Recent News and Opinion
2015/8/28 - Farmers football falls short against Rowlett
2015/8/26 - Fighting Farmers face Rowlett Eagles in Thursday game
2015/8/26 - Police ID suspect in July murder
2015/8/25 - Lake Dallas coach arrested for sex with student
2015/8/24 - Lewisville schedules mosquito spraying
2015/8/22 - LTJ Print Edition
2015/8/21 - Live Music Reviews: Dolly Shine at Hat Tricks Thursday, August 20th
2015/8/21 - Ham radio operators host HF radio day Saturday
2015/8/20 - VAL's "As Above, So Below" Exhibit: A Critical View
2015/8/19 - Motorists Reminded to Be Careful as Kids Head Back-to-School
2015/8/19 - LHS Volleyball Starts Season Strong
2015/8/19 - Upcoming Closures on the 35Express Project
2015/8/18 - Lewisville Kroger store to close after 28 years
2015/8/18 - Lewisville Voters to Decide on Bond Package
2015/8/17 - DCTA service changes effective Monday, August 24
2015/8/16 - LTJ Prints First Newspaper
2015/8/14 - Lake Park reopened after flood waters recede
2015/8/14 - Upcoming Event s Around Lewisville and the Surrounding Area
2015/8/13 - Visual Arts League of Lewisville Fresh Ideas 2015: A Critical View
2015/8/13 - Food Reviews: Pita Houzz
2015/8/13 - ERCOT Issues Conervation Alert
2015/8/11 - Council Passes Budget, Leaves Tax Rates Static
2015/8/11 - Bids Needed for Construction of New Middle School
2015/8/10 - Ozone Action Day in North Texas
2015/8/8 - Pedi Place Clinic to Provide Free School Sports Physicals
Recent Reader Comments
2015/8/27 14:23 - This is so sad (Anonymous)
2015/8/26 7:49 - Re: Lake Dallas coach arrested for sex with student (Anonymous)
2015/8/23 18:35 - Re: Lewisville Kroger store to close after 28 years (Anonymous)
2015/8/22 9:12 - Re: Lewisville Kroger store to close after 28 years (Anonymous)
2015/8/20 23:41 - Re: Lewisville Kroger store to close after 28 years (Anonymous)
2015/8/20 20:16 - Re: Motorists Reminded to Be Careful as Kids Head Back-to... (Anonymous)
2015/8/20 20:13 - Re: Lewisville Kroger store to close after 28 years (Anonymous)
2015/8/20 17:13 - Re: LTJ Prints First Newspaper (Anonymous)
2015/8/20 13:10 - Re: Lewisville Kroger store to close after 28 years (jbcglc)
2015/8/20 12:07 - Re: Lewisville Kroger store to close after 28 years (Anonymous)
2015/8/20 11:08 - Re: Lewisville Kroger store to close after 28 years (Anonymous)
2015/8/20 10:12 - Re: LHS Volleyball Starts Season Strong (Anonymous)
2015/8/20 9:18 - Re: Lewisville Kroger store to close after 28 years (Anonymous)
2015/8/20 0:41 - Re: Lewisville Kroger store to close after 28 years (Anonymous)
2015/8/19 23:57 - Re: Lewisville Kroger store to close after 28 years (Anonymous)
2015/8/19 23:49 - Re: Lewisville Kroger store to close after 28 years (Anonymous)
2015/8/19 23:46 - Re: LTJ Prints First Newspaper (WhosPlayin)
2015/8/19 23:45 - Re: Lewisville Kroger store to close after 28 years (Anonymous)
2015/8/19 21:02 - Re: Lewisville Kroger store to close after 28 years (Anonymous)
2015/8/19 20:16 - Re: LTJ Prints First Newspaper (Anonymous)
2015/8/19 17:48 - Re: Lewisville Kroger store to close after 28 years (Anonymous)
2015/8/19 16:15 - Re: Lewisville Kroger store to close after 28 years (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 (4016 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: 4099
 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
2015/8/28 7:10:00 - Farmers football falls short against Rowlett
2015/8/26 20:30:00 - Fighting Farmers face Rowlett Eagles in Thursday game
2015/8/26 13:56:45 - Police ID suspect in July murder
2015/8/25 22:36:23 - Lake Dallas coach arrested for sex with student
2015/8/24 17:17:31 - Lewisville schedules mosquito spraying
2015/8/22 10:40:00 - LTJ Print Edition
2015/8/21 16:57:17 - Live Music Reviews: Dolly Shine at Hat Tricks Thursday, August 20th
2015/8/21 6:16:54 - Ham radio operators host HF radio day Saturday
2015/8/20 5:40:00 - VAL's "As Above, So Below" Exhibit: A Critical View
2015/8/19 23:03:55 - Motorists Reminded to Be Careful as Kids Head Back-to-School


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