Recent News and Opinion
2014/8/31 - Sunday Evening Update - Labor Day Edition
2014/8/30 - Football Scores - Friday, August 29th 2014
2014/8/29 - Letters: Legal Defense Fund Established for Freed
2014/8/29 - Content Removed
2014/8/26 - Burger King Inversion Update
2014/8/25 - Officers Receive Life Saving Awards
2014/8/24 - Lewisville To Spray Again for Mosquitoes Monday and Tuesday Nights
2014/8/23 - Motorists Reminded to Be Careful as Kids Head Back-to-School
2014/8/20 - Neighborhood Gets Help from LISD and Police on Litter, Crime Problem
2014/8/20 - Letters: Freed Should Be Considered Innocent
2014/8/17 - Sunday Evening Update - End of Summer Vacation Edition
2014/8/17 - Pictures of Local High Water
2014/8/17 - Lewisville to Spray for Mosquitoes Monday and Tuesday
2014/8/16 - Flower Mound Presbyterian Church Celebrates 160 Years with Homecoming
2014/8/8 - Former Fire Official Arrested in Fill-the-boot Theft
2014/8/6 - Lewisville Lake and Drought Update
2014/8/5 - Saturday, August 9th: Lewisville Police Day - PD Hosts Anniversar...
2014/8/5 - Kidnapping Suspects Arrested; Police Dog Finds Fugitive
2014/8/2 - Movie review: "Boyhood"
2014/7/22 - Lewisville Loses Appeal on Sex Offender Ordinance
2014/7/20 - Monday Morning Update
2014/7/20 - Take the Win in Iran
2014/7/19 - Combating Post-Traumatic Stress Event in Denton Saturday
2014/7/14 - Lewisville City Council Adopts Vision 2025 Plan
2014/7/6 - Photos from Lake Park on Independence Day
Recent Reader Comments
2014/9/2 13:15 - Re: Burger King Inversion (dskinner)
2014/8/30 17:40 - Re: Parent Upset over School Fussing Over Student's ... (Anonymous)
2014/8/29 12:12 - Re: Burger King Inversion (jbcglc)
2014/8/28 22:32 - Re: Burger King Inversion (Anonymous)
2014/8/27 11:21 - Re: Burger King Inversion (dskinner)
2014/8/27 7:09 - Re: Burger King Inversion (Jonathan)
2014/8/26 16:00 - Re: Burger King Inversion (Anonymous)
2014/8/24 21:26 - Re: Letters: Freed Should Be Considered Innocent (TexasMama)
2014/8/22 18:45 - Re: Letters: Freed Should Be Considered Innocent (Anonymous)
2014/8/22 6:54 - Re: Letters: Freed Should Be Considered Innocent (TexasMama)
2014/8/22 6:47 - Re: Letters: Freed Should Be Considered Innocent (TexasMama)
2014/8/21 23:43 - Re: Letters: Freed Should Be Considered Innocent (Anonymous)
2014/8/21 18:59 - Re: Letters: Freed Should Be Considered Innocent (Anonymous)
2014/8/21 17:15 - Re: Letters: Freed Should Be Considered Innocent (Anonymous)
2014/8/21 16:03 - Re: Letters: Freed Should Be Considered Innocent (TexasMama)
2014/8/20 23:00 - Re: Lewisville Lake and Drought Update (Anonymous)
2014/8/20 14:17 - Re: Letters: Freed Should Be Considered Innocent (Anonymous)
2014/8/20 14:08 - Re: Statement from City of Lewisville (Anonymous)
2014/8/20 11:34 - Re: Letters: Freed Should Be Considered Innocent (jbcglc)
2014/8/20 9:23 - Statement from City of Lewisville (WhosPlayin)
2014/8/20 9:08 - Re: Letters: Freed Should Be Considered Innocent (WhosPlayin)
2014/8/15 11:43 - Re: Former Fire Official Arrested in Fill-the-boot Theft (Anonymous)

Updated: City of Lewisville Responds to Sex Offender Residency Lawsuit

Local News, Notes and Events
Posted by WhosPlayin on 2012/9/23 22:00:00 (3289 reads)

The City of Lewisville's defense attorney responded to the Duarte Civil Rights lawsuit with a motion to dismiss, claiming in part that the Duartes didn't have standing to sue. The City seems to be claiming that because the Duartes do not live within 1,500 foot "buffer zone", they are not subject to its restrictions. It would seem that if government passes a law with severe punishment as a consequence for doing something that one considers to be a civil right, then by this standard, one's rights to do that thing are not violated until one tries to exercise the right and then is punished for it. The City's motion also says that the family does not suffer since they are not sex offenders and thus can live anywhere they want in Lewisville, as long as their father is not with them.

Another interesting point the City's defense seems to make is that the ordinance is not "banishment", going to great lengths to point out that it is not punitive, but rather protective of children. Yet in the same motion, they have this:

"Notably, child sex offenders are free to travel into or through, and move about within, the buffer zone, and the ordinance does not restrain or disable plaintiff A. Duarte, as he is still able to own or lease property for business, or conduct business or work at any location within the zone. He simply cannot establish a residence within a buffer zone. This relatively limited restraint does not constitute punishment, but rather, is a minor, indirect effect on the plaintiff"


So, we're only restricting them to protect the children, but see, look, we're not really restricting them that much.

There is a lot more to it, and it seems to be a lot of procedural legal mumbo-jumbo, but I'm posting it here so that you legal types can read it.

I still think the ordinance was a bad idea, and we could have saved the money by just dropping it.

Update 9/24/2012:
What has happened so far to date is that the parties went back and forth on the motion to dimiss, and a federal magistrate has recommended dismissal on the basis of lack of standing. Ironically, because Duarte has not BROKEN the law, the magistrate says he has no standing to sue. If he had simply broken the law and moved into an apartment for a day, called the police on himself, and gotten a fine, then they say he'd have a right to sue. The magistrate also found no constitutional right for a person to live in a city they can otherwise afford to live in, and no constitutional right for a person to live with his family, and no harm done to the family in having to forgo living with him in the same city.

I think this citation from the Duarte response of the Supreme Court decision MedImmune v Genetech, just about sums it up:

“Our analysis must begin with the recognition that, where threatened action by government is concerned, we do not require a plaintiff to expose himself to liability before bringing suit to challenge the basis for the threat — for example, the constitutionality of a law threatened to be enforced. The plaintiff's own action (or inaction) in failing to violate the law eliminates the imminent threat of prosecution, but nonetheless does not eliminate Article III jurisdiction.”


Here is the recommended order, and the Duarte response.

Originally posted 5/4/2012, re-topped 9/24/2012

- Rating: 1.00 (1 vote) - {$lang_ratethisnews}
 
The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.

Poster Thread
Anonymous
Posted: 2012/9/26 11:28  Updated: 2012/9/26 12:54
 Re: Updated: City of Lewisville Responds to Sex Offender ...
What a ridiculous notion that Mr. Duarte would neeed to actually violate the law in order to prevail in this suit. Residency restrictions do nothing to protect the public! They are feel-good laws that cause hardships for entire families. If we are to 'protect the children', we should protect ALL of them including the children of those who are labeled.
Reply

Poster Thread
Anonymous
Posted: 2012/9/26 12:30  Updated: 2012/9/26 12:54
 Re: Updated: City of Lewisville Responds to Sex Offender ...
I totally agree. The ordinance was/is a bad idea. It does nothing to protect children.
Reply

Poster Thread
WhosPlayin
Posted: 2012/9/26 14:12  Updated: 2012/9/26 14:12
Editor
Joined: 2008/12/12
From:
Posts: 3873
 Re: Updated: City of Lewisville Responds to Sex Offender ...
I'm working on researching a story about a group of citizens who want to extend the zones to include other types of criminals where they believe there is more danger than sex offenders, such as violent criminals. Look for that story, coming soon on LTJ, and to a city near you.
Reply

Poster Thread
SOS
Posted: 2012/9/27 8:32  Updated: 2012/9/27 8:32
Joined: 2012/9/27
From:
Posts: 1
 Re: Updated: City of Lewisville Responds to Sex Offender ...
Residency restrictions afford no protection. This isn't about keeping children safe. It's all about the almighty dollar and what happens to property values if a registrant moves into a neighborhood.
Reply


Other articles
2014/8/31 15:50:00 - Sunday Evening Update - Labor Day Edition
2014/8/30 8:21:42 - Football Scores - Friday, August 29th 2014
2014/8/29 23:13:38 - Letters: Legal Defense Fund Established for Freed
2014/8/29 17:50:00 - Content Removed
2014/8/26 13:40:00 - Burger King Inversion Update
2014/8/25 17:46:54 - Officers Receive Life Saving Awards
2014/8/24 11:16:38 - Lewisville To Spray Again for Mosquitoes Monday and Tuesday Nights
2014/8/23 22:47:53 - Motorists Reminded to Be Careful as Kids Head Back-to-School
2014/8/20 23:50:00 - Neighborhood Gets Help from LISD and Police on Litter, Crime Problem
2014/8/20 8:52:32 - Letters: Freed Should Be Considered Innocent


The Lewisville Texan Journal is a service of SagePost, Inc.
Login to Comment
User:
Pass:
Remember me
Lost your password?
Create New Account