Courier-Post (Cherry Hill, NJ) - Cherry Hill Fights for Sex Offender Limits & Appeals Ruling Declaring Ordinance Unconstitutional

April 6, 2007
by Lisa Grzyboski, Courier-Post Staff
Courier-Post (Cherry Hill, NJ)

The township is appealing a state Superior Court ruling that declared Cherry Hill's sex offender ordinance unconstitutional.

The appeal, filed Thursday, makes Cherry Hill the second New Jersey municipality to ask the Appellate Court to review an unfavorable lower court decision on ordinances that restrict where convicted sex offenders may live. Galloway Township in Atlantic County filed the first appeal in February.

Cherry Hill decided to continue its legal defense of the ordinance because it provides another protection layer to Megan's Law, a state law that requires sex offenders to register their residence with local law enforcement, but doesn't limit where they can live, said Mayor Bernie Platt.

"Family comes first here and this ordinance was created to protect that ideal," Platt said. "I'm a father and a grandfather and the last thing I want to do is deny our community any of the protections council and I have provided in this ordinance."

Council passed the sex offender ordinance in October 2005. It bans offenders from living within 2,500 feet of any school, park, religious institution or similar place where children might gather. Penalties for violations include imprisonment, community service or daily fines in excess of $1,000.

In February, Superior Court Judge John McNeill III in Camden ruled Megan's Law trumps Cherry Hill's ordinance. He said the ordinance violates the constitutional rights of convicted sex offenders and punishes them again for their crimes. He also called it overly broad because it doesn't attempt to assess a particular offender's actual risk to the community.

"It seems as if towns are going to waste taxpayer dollars appealing these decisions," said William Buckman, a Moorestown attorney who's been involved in a number of challenges to sex offender ordinances. "The judges based their decisions on sound legal argument. It's never been rocket science to say these sex offender ordinances would not fly constitutionally."

But local government has a right and duty to protect its citizens if it believes a state's laws are insufficient, argued Vincent McCarthy, a senior attorney with the Washington D.C.-based American Center for Law & Justice. The conservative nonprofit law firm specializes in constitutional issues. The center is representing Galloway.

There's a good chance the state appeals court will consolidate the Galloway and Cherry Hill filings, hear them on the same date and issue a decision that would affect sex offender ordinances statewide, said Scott Schweiger, the lawyer representing the two sex offenders who challenged Cherry Hill's ordinance.

About 55 municipalities have passed such ordinances.

"I thought Cherry Hill might back off an appeal because Judge McNeill's order is so clear and poignant on all the points," Schweiger said. "I don't think they have a good chance to win."