Monday, November 4, 2013

IL - Man is no longer on the registry, but police tell him to move because he's breaking the law?

WTF
Original Article

If he is no longer on the registry and doesn't have to register, then he is NOT a registered sex offender! You cannot force someone who is off paperwork and the registry to move because he is "breaking" a law he doesn't have to live by!

10/29/2013

By Charlotte Eriksen

La Grange police last week notified a registered sex offender (American citizen) that he would have to move away from his home in the 200 block of North Waiola Avenue because it is within 500 feet of a school.

_____, 50, pleaded guilty in 1989 to having sex with a 13-year-old girl in DuPage County and was required to register as a sex offender for 10 years, according to Doings La Grange.

While he is no longer a registered offender, _____ is in violation of state law as a resident in a home located across the street from Ogden Avenue School and St. Francis Xavier School because of amendments to the statute, according to the Doings.
- If he doesn't have to register anymore, then how is he in violation of a law?

_____ told police he would make reasonable attempts to find a new residence, police said.
- Why?  I would tell them to stick it where the sun doesn't shine!


8 comments :

Mark said...

Lawyers for the state had argued that without the ban on sexually explicit communication, “perverts
will be free to bombard our children with salacious emails and text
messages, and parents and law enforcement would be unable to stop it,” And this is every state mentality. Especially the use of the word "OUR" children. I wonder if these state paid lawyers are taking care of "OUR" children as parents should and must but instead, the state wants to yet again, intrude upon parenting by attempting to explain the statute in question to make it pass constitutional muster.In short, this quoted statement from this article is loaded with a train of politically correct syllogism. This is always the most frequent battle of the mind for any challenge to any state law that attempts to suppress rights of once convicted sexual offenders for the sake of "OUR" children. For me, at least, I have two grown adult sons, and I do not wish to include the global statement that I should be concerned about "OUR" children. Two is enough for me. And as an after thought, just where are all the parents to ensure computer safety, text messaging for "THEIR" children?

Daver said...

In Illinois the sex offender restrictions apply for life. Whether or not you are required to register.

deathklok said...

Was this amendment passed prior to his guilty plea in 1989? Or is this
another regulatory/non-punitive ex-post facto amended law? It boggles the mind trying to keep up with all the federal, state, county, and city regulations regarding registrant laws. This is definitely one of the weird ones. If you don't register than how do they know who you are when you move? Whats the point of making you register if they track you anyways?

Huh? said...

How can that be? Please explain.

Daver said...

Not an ammendment as far as I know. The laws say sex offender. They never said registered sex offender. It's all regulatory as far as the politicians are concerned. The residency restrictions apply unless you owned your home before the law was passed.

disqus_uoa6Nyfpoq said...

I have a somewhat related question. Maybe someone here has dealt with this and can share their experience. Let's say there is an individual that is convicted of a sex crime and required to register as a sex offender in the state of he was convicted in. If that state has residency and movement restriction laws he obviously has to follow those while a resident of that state. But, what happens if he moves to another state? He's still required to register in the state of conviction, but is he now bound by those restrictions in his new state as well?

Concerned in IL said...

There are 2 types of laws in IL - those covering RSOs and other laws that apply to "anyone convicted of a sex crime". I believe that the second type should only to apply to those convicted after the passage of the law or the amendment to that law, in accordance with ex post facto provisions of the IL and US constitutions, however, clearly the police are not considering that in this case. Hopefully this guy will fight and get this clarified for all of us in IL.

Disqusted_1 said...

The man that was shot is in fact on the registry and I am certain that this is why he was targeted.