Recent News and Opinion
2015/3/2 - Winter Weather Back in Forecast for Wednesday
2015/3/1 - LLELA Nature Preserve opens new Blackjack Trail March 21
2015/3/1 - Miscellaneous Notes and Links
2015/3/1 - Citizens Fire Academy begins March 10
2015/2/28 - Candidates for Lewisville City Council, Place 2 - 2015
2015/2/28 - Flower Mound Police Investigate Shooting
2015/2/28 - The Last First
2015/2/25 - Updated: Missing Child - Highland Village - Found in Carrollton
2015/2/24 - Updated: Drought and Lake Update - February 2015
2015/2/24 - Adoptable Pets of the Week
2015/2/22 - Lewisville ISD Closed Monday and Tuesday Due to Hazardous Driving ...
2015/2/22 - Lewisville Morning Rotary taking Flag Subscriptions
2015/2/22 - Severe Weather Awareness Week is March 1-7
2015/2/22 - I-35E Project - Community Meeting and Updates on Closures
2015/2/22 - Be Prepared for a Winter Storm
2015/2/21 - I-35E Nightly Lane Closure - Southbound Near 121 Business
2015/2/21 - Winter Storm Warning in Effect for Sunday 6 p.m. - Monday 6 p.m.
2015/2/21 - Saturday Morning Link Dump
2015/2/21 - Video: Lewisville ISD Board Meeting - 2/9/2015
2015/2/21 - Video: Mayor Dean Ueckert Delivers State of the City Address
2015/2/20 - Upcoming Events Around Lewisville and the Surrounding Area
2015/2/20 - Gratuitous Ingrid Michaelson
2015/2/19 - Candidates for Lewisville Mayor - 2015
2015/2/17 - Update on FM 407 Bridge Demolition / Reconstruction Schedule
2015/2/17 - Police Seek Help on Shoe Store Robbery
Recent Reader Comments
2015/3/2 7:17 - Re: Candidates for Lewisville City Council, Place 2 - 2015 (WhosPlayin)
2015/3/2 3:31 - Re: Candidates for Lewisville City Council, Place 2 - 2015 (Anonymous)
2015/3/2 3:08 - Re: Candidates for Lewisville City Council, Place 2 - 2015 (Anonymous)
2015/3/1 23:32 - Re: Candidates for Lewisville City Council, Place 2 - 2015 (Anonymous)
2015/3/1 21:10 - Re: Candidates for Lewisville City Council, Place 2 - 2015 (Anonymous)
2015/3/1 19:11 - Re: Candidates for Lewisville City Council, Place 2 - 2015 (Anonymous)
2015/3/1 18:14 - Re: Candidates for Lewisville City Council, Place 2 - 2015 (Anonymous)
2015/3/1 17:12 - Re: Candidates for Lewisville City Council, Place 2 - 2015 (Anonymous)
2015/3/1 16:49 - Re: Candidates for Lewisville City Council, Place 2 - 2015 (Anonymous)
2015/3/1 15:30 - Re: Candidates for Lewisville City Council, Place 2 - 2015 (Anonymous)
2015/3/1 9:43 - Re: Candidates for Lewisville City Council, Place 2 - 2015 (Anonymous)
2015/3/1 9:33 - Re: Candidates for Lewisville City Council, Place 2 - 2015 (Anonymous)
2015/3/1 5:46 - Re: Updated: Hit-and-run Fatality on I-35E at Fox Ave. Br... (Anonymous)
2015/2/28 23:05 - Re: Candidates for Lewisville City Council, Place 2 - 2015 (Anonymous)
2015/2/28 22:04 - Re: Candidates for Lewisville City Council, Place 2 - 2015 (Anonymous)
2015/2/28 21:38 - Re: Candidates for Lewisville City Council, Place 2 - 2015 (Anonymous)
2015/2/28 21:23 - Re: Candidates for Lewisville City Council, Place 2 - 2015 (Anonymous)
2015/2/28 16:28 - Re: Candidates for Lewisville City Council, Place 2 - 2015 (Anonymous)
2015/2/28 13:15 - Re: Candidates for Lewisville City Council, Place 2 - 2015 (Anonymous)
2015/2/27 0:03 - Re: Greg Survived It (WhosPlayin)
2015/2/26 17:15 - Re: Candidates for Lewisville Mayor - 2015 (Jonathan)
2015/2/25 22:57 - Re: Candidates for Lewisville Mayor - 2015 (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 (3672 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: 3989
 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
2015/3/2 7:27:44 - Winter Weather Back in Forecast for Wednesday
2015/3/1 23:10:00 - LLELA Nature Preserve opens new Blackjack Trail March 21
2015/3/1 22:30:00 - Miscellaneous Notes and Links
2015/3/1 17:16:05 - Citizens Fire Academy begins March 10
2015/2/28 11:39:30 - Candidates for Lewisville City Council, Place 2 - 2015
2015/2/28 9:56:45 - Flower Mound Police Investigate Shooting
2015/2/28 0:20:00 - The Last First
2015/2/25 21:00:00 - Updated: Missing Child - Highland Village - Found in Carrollton
2015/2/24 21:00:00 - Updated: Drought and Lake Update - February 2015
2015/2/24 12:00:00 - Adoptable Pets of the Week


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