October 30, 2009
Kentucky AG talking about appealing sex offender residency restriction ruling to SCOTUSI have long thought it's only a matter of time before the US Supreme Court is called upon to resolve various constitutional issues that arise in the enforcement of state residency restrictions on sex offenders. And, as detailed in this local article, which is headlined "AG To Ask US Supreme Court To Hear Sex Offender Law: Kentucky Supreme Court Says Part Of Law Unconstitutional," an ex post facto case from the Bluegrass State could be on its way to the Justices. Here are the basics:
Hundreds of sex offenders could be living next to schools and day care centers. Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway said that could happen if a state law is not protected. Conway said he's going to file a request for the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case.
It came after Kentucky's Supreme Court ruled the 2006 law limiting where sex offenders can live is unconstitutional for offenders whose cases pre-date that law....
In 2006, a new Kentucky law went into effect limiting all sex offender registrants ... from living within 1,000 feet of a school a day care center or a playground. The state's Supreme Court ruled it was unconstitutional to enforce that law with offenders who were registered before the law went into effect.
Conway has asked the Supreme Court to delay implementing that ruling until the U.S. Supreme Court decides whether or not to review the case. In a statement released Thursday, Conway said, "I have serious concerns about how the Kentucky Supreme Court's ruling will affect public safety. And in the interest of protecting Kentucky families, I will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to hear our case."
The ruling that the Kentucky AG is eager to appeal came in in Kentucky v. Baker, No. 2007-SC-000347-CI (Ky. Oct. 1, 2009), and it is available here.
October 30, 2009 at 11:46 AM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Kentucky AG talking about appealing sex offender residency restriction ruling to SCOTUS:
Perhaps you or some of the intelligent readers of this blog can answer a question which befuddles me: How can a state A.G. legally refuse the abide by a state Supreme Court ruling ? Isn't refusal to do so a breach of his oath?
Posted by: constitutionalfights | Oct 31, 2009 1:16:21 PM
"Kentucky probation and parole officers are enforcing a law that restricts where registered sex offenders can live despite a recent ruling by the Kentucky Supreme Court that says the law doesn’t apply to those convicted before July 2006.
The state Department of Corrections has continued enforcing the law because Attorney General Jack Conway has asked the state’s high court to suspend their ruling while he appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court.
“Our position is that the Supreme Court decision is not final,” said Lisa Lamb, spokeswoman for the state Department of Corrections. “We believe the former law is still in effect.”
Posted by: constitutionalfights | Oct 31, 2009 1:18:44 PM
The action taken by Kentucky is a prime example of government agents cherry picking which rules they want to follow and when. They actually expect citizens to follow the rules when some Kentucky bureaucrats decide that they don't have to follow law as decided by their own state supreme court. I would say that depending on when the Kentucky Supreme Court decision becomes final- That is the law! Until a higher court grants a some kind of stay or injunction.
People need to demand that these officials are fired for violating their oath of office and the LAW. These officials feel they can get away with it because any mention of sexual offenders automatically entitles those "protecting" society with powers of a monarchy.
Posted by: aaaaburn | Nov 1, 2009 6:51:57 PM
i agree this is a CRIME and anyone not obeying the new ruling should be arrested and locked up. I'm still waiting for one of the lawyers here to explain and show me just when they got the power to ask a court for a glorified "DO-OVER"
here i always understood if you disagreed with a courts ruling you had two choices...
1. Accept it and give up!
2. APPEAL and get it overruled by a HIGHER COURT!
not ask the one that just basically told you to kiss off that they should either reconsider their decision or withhold it.
Posted by: rodsmith3510 | Nov 2, 2009 4:51:18 PM
of couse i guess this means the ex sexoffenders could use this as a basic for them to tell the state to F off that they refuse to obey any sex offender law as they intend to appeal them to the u.s supreme court...SOMETIME.
Posted by: rodsmith3510 | Nov 2, 2009 4:52:44 PM
What I would like to know is this:since the decision was upheld,does this mean that sex offenders are going to be allowed to live where they deem necessary, or is this only for the ones that were convicted before 2006?I am a student.
Posted by: Michael S. McDougal | Nov 5, 2009 10:58:00 PM
I've been a fan of playboy ever since i found a stack in my dad's closet. Why? because the articles are great! that was years ago and i still fight my boyfriend for the chance to read it first. It's one the few magazines left that you can really read. I'm so sick of the female magazines that tell you how to please your man and all that junk. you only hve to buy one mag and you know all the information for the next 11 issues.
Posted by: Mark | Nov 22, 2009 1:28:26 AM