet from a school or day care
center [

A similar study released to the Broward County, Florida task force in 2009 found that even after removing bus stops
from the 2500 foot restricted zones, not one property in the county could be found for a registrant to legally live.
Even increasing the statewide standard of 1000 feet to 1200 feet decreased available housing by 40%. Even then,
the study overestimated available housing by not including bus stops. The task force referred to a study conducted
in Orange County which found 99.6% of all housing was within 2500 feet of a bus stop, and 90% of potential
housing units were within 1000 feet of bus stops [13].


It should go without saying trying to find adequate housing for a registered citizen is like the proverbial game of
finding the needle in the haystack; thus, these laws are bound to have a negative impact on those forced to register
as sex offenders.

A study conducted by Levenson and Cotter examined the impact of residency laws in 2005, and found the following:

  • I have had to move out of a home that I owned because of the 1,000-ft rule- 22%
  • I have had to move out of an apartment that I rented - 28%
  • When released from prison, I was unable to return to my home- 25%
  • I have been unable to live with supportive family members - 44%
  • I find it difficult to find affordable housing because of the 1,000-ft rule- 57%
  • I have suffered financially because of the 1,000-ft rule- 48%
  • I have suffered emotionally because of the 1,000-ft rule- 60% [14]

The stress and negative impact extends beyond the registrant and into the lives of the loved ones of the registrant
as well, including children, wives, and immediate family members. A second Levenson study found employment
problems for RSOs resulted in financial hardships for the rest of the family. Housing problems were less common,
with less than one quarter reporting that they had to move due to sex offender notification. Almost half, however,
reported being threatened or harassed by neighbors, 27% had their property damaged, and 7% said they were
physically assaulted by someone. As the residential buffer zone increased, family members were more likely to
experience adverse consequences [

Ultimately, the laws create an environment that may increase a return to a life of crime. The laws have had many
adverse consequences, such as vigilantism, loss of employment, residence, and relationships, difficulty in obtaining
suitable housing, and incentives to violate existing registration laws [16]. As we shall see in our case study of Iowa,
residency laws had a number of adverse consequences.

The difficulty of finding adequate housing leads to increases in homelessness among registrants. A few extreme
cases involving homelessness have shed light on this unconsidered consequence. In 2009, Thomas Pauli, Michigan
registrant, died of hypothermia after being denied shelter because shelters were too close to schools [
17]; Pauli’s
death eventually led to a lawsuit forcing Michigan to allow emergency shelter to homeless registrants during
inclement weather [
18]. In Georgia, a registrant was facing life in prison for being unable to register due to
homelessness. The sheriff’s office maintains being homeless was “not an acceptable excuse” for failing to register
an address [
19]. In Alabama, a policy of immediately charging those unable to establish a residence upon release
from prison due to indigence with a failure to register charge was finally overturned by a state appellate court in
2010, after an untold number of individuals were sent back to prison for being homeless [

So-called “sex offender clusters”, areas with higher numbers of registrants, have been created as those registrants
who choose to obey the law live in that small percentage of land where they can still legally reside. This has caused
some cities to consider anti-clustering laws, laws limiting the number of registrants living at one address[


In 2005, Iowa passed what was at the time the most restrictive residency law in the country. Those forced to register
as sex offenders could not reside within 2000 feet of any place children congregate. The impact of the law was
immediate. Rural motels and trailer parks were filled with registrants as they flock to the few places left in the state
where they could legally reside. One hotel with 24 rooms had 26 registered citizens at the address. Other
registrants were left homeless and sleeping out of the back of their cars and trucks. Authorities reported three times
as many registrants missing in the year after the residency law began than the year before (from 140 to 400). The
city of Dubuque reported 90% of the city was off-limits. Another sheriff claimed that he used to know where 90% of
the registrants in his county resided, but after the residency law took effect, he barely knows where half reside [
By 2007, about 700 of the states 6000 registrants moved out of state or fled the country, while there was an
increase of arrests of registrants for giving false addresses [23].

The 2007 Iowa monitoring report found that the number of sex crime convictions actually increased in the two years
following the enactment of the 2000 foot residency restriction. In the year prior to the enactment of the law ending
August 2005, there were 913 sex crime charges filed, with 433 ending in conviction. In the year following enactment
of the law, between September 2005 and August 2006, there were 928 sex abuse charges filed, and 445 were
convicted. Between September 2006 and August 2007, there were 1095 charges filed, and 490 convictions. The
residency restriction laws had no positive impact on reducing sex crimes in the state. The number of failure to
register convictions increased from 258 the year before the residency restriction was enacted to 442 the year after,
in addition to 137 convictions for violating residency restriction laws. [24].

As early as 2007, Iowa, Georgia, and Oklahoma were among the states looking to reform or repeal residency
restrictions. In addition, the state of Kansas passed a moratorium preventing individual municipalities from creating
their own residency restriction laws [
25]. The move to repeal residency restriction laws even included the Iowa
County Attorneys Association, an organization of county prosecutors, which released a statement in 2006 in favor of
repealing the state’s restrictions [
26]. The law was not fully repealed (for political reasons), but in 2009, the law was
scaled back from applying to all sex offenders with a crime against a minor to applying to only those with “the most
serious sex crimes against children.” The number of those living under the residency restrictions was reduced from
4300 to 1200 forced to comply with residency laws. Of those 1200 still living under residency laws, however, the
homelessness and stress that increases the likelihood of recidivism remain [


There is no bigger example of the negative impact of sex offender residency restrictions than the Julia Tuttle
Causeway (JTC) sex offender camp in Miami, where registrants were forced to live under a bridge in Miami, Florida.

After most South Florida cities passed 2500 foot residency restrictions (exceeding the statewide 1000 foot
restriction), the first residents of what was known as the JTC sex offender colony moved under the Julia Tuttle
Causeway overpass in Miami around the beginning of 2007, after some were forced out of an empty lot near
downtown Miami after it was discovered the lot bordered a center for sexually abused children [
28]. Between 2007
and 2010, the number of registrants forced to live under the bridge swelled to as many as 140. At one time, the city
had declared a nearby deserted island 1200 feet away a “public park” to try to force the state to disband the camp
[29].The Florida ACLU fought the ordinance but a judge ruled the city was allowed to set its own ordinances, thus
the 2500-foot restriction was upheld [30].

At the heart of the push for 2500 foot residency restrictions was powerful and corrupt South Florida lobbyist Ron
Book. After discovering his female nanny had physically and sexually abused his daughter, Lauren Book, Ron (with
help of his daughter’s story) championed increased residency laws for about 60 cities and counties in Florida [
The link between Ron Book and the JTC colony was so direct that those who lived there came to call it “Bookville”
[32]. Adding to the difficulties of those registrants in need of adequate housing, Ron Book is also the head of Miami-
Dade County’s Homeless Trust. Book refused to provide any services to those under the camp [33] until
“unintended consequences” and public pressure caused the Books to re-evaluate their stance on the 2500-foot law.

Unlike Iowa, legislators in Florida have never considered repealing residency restrictions. In fact, one considered
“solution” involved creating a statewide standard of 1500 feet, increasing statewide residency laws by 500 feet [
Embarrassed by the international embarrassment and loss of tourism the the camp had caused for Miami [35], the
city chose instead to sweep the incident under the rug. In early 2010, the city dismantled the Bookville camp under
the Julia Tuttle Causeway and relocated the registrants to temporary housing [36].

Ron Book found himself cleaning up the same mess he created with his championing of residency restrictions. Not
long after some registrants were relocated into one hotel, the hotel broke the agreement and evicted the registrants
37]. Book was heckled at a town hall meeting in the Shorecrest community by locals dissatisfied with former JTC
registrants moving into the community [38]. However, when the temporary leases ran out, Book blamed the
impending homelessness on the registrants’ inability to find employment [39].

The registrants had been scattered throughout the few locations still legal for registrants to live, including the
Shorecrest community. In response to the growing camp in an empty lot, the Shorecrest community literally created
a makeshift park out of 2 rusty old toys and a metal carport and dubbed it “Little River Pocket Park.” City
Commissioner Marc Sarnoff even admitted the park was created to stop more registrants from entering Shorecrest

In 2011, a survey of information from the state registry found of Miami-Dade County’s 1960 registrants, 236 had
absconded, and 191 were homeless [41].


Residency restrictions have faced many legal challenges since they were first implemented. However, the highest
court decision on residency restrictions was
Doe v. Miller (2005) [42], in which a three-judge panel upheld Iowa’s
2000-foot residency restriction. In Doe v. Miller, the courts ruled “the Constitution of the United States does not
prevent the State of Iowa from regulating the residency of sex offenders in this manner in order to protect the health
and safety of the citizens of Iowa”… “A majority of the panel further concludes that the statute does not amount to
unconstitutional ex post facto punishment of persons who committed offenses prior to July 1, 2002, because the
appellees have not established by the ‘clearest proof,’ as required by Supreme Court precedent, that the punitive
effect of the statute overrides the General Assembly's legitimate intent to enact a nonpunitive, civil regulatory
measure that protects health and safety.”

In short, the 8th Circuit had followed the argument from
Smith v. Doe (2003) and Kansas v. Hendricks (1997), two
previous laws also finding sex offender laws are “non-punitive" in nature. In light of the research and experiences of
a number of jurisdictions that have passed residency laws over the years, the courts would be hard-pressed to
make the same conclusions.

Some of the earliest court decisions came from the Iowa. In the Southern District of Iowa’s ruling of
Doe v. Miller [43],
the same case eventually overturned by the 8th Circuit, the US District Court had ruled the law  violated Ex Post
Facto, the 14th Amendment’s procedural and substantive Due Process, and the 5th Amendment’s safeguard  
against self-incrimination. Even in overturning the decision, the dissenting opinion by 8th US Circuit judge Melloy
determined the laws violate Ex Post Facto, is punitive as historical banishment, serves traditional aims of
punishment, imposes an affirmative disability or restraint, and is excessive in meeting its goals. A 2006 Iowa case
also ruled “Residency restrictions are a severe restriction of the defendant’s liberty rights…defendant’s rights to
substantive due process has been violated” [44]  Unfortunately, the Iowa Supreme Court overturned the lower court
ruling [
45]. Of interesting note is Iowa’s Supreme Court denies the right to shelter as a fundamental right.

In both of the higher court rulings on the Iowa cases, however, they did not necessarily state the right to protect the
public from sex offenders trumped individual rights; the higher courts ruled that the registrants have failed to prove
otherwise. Indeed, most of our understanding on the impact of the registration laws has been discovered only after
the laws have been implemented.

While some of the early victories in Lynn, Massachusetts [46] and Oklahoma [
47] were based more on technicalities
than Constitutional issues, later court decisions have ruled on the constitutionality of the residency laws.

Ohio was one of the first states to rule residency laws were indeed punitive schemes. In
Mikaloff v. Walsh (2007)
48], the Northern District Court of Ohio ruled that Ohio’s residency restrictions violate Ex Post Fact laws, also noting
the laws are punitive and excessive to their stated purpose. The second strike to Ohio’s residency restrictions came
Hyle v. Porter (2008) [49]; the Ohio Supreme Court determined because R.C. 2950.031 was not expressly made
retrospective, it does not apply to an offender who bought his home and committed his offense before the effective
date of the statute. The
Hyle ruling was validated by the latter case of State ex rel. White v. Billings (2008) [50].
While residency laws still exist in Ohio, the courts have determined the laws cannot be retroactively applied to any
registrant convicted before July 31, 2003, regardless if the registrant rents or owns a home [

In Mann v. Georgia Dept. of Corrections (2007) [52], Georgia's Supreme Court strikes  down state law as over-
broad, considered the law punishment, and recognized the law essentially exiles sex offenders from Georgia. What
makes this particular decision interesting (and difficult to understand) is the argument based upon the “takings
clause” of the Fifth Amendment; the typical arguments on the takings clause generally involve the practice of
“Eminent Domain,” the governmental taking of private property for developmental purposes. The Court determined
“functionally equivalent to the classic taking in which government directly ousts the owner from his domain…
Looking to the magnitude and character of the burden OCGA § 42-1- 15 imposes on the property rights of
registered sex offenders and how that burden is distributed among property owners…we conclude that, under the
circumstances present here, justice requires that the burden of safeguarding minors from encounters with
registered sexual offenders must be "spread among taxpayers through the payment of compensation."… 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.” Since the ruling, Georgia has revised the state residency
restrictions, with the level of residency restrictions determined by the date of conviction [53].

In Kentucky, the state Supreme Court in
Commonwealth v. Baker (2009) [54] ruled “even though the General
Assembly did not intend the statute to be punitive, the residency restrictions are so punitive in effect as to negate
any intention to deem them civil. Therefore, the retroactive application of KRS 17.545 is an ex post facto
punishment, which violates Article I, Section 10 of the United States Constitution, and Section 19(1) of the Kentucky

Indiana v. Pollard (2009) [55], the court looked at seven “Mendoza-Martinez” factors weighed against each other
in determining a law’s intent:

  1. Whether the sanction involves an affirmative disability or restraint,
  2. Whether it has historically been regarded as a punishment,
  3. Whether it comes into play only on a finding of scienter,
  4. Whether its operation will promote the traditional aims of punishment-retribution and deterrence,
  5. Whether the behavior to which it applies is already a crime,
  6. Whether an alternative purpose to which it may rationally be connected is assignable for it, and
  7. Whether it appears excessive in relation to the alternative purpose assigned.”

“Of the seven factors identified by
Mendoza-Martinez as relevant to the inquiry of whether a statute has a punitive
effect, only two factors – finding of scienter and advancing a non-punitive interest – point in favor of treating the
effects of the Act as non-punitive. The remaining factors, particularly the factor of excessiveness, point in the other
direction… as applied to Pollard, the statute violates the prohibition on ex post facto laws contained in the Indiana
Constitution because it imposes burdens that have the effect of adding punishment beyond that which could have
been imposed when his crime was committed.”

New Jersey’s state court in
GH v Township of Galloway (2009) [56] ruled they “hold that Cherry Hill Township's and
Galloway Township's ordinances, establishing residency restrictions that formed buffer zones for convicted sex
offenders living within their communities, are precluded by the present, stark language of Megan's Law. It is that
language which controls.” In other words, local ordinances were pre-empted by the state’s Megan’s Law, which had
no residency law provisions, which upheld the lower court decision of preemption. The lower court had not
considered the constitutional issues raised by the trial courts because of their ruling on the preemption clause [57].

Pennsylvania’s decision in
Fross et al. v. County of Allegheny (2010) [58] made a similar preemptive clause ruling to
the ruling in New Jersey. In striking Allegheny County’s 2500 foot ordinance, the courts stated “the ordinance
appears to attempt to ensure public safety, in certain parts of Allegheny County, by isolating all Megan's Law
registrants in localized penal colonies of sorts, without any consideration of the General Assembly's policies of
rehabilitation and reintegration… The County’s legislative effort in this instance undermines the General Assembly’s
policies of rehabilitation, reintegration, and diversion from prison of appropriate offenders, and significantly
interferes with the operation of the Sentencing and Parole Codes. For these reasons, we agree with the federal
district court that the County’s Ordinance stands as an obstacle to accomplishing the full purposes objectives of the
General Assembly and is, therefore, preempted.”

Finally, in
People v. Mosley (2008) [59], the California Appellate Court concluded, “based on our analysis of the
salient Mendoza-Martinez factors, Jessica’s Law’s residency restriction has an overwhelming punitive effect. It
effectuates traditional banishment under a different name, interferes with the right to use and enjoy real property
near schools and parks, and subjects housing choices to government approval like parole or probation. It
affirmatively restrains the right to choose a home and limits the right to live with one’s family. It deters recidivism and
comes close to imposing retribution on offenders... The severe punitive effect of Jessica’s Law’s residency
requirement clearly outweighs the proclaimed lack of regulatory, non-punitive intent... Because the residency
restriction is punitive, its imposition by the court increases the penalty for a nonsexual offense beyond the
prescribed statutory maximum based upon the jury verdict alone.” Because the Residency Restriction Imposes a
Penalty Beyond the Prescribed Statutory Maximum, It Triggers the Right to a Jury Trial.


Residency Laws are popular but ineffective laws. They have never been proven to be an effective crime control
measure; instead, studies and actual experiences with residency restrictions have suggested these laws increase
instability and create incentives to commit new crimes. Failure to register charges, homelessness, and even overall
sex crime rates have increased in accordance with these laws. The more restrictive the law, the less available
housing becomes available, compelling those registrants trying to live by the letter of the law to reside in the few
unrestricted areas left in the area, forming clusters.

Iowa and South Florida had both passed tough residency laws with disastrous consequences. Iowa found an
increase of homeless and absconding offenders, an increase of sex crime arrests and convictions, and clustering of
registrants; in 2009, they scaled back residency laws for most registrants, but of the few that still must abide by the
law, the same problems are still in effect. In Miami-Dade County, the homeless offenders have been shuffled around
various locations across the county, from parking lots to under a bridge. Unlike Iowa, Florida legislators and courts
continue to justify their laws and even seek to increase statewide restrictions as a “solution” to South Florida’s
difficulties with the residency laws.

While the 2005 Doe v. Miller case upheld residency restrictions based on the civil/ regulatory argument of Smith v.
Doe case of 2003, subsequent courts have disagreed with the findings of the 8th Circuit Courts. Courts applying the
“Mendoza-Martinez” factors have determined residency restrictions are so onerous they cross the threshold into
punitive regardless of intent. The restrictions are essentially a modern day banishment, meet the traditional aims of
punishment/ retribution, and are excessive in their stated purpose. In regards to property owners, the act of forcing
a registrant out of his or her home is similar to Eminent Domain or similar laws, and thus violates the Fifth
Amendment protection against taking without just compensation. Other states have ruled that the traditional goals of
rehabilitation and corrections, and even the alleged “civil” goals of Megan’s law overrule or preempt the goals of
residency restrictions.

For now, Residency Laws are still on the books in many locations, though a growing number of locations are
reluctantly repealing their laws. In light of the large amount of previously unconsidered consequences created by
these laws, I think abolishment of all residency laws is a wise choice.


  1. http://www.pacourts.us/OpPosting/Supreme/out/J-79-2010mo.pdf
  2. Wright, Richard (2009) Sex Offender Laws: Failed Policies, New Directions NY, NY: Springer Publishing.  p.
  3. Ewing, Charles P. (2011)  Justice Perverted: Sex Offense Law, Psychology, and Public Policy. NY, NY: Oxford
    University Press. p.83
  4. Velazquez, Tracy. (2008) The Pursuit of Safety: Sex Offender Policy in the United States. Vera Institute of
    Justice. p.19
  5. Bauman, Ben. (May 5, 2008) do residency Restrictions for sex offenders work? State of Kansas says no.
    KTLA. Retrieved from http://www.ktka.com/news/2008/may/19/do_residency_restrictions_sex_offenders_work/
  6. Minnesota Dept. of Corrections (2003) Level Three Sex Offenders- Treatment Placement Issues. p. 19.
    Retrieved from http://www.doc.state.mn.us/publications/legislativereports/pdf/2004/Lvl%203%20SEX%
  7. Minnesota Department of Corrections, (April 2007) Residential Proximity and Sex Offense Recidivism in
    Minnesota. Retrieved from http://www.doc.state.mn.us/documents/04-07SexOffenderReport-Proximity.pdf
  8. Colorado Dept. of Public Safety, Sex Offender Management Board (March 2004) Report on Safety Issues
    Raised By Living Arrangements For And Location Of Sex Offenders In The Community. Retrieved from http:
  9. Chajewski, M., & Mercado, C. C. (2008). An analysis of sex offender residency restrictions in Newark, New
    Jersey. Sex offender law report, 9, 1–6.
  10. Wright, Sex offenders, p. 276-277
  11. Jessica Brown (May 1, 2007) Law Pushes Sex Offenders to Suburbs. Cincinnati Enquirer
    HOUSING: A practical analysis. Once Fallen. Retrieved from http://www.oncefallen.com/HousingStudy2006.
  13. (2009) Final Report: Sexual Offender & Sexual Predator Residence Task Force. Broward County, FL.
  14. Levenson, Jill and Cotter, Leo (2005) The Impact of Sex Offender Residency Restrictions: 1000 Feet From
    Danger or One Step From Absurd? International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology,
    p. 173, Sex Offender Survey. Retrieved from http://ccoso.org/1000feet_rule.pdf
  15. Levenson, Jill, and Tewksbury, Richard (2009) Collateral Damage: Family Members of Registered Sex
    Offenders. Retrieved from http://opd.ohio.gov/AWA_Information/AW_levenson_family_impact_study.pdf
  16. LaFond, John Q. (2005) Preventing Sexual Violence: How Society Should Cope With Sex Offenders. APA. P.
    113-116, 118
  17. Rademacher, Tom (Jan. 29, 2009) Death of homeless sex offender in Grand Rapids poses questions.
    Michigan Live. Retrieved from http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.
  18. Kolker, Ken. (Dec. 29, 2011) Homeless win frozen death lawsuit. Grand Rapids, MI. WOOD-TV8. Retrieved
  19. Dewan, Shaila (August 3, 2007) Homelessness Could Mean Life in Prison for Offender. New York Times.
    Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/03/us/03homeless.html
  20. AP (Nov. 5, 2010) Alabama's sex offender notification law can't apply to homeless, state appeals court rules.
    AL.com. Retrieved from http://blog.al.com/wire/2010/11/alabamas_sex_offender_notifica.html
  21. Leinwald, Donna (Jan. 10, 2012) Restrictions create sex offender clusters. USA Today. Retrieved from http:
  22. Davey, Monica. (March 15th, 2006) Iowa’s Residency Restrictions Drive Sex Offenders Underground. New
    York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/15/national/15offenders.html?
  23. Rood, Lee. (April 1st, 2007)  Data: Sex Offenders Fleeing The State. Des Moines Register.
  24. Blood, Phyllis;  Watson, Lanette; and Stageberg, Paul. (Feb. 2008) State Legislation Monitoring Report:
    FY2007. Iowa Department of Human Rights Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning
  25. Koh, Wendy. (Feb, 26, 2007) Sex-offender residency laws get second look. USA Today. Retrieved from http:
  26. Iowa County Attorneys Association. (Feb. 14, 2006) Statement on Residency Restrictions in Iowa. Retrieved
    from http://www.iowa-icaa.com/ICAA%20STATEMENTS/Sex%20Offender%20Residency%20Statement%
  27. Ickes, Barb. (Oct. 17, 2010) Iowa law clusters sex offenders in Davenport trailer park. Sioux City Journal.
    Retrieved from http://siouxcityjournal.com/news/state-and-regional/iowa/article_69cc479c-d9e9-11df-93e8-
  28. Zarrella, John and Oppmann, Patrick. (April 6, 2007) Florida housing sex offenders under bridge. CNN.
    Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/04/05/bridge.sex.offenders/
  29. Knipe, Julie (July 10, 2009). Sex offenders sue over Julia Tuttle bridge colony. The Miami Herald.
  30. Strict Miami-Dade sex-offender law to remain in place. The Miami Herald (September 18, 2009).
  31. Skipp, Catharine. (July 24, 2009) A Bridge Too Far. Newsweek. Retrieved from http://www.thedailybeast.
  32. Jonas, Valerie and Bradley, Walter G. (Nov. 5, 2011) The end of ‘Bookville’ homeless camp under the Tuttle?
    Miami Herald.
  33. Grimm, Fred. (March 4, 2009) Lobbyist pushed laws that push outcasts into homelessness.
  34. Aronberg, Dave. (April 30, 2008) When Well-Intentioned Laws Backfire. South Florida Sun-Sentinel.
    Retrieved from http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/opinion/sfl-opedonline042908,0,5322368.story
  35. Sex Offender 'Eyesore' Hurts Tourism: BBC Profiles Shantytown Under Julia Tuttle. (July 7, 2009) Just News/
    Local 10 Miami.
  36. Brown, Julie. (Feb. 26, 2010) Julia Tuttle Causeway sex offender enclave being dismantled. Miami Herald.
  37. Fla. sex offenders who lived under bridge evicted. (April 21, 2010) WSVN-7 Miami. Retrieved from http://www.
  38. Karantsalis, Theo (May 18, 2010) Officials in Miami try to allay neighbors' sex-offender fears. Miami Herald.
  39. Samuels, Robert. (July 26, 2010) For sex offenders, wandering awaits. Miami Herald.
  40. Rabin, Charles. (April 13, 2012) Miami creates pop-up park to stanch flow of sex offenders to Shorecrest
    sidewalk. Miami Herald. Retrieved from http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/04/13/2746967/miami-creates-pop-
  41. Jonas, Valerie and Bradley, Walter G. (Nov. 5, 2011) The end of ‘Bookville’ homeless camp under the Tuttle?
    Miami Herald.
  42. Doe v. Miller, No. 04-1568 (8th Cir. Apr. 29, 2005), Retrieved from http://www.ca8.uscourts.
  43. Doe v. Miller (US Dist. Ct., So. Dist. IA, Davenport Div. Case # 3:03-cv-90067, 2002)
  44. State v. Benjamin David Groves, 05771-AGCR-199229 (Polk Co. Iowa 2006)
  45. State of Iowa v. Groves, No. 123 / 06-1233 (Dec. 7, 2007) Retrieved from http://www.iowacourts.
  46. Jourgense, Thor (Aug 16, 2006) Revere Sex Offender Law Dismissed. Daily Item of Lynn, Massachusetts
    2006: Chelsea District Court magistrate dismissed the case against a Level 3 sex offender, and the state later
    chose not to pursue the case any further.
  47. ACLU SETTLES SEX OFFENDER LAWSUIT. ACLU. Retrieved from http://acluok.org/2008/06/aclu-settles-sex-
    offender-lawsuit/ --Oklahoma: the ACLU settled a suit involving a sex  offender who was being forced out of a
    residence after the house had already been pre-approved by the  sheriff’s office
  48. Mikaloff v. Walsh, Case No. 5:06-cv-00096, US Dist. Ct., ND Ohio, (2007), Retrieved from http://opd.ohio.
  49. Hyle v. Porter, 117 Ohio St.3d 165, 2008-Ohio-542, Retrieved from http://www.sconet.state.oh.
  50. State ex rel. White v. Billings, 117 Ohio St.3d 536, 2008-Ohio-1590.
  51. Slagle, Margie. (Apr. 10, 2008) Ohio Supreme Court reiterates sex offender residency restriction cannot be
    applied retroactively. Ohio Justice and Policy Center (Press Release). Retrieved from http://www.ohiojpc.
  52. Mann v. Georgia Dept. of Corrections, Case # S07A1043 (GA Sup Ct 2007)
  53. Gurr, Stephen. (June 3, 2010) Restrictions lifted for most sex offenders. Gainesville Times. Retrieved from
    http://www.gainesvilletimes.com/archives/33912/. Here are the 2010 revisions to Georgia’s sex offender law:
  • Persons who committed offenses prior to June 4, 2003, are not restricted in where they can live or work.
  • Persons who committed offenses between June 4, 2003, and June 30, 2006, cannot live within 1,000
    feet of facilities providing services or programs directed toward persons under 18 years of age.
  • Persons who committed offenses between July 1, 2006, and June 30, 2008, cannot live with 1,000 feet
    of a child care facility, church, school, public park, private park, playground or community swimming
    pool and cannot work within 1,000 feet of a child care facility, school or church.
  • Persons who committed offenses on or after July 1, 2008, cannot live within 1,000 feet of places where
    children congregate, cannot work within 1,000 feet of a child care facility, school or church, and cannot
    volunteer at a child care facility, school or church.
  • Persons on the registry can petition a superior court judge for release from registration requirements
    and from residency or employment restrictions under certain special circumstances.
  • Persons on the sex offender registry can be homeless, provided they notify sheriff’s officials of the
    location where they sleep and notify them of any change in that location within 72 hours.
  • Persons on the sex offender registry are no longer required to provide law enforcement officials with
    their e-mail addresses, user names and passwords.
  1. Commonwealth v. Baker, No. 2007-SC-000347-CL (Oct. 1, 2009), Retrieved from http://caselaw.findlaw.
  2. Indiana v. Pollard, Case # 05S02-0906-CR-305 [Sup. Ct. IN, June 30, 2009], Retrieved from http://www.in.
  3. GH v Township of Galloway, A-64/65-08, (NJ Sup Ct May 2009), Retrieved from http://www.leagle.
  4. G.H. v. TOWNSHIP OF GALLOWAY, 951 A.2d 221 (2008), 401 N.J. Super. 392 – “The trial courts in both
    cases invalidated the ordinances, finding them preempted by state law and violative of the due process, ex
    post facto and double jeopardy clauses of the New Jersey Constitution. We affirm. We hold that the
    ordinances are preempted by state law and therefore invalid. Because we decide the appeals on preemption
    grounds, we do not address the constitutional issues.”
  5. Charles Fross, et al., v. County of Allegheny, Aplt, No. 17 WAP (2010), Retrieved from http://www.pacourts.
  6. People v. Mosley, Case No. G038379 (Cali. App. Ct, 4th Dist, Div. 3,  2008)
NOTE: This article is an up-to-date article version of my original Residency Restrictions Fact Page. The
fact guide in outline format is still available and will also be updated to reflect the updates on this article