September 28, 2011
Arizona locality approves ordinance banning sex offenders from all public facilities
As detailed in this local story, which is headlined "Huachuca City bans sex offenders from public facilities," a locality in Arizona has enacted a uniquely broad ban on sex offenders in public spaces. Here are the details:
In a bold and unprecedented move for an Arizona jurisdiction, the town of Huachuca City is cracking down on registered sex offenders by banning them from all public facilities. Mayor and council unanimously approved the ordinance last Thursday, which is set to take effect late October.
“As a town and as a community, we have to protect our children. As a council, we have to make the right calls,” Mayor Byron Robertson told KGUN9 News. “Our police chief indicated that we were having a serious problem with some pedophiles that were being a nuisance and we took steps to overcome that.”
The ordinance creates “child safety zones,” by banning all registered sex offenders from schools, parks, libraries, pools, gymnasiums, sports fields and sports facilities. Sex offenders must pay $100 fine per violation; repeat offenders will be charged with trespassing.
Police say they’ll rely on tips from the community as well as heavy patrolling to enforce the ordinance. “I don’t want to make it sound like Big Brother is watching, but we do have a file on sex offenders in the area, complete with photographs, so our officers will hopefully recognize them,” said Lt. Jennifer Fuller, a spokesperson for the Huachuca City Police Department.
Fuller said the impetus for the ordinance stems from a recent incident, in which a registered sex offender spent time loitering around the public pool and taking photographs, making parents and children uncomfortable....
There are exceptions: Sex offenders may enter public facilities to pick up their children, vote in an election, or to discuss with someone their kids’ health or education.
September 28, 2011 at 06:01 PM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Arizona locality approves ordinance banning sex offenders from all public facilities:
I have no interest in kids and it never occurred to me to take pictures of them at a pool, but my camera has a 700x zoom that works very well on a tripod. I'll send you some pictures, Mr. Not Big Brother, you fucking idiot.
Posted by: Rebel | Sep 28, 2011 6:15:22 PM
yet another reason to not visit Arizona.
Posted by: virginia | Sep 28, 2011 6:28:36 PM
seriously, can someone explain why this one state has come up with so many stupid laws and local ordinances? Not to mention Sheriff Joe and that other guy who constantly shows up on Fox News talking about how scary the Mexican border is despite being from a county which does not even border on Mexico.
I'll all for keeping kids safe from icky pervs, but considering that most sexual assaults of children take place in the home by people known to the victim, this ordinance is just stupid hysteria that creates no safety for people. Really, doesn't it make more sense to restrict the icky perv who was out taking photos - maybe find something they can put him in jail on - rahter than passing something like this.
Of course, I suspect that if they learned that most sexual assaults of children take place in the home, their response will probably be to ban sex offenders from houses next. Maybe they can then move to that sex offender community in Florida.
Posted by: virginia | Sep 28, 2011 6:35:43 PM
One comment, stupid is as stupid does. One step closer to a valid challenge in court.
Posted by: Citizen X | Sep 28, 2011 7:49:14 PM
This regulation is unnecessary and provocative of a Federal court challenge, costly to the tax payer of this brainy town.
A sex offender is taking pictures, and disturbing children and parents. A life guard or police officer requests that he stop doing so, and leave. The offender refuses, this being a public place, with no expectation of privacy. The police then arrests him for disturbing the peace, an extremely general, non-specified offense, that will stick, tested many times constitutionally. The sex offender is sitting in jail. The police calls the probation officer. Is taking pictures of nearly naked children cavorting at a public pool OK with the probation officer? If the answer is, no, then come pick up your customer. Also settled law.
Why pass new regs that have zero chance of being upheld except to make a dramatic political statement, one potentially expensive to its intended audience?
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Sep 28, 2011 10:28:59 PM
personly this idiot chief nazi should be glad he's in arizona...here in florida his statement would be considered a terrorist threat. Under florida's "stand your ground law" if you feel yourself or others are in danger and not sure how being shoved on an island and being blown up would not count ....you have the legal right to stop the danger to yourself or others using whatever force necessary upto and INCLUDING deadly force AND as long as it's ruled justified. you can't be held liable in criminal OR civil court!
there is an exception in that law for lawenforcment...but not politicians! LOL and i'd say this idiot is operating OUTSIDE his legal police jurisction with the threat. So he's a legal target for removal!
if your wondering what TERRORIST THREAT!
the link above seem to be the cleaned up version
this one is a little more interesting!
the terrorist statement!
"The move was spear-headed by police Chief Dennis Grey.
"The sex offenders have been hanging around the pool and schools and we've had a couple of them looking at pornography on the computers at the library," said Grey.
He said the last straw had been when he caught an 80-year old sex offender convicted of child molestation taking pictures of children in their bikinis at the public pool.
"As far as I'm concerned lets just put these child molesters on a deserted island and blow it up," said Grey.""
Posted by: rodsmith | Sep 29, 2011 1:26:01 AM
A guy is upsetting people by taking pictures. Banned.
Meanwhile one of 50 adult males sitting by the pool is using his step daughter as a sex doll. Not banned.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Sep 29, 2011 8:06:52 AM
Just more stupid BS from a criminal government. This law will "work" just as Registration itself "works".
Why is it that these "protect the children" liars never seem to even think about just Banning all felons? That would be so easy. What are their lame excuses for not doing that? Really, what are they? Don't they want to protect children? And where is the law they so clearly need that makes it illegal to take photographs of children? Or is it okay to do that as long as you are not listed on a nanny Registry?
These types of laws are a great argument against "local control" and states' rights. You see, the more local a government is, the more likely it is that the government is a bunch of inbred, idiot rednecks who will pass laws such as this. If we are to have a country that belongs to all citizens, we have to have a federal government that controls the local morons.
Posted by: FRegistryTerrorists | Sep 29, 2011 11:56:54 AM
If they would do the children as J. Smith proposed, there would be no need for the ordinance.
Posted by: JAG | Sep 29, 2011 11:39:43 PM
I work as a classroom note-taker in college.
This local Arizona law will not have the desired effect for genuine victims' rights advocates. It will only line the pockets and get votes for demagogues and crooks like Sherrif Arpaio, and so-called private security agencies, et al.
If anything, this ban will put police and the general public to even greater risk for their public safety. All it takes is for a disgruntled sex offender to feel that he or she has nothing to lose any more by defying this law and by resisting arrest for doing so. We have already had tragic incidents where registered sex offenders have lashed out at law enforcement personnel. For example, almost two years ago in Tacoma, Washington, such an offender shot and killed four police officers at a Starbucks Coffee Shop before a fifth police officer finally killed him.
Most sex crimes against children occur inside the home by a trusted family member or friend of either gender (mostly, but not exclusively, male) in which family members are too reluctant or ashamed to press charges against the perpetrator.
Finally, these "ban" laws bear a suspicious resemblance to the old Jim Crow laws that used to proliferate across this nation when I was still a child. I vaguely remember these laws when I grew up in Tennessee. Even more interestingly, these laws galvanized blacks and others into staging civil disobedience at lunch counters and elsewhere to finally force whites to abolish such indignities. Indeed, this Arizona "ban" law might have a politically radicalizing effects on sex offenders and others to use similar tactics against such laws.
Posted by: William R. Delzell | Oct 2, 2011 1:26:37 PM
As I just stated, I am an employed class room note taker in compliance with ADD regulations.
Posted by: William R. Delzell | Oct 2, 2011 1:27:42 PM
couldn't agree more william. i've said for years the EX sex criminals could end this stupidiy in a week if just 10% of them which would be about 70,000 just decided we're fed up. We can see you hate filled nazi's are NEVER gonna stop and leave us alone and will just continue the NEVER ENDING! CONSTANT CHANGING of the laws every 8-10 months....So we might as well go out with a BANG and guess what....each and every one of us is gonna TAKE A POLITICAN WITH US!
trust me the survivors of the politicans wont' waste anytime finding a new boogie many to screw with! Since this one would no longer be a FREEBEE they would know they now have to put their ASS on the line for EACH AND EVERY ILLEGAL LAW THEY PASS!
Posted by: rodsmith | Oct 2, 2011 3:38:10 PM
Supremacy Claus, I take offense to the step father statement, I was a step father up until the divorce, (the step child was an adult,) but you make it sound as if all Step Fathers are after their underage step kids. Not true for a second. I would think more biological fathers are in that statistic. Stop perpetuating the (false) "it's always the stepfather" mentality. It should be "It was more likely a blood relative committing that crime, and then just blaming it on the stepfather."
Now for the main point: Aren't sidewalk and streets public facilities? Now what?
Posted by: Extremely Disgruntled | Oct 2, 2011 7:46:52 PM