Trenton Times - NJ Appeals Court Voids Local Restrictions on Where Sex Offenders Can Reside

July 16, 2008
By Ryan Tracy, Trenton Times

Ordinances in Hamilton and Robbinsville restricting where convicted sex offenders can live may be at risk after a state appellate court struck down similar laws in other towns yesterday.

The local residency rules, which bar registered sex offenders from living within 2,500 feet of a school, park, playground, or daycare center, conflict with the state's authority under Megan's Law and are therefore invalid, according to the ruling from the Appellate Division of the state Superior Court.

Similar measures in more than 100 New Jersey municipalities, including 2,500-foot restrictions in Hamilton and Robbinsville, could be rendered unenforceable if the ruling stands.

The three-judge panel upheld a lower court finding that invalidated ordinances in Galloway and Cherry Hill townships.

The jurists ruled that Megan's Law, named for the Hamilton girl who was murdered by a convicted sex offender who lived in her neighborhood, was intended to be an "all-encompassing" law governing the treatment of sex offenders.

They also said there was a "need for statewide uniformity" in the enforcement of Megan's Law, noting that the local ordinances tread on the authority of parole officers, who are empowered under the law to find "appropriate housing" for convicted sex offenders.

A lawyer for the American Center for Law and Justice, which represented Galloway, said it will appeal to the state's highest court, arguing there is no conflict with Megan's Law.

"Towns have the right to control where these people live," said Vincent McCarthy of the Washington, D.C.-based center.

Officials in Hamilton and Robbinsville defended their ordinances yesterday.

"You have to give an opportunity to protect our children, and not having them within 2,500 feet is important," said Robbinsville Mayor Dave Fried. "I think that the appellate court should volunteer to have sex offenders live next to them."

David Boyne, Robbinsville council president, voted in favor of the residency restrictions. He also was disappointed when informed of the decision.

"I think it's terrible that the court struck it down," he said.

In Hamilton, council members Dennis Pone and Tom Goodwin urged the state Legislature to strengthen Megan's Law if the decision stands.

"My feeling is that if the state law is not as tough as the local law, then the state legislators need to get back to work," Pone said.

Assembly members Pamela Lampitt, D-Camden, and Wayne DeAngelo, D-Hamilton, said the decision proves the need for a statewide law to allow municipalities to create predator-free zones, and they will sponsor a bill to do so.

New Jersey Public Advocate Ronald Chen applauded the ruling.

"This decision recognizes that a uniform, statewide response to this issue is necessary, rather than a patchwork town-by-town approach," he said.

And state public defender Yvonne Smith Segars called the decision wise.

"If we forever treat people like they are pariahs, we will never achieve the goal of reintegrating some of them," she said.

The ruling stems from suits involving three sex offenders.

The Galloway case involved a student at Richard Stockton College of New Jersey who was found delinquent for an offense he committed as a 15-year-old with a 13-year-old girl. In Cherry Hill, two sex offenders, James Barclay and Jeffrey Finguerra, moved into a motel near a Catholic high school with the permission of their parole and probation officers.

All three offenders were notified they were breaking township laws and asked to move.

In reaching their decision, the judges reasoned that Megan's Law already has extensive community supervision requirements. Sex offenders must comply with curfews, submit to counseling and have parole officers approve their employment and volunteer activities. Further, they can only live in places approved by their parole officers and cannot move without permission.

The court noted that the Galloway ordinance barred sex offenders from living in two-thirds of the town, and in Cherry Hill they were prohibited from living anywhere but two small plots -- one an expensive development and the other a desolate field.