Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

In small city, sex offender 'buffer zone' looks more like a ban

New Port Richey officials say that is not the intent of a proposed ordinance.

By PHIL DAVIS
Published August 28, 2005

NEW PORT RICHEY - Jessica Lunsford. Jimmy Ryce. Adam Walsh. Murdered Florida children whose names are constant reminders that bad people live among us. They are the inspiration for a series of laws intended to punish predators and push convicted sex criminals to the fringes of society.

The latest tactic for city governments around the nation: 2,500-foot buffer zones intended to prevent sex offenders from living close to places where children congregate, including libraries, churches and school bus stops.

New Port Richey Deputy Mayor Bob Langford suggested his city join the trend. The ordinance won unanimous preliminary approval Aug. 16 and is set for a final vote on Sept. 6. But in a city of only 41/2 square miles, the law is more than a buffer.

It's a ban.

A St. Petersburg Times analysis shows that putting the almost half-mile buffer around dozens of school bus stops alone makes the entire city off limits to the specific "worst of the worst" sex offenders targeted in the New Port Richey ordinance.

And without the bus stops, 2,500-foot buffers around schools, parks, churches, day care centers and libraries blanket all but the fringes of the city, including chunks of U.S. 19 at the north and south ends of the city, gulffront neighborhoods and the northeast neighborhood around Pine Hill Road.

City Attorney Tom Morrison said he was not aware the measure amounted to a ban.

"That's contrary to what the police department has informed us," Morrison said Friday. "I don't know that it would be appropriate to have a complete ban. If it does have that effect, we need to take another look at it. That was not the council's intent."

Langford, too, said the ban was unintentional, but learning about it didn't change his mind about the law.

"I don't really have a problem with that, so far," Langford said. "I think it offers a layer of protection to our community, and that's a good thing."

It remains unclear whether an outright ban on certain sex offenders will stand up in court.

"The government can put reasonable restrictions on offenders," said Chris Slobogin, a law professor and associate director of the University of Florida's Center on Children and the Law. "The whole question is what is reasonable? My guess is it will be upheld."

"The hostility toward these folks is immense," Slobogin said. "Nobody wants to live anywhere near them or have anything to do with them."

Governments have a lot of case law supporting the right to restrict the movements of convicted felons. That has led to:

Florida's 1998 Jimmy Ryce law, which allows the state to involuntarily commit sexually violent criminals to treatment programs after their prison sentences end.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development excluding sex offenders from protections related to the Fair Housing Act.

A Florida law that prohibits sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of playgrounds, schools, day care centers and parks.

The New Port Richey law, modeled on ordinances passed this year in Davie and Oviedo, adds an additional 1,500-foot buffer to the state's 1000-foot rule. It also adds linear parks, churches, libraries and designated school bus stops to the list of protected areas.

The New Port Richey law targets only sex offenders whose victims were children, the "worst of the worst," as police Chief Martin Rickus described them. The crimes covered are sexual battery or lewd or lascivious acts with a child under 16, sexual performance with a child, or sale of a minor for a performance in pornographic material.

The ordinance applies only to offenses committed on or after Oct. 1, 2004. The 24 sex offenders and two sexual predators currently living in New Port Richey will not have to move. Sexual offenders are defined by a variety of sex crimes, ranging from lewd acts to giving pornography to someone under 18. Predators are guilty of more serious crimes involving sexual battery or a second offense sex crime.

The more restrictive the law, the more scrutiny it gets in court, said Stetson University law professor Charles Rose. But, he added, sex offenders don't always have money to sustain long court battles.

"They might, even though it may not be legal, be able to effectively keep everyone out," Rose said. "It's a sophisticated way to keep sex offenders out of the city."

Morrison, though, is wary of passing a law that might invite a legal challenge. He said it might fall into the same school of legal thought as adult businesses, which can be restricted to certain parts of the city but not banned outright.

When asked what residents in areas not covered by a modified sex offender buffer zone might think, Morrison said, "That's not something the lawyers and police have to worry about. That's something the council will have to handle."

Rose noted that passing the ordinance may invite a false sense of security.

"It could have the unintended consequence of making it harder to actually catch those who commit sexual offenses because they won't have ties to the community," Rose said. "They'll be like a shark biting someone close to the beach and disappearing into the ocean."

Mike Park, Pasco schools transportation director, said because many children in New Port Richey walk to school, a bus stop buffer affords little protection.

"The idea is great, motherhood and apple pie," Park said. "But it doesn't address all those children in New Port Richey who walk to school and I don't see how it makes a difference. I don't know that you can pass a law that takes care of all situations."

Times staff writer Matt Waite contributed to this report. Phil Davis can reached at 869-6247 or toll-free at 1-800-333-7505, ext. 6247. His e-mail address is pdavis@sptimes.com

[Last modified August 28, 2005, 01:14:15]