Notable sex offender residency restriction ruling from Ohio

Among lots of new interesting posts at Sex Crimes is this post noting a significant new ruling restricting the application of Ohio’s sex offender residency restriction.  This Cincinnati Enquirer article provides the basics:

An Ohio law restricting where sex offenders can live does not apply to a convicted rapist who was sentenced before the law took effect in 2003, a federal judge in Akron ruled Tuesday.  U.S. District Judge James Gwin said the law, which bars offenders from living within 1,000 feet of schools, amounts to an additional, retroactive punishment for people who already have served their sentences.  He said such punishments violate the U.S. Constitution and impose an excessive burden on offenders that could continue for the rest of their lives.

“The law goes well beyond parole in that it never allows a sex offender to reintegrate into society,” Gwin wrote in his decision.  “Subjecting a sex offender to constant ouster from his or her home seems a significant deprivation of liberty and property interests. “It sentences them to a life of transience, forcing them to become nomads.”

Gwin’s decision directly affects only an Akron man, Lane Mikaloff, who had challenged the law.  But Mikaloff’s lawyers say the ruling could affect thousands of sex offenders in Greater Cincinnati and across the state.

The debate over the fairness and effectiveness of Ohio’s residency law has heated up in the past year as county prosecutors began telling offenders who live near schools and day care centers that they must move….

“The decision is a mistake,” Hamilton County Prosecutor Joe Deters said of the ruling. “I just wish that sometimes they’d think of the kids that get abused.”

A spokesman for Ohio Attorney General Marc Dann said an appeal of Gwin’s decision is likely and urged law enforcement to continue enforcing the residency restrictions.  “We believe it’s constitutional,” said Leo Jennings, Dann’s spokesman. “If someone uses this decision to mount an additional challenge to the law, we’re going to continue to defend it.”

Milakoff’s lawyer, David Singleton, said he intends to do just that.  He said Gwin’s ruling should carry weight in other courts considering whether the restrictions amount to an unconstitutional, retroactive punishment.

UPDATE:  Judge Gwin’s opinion is now available here.  It is an interesting read that will likely give the Sixth Circuit a lot to think about.