• Read the Kentucky Supreme Court ruling
• Kentucky State Police sex offender registry Web site

As of Thursday morning, there were 280 sex offenders in Fayette County, and six were not in compliance, according to

 the Fayette County Sheriff's Office. Sheriff Kathy Witt said some addresses are visited every day. Those who are incompliant

 are usually not living at the addresses listed for the individuals. Witt received and skimmed the ruling Thursday morning.

 "I haven't had time to digest the whole thing," she said, adding that she planned to look it over and decide how to proceed

.State Rep. Joni Jenkins, D-Shively, lead sponsor of the bill, noted that the Supreme Court decision doesn't strike down

 the entire law, only a provision of the law.Jenkins said the law still helps protect children, as it was meant to do.

 But she said it's also important for parents not to rely on the sex-offender registry because most children are abused

 by a family member or family friend."We still need to look after our personal safety and the safety of our children,"

Jenkins said.Rep. Bob Damron, D-Nicholasville, who also sponsored the bill, said he was disappointed and surprised by

 the decision."Our focus was not to penalize anybody," Damron said. "Our focus was to provide protection to potential

 victims of sex offenders."He said the date a sex offender was convicted is irrelevant."To say that I'm disappointed

 is probably an understatement," Damron said.In October 2006, authorities in Fayette County began knocking on doors

and arresting sex offenders who were in violation of the law. At the time, there were 256 sex offenders in Fayette County,

 and 180 were expected to move.Most of them were living in older, urban neighborhoods inside New Circle Road.

 Downtown Lexington was virtually off limits to sex offenders because of the number of prohibited areas.The new law

 included playgrounds in the list of prohibited areas whereas the former law only prohibited offenders from living near

 day-care centers and schools. The new law also measures the distance from a property line instead of the center of

 a property.Many registered sex offenders in Fayette County who owned homes for years were upset about being forced

to move because of a law enacted after they committed and served time for their crimes.Sex offenders across the state

 took their concerns to court only to receive varying opinions from judges.Michael Baker, who entered a guilty plea to a

 third-degree rape charge in March 1995 in Kenton County, challenged the new law on several constitutional grounds and

asked the court to dismiss charges that he violated the residency law.Kenton District Judge Martin J. Sheehan ruled that

the law was punitive and not regulatory, and violated the ex post facto clause in the U.S. Constitution. Kenton District

Court granted Baker's motion.The issue was sent to the Supreme Court to determine whether the law was unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court, however, disagreed with Kenton District Court that the General Assembly intended for the law to be punitive.

The Supreme Court said state legislators intended for the law to be a "civil, non-punitive regulatory scheme,"

 according to the ruling.Still, the residency restrictions are "so punitive in effect as to negate any intention to deem them as civil."_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________IN Supreme Court Nixes Retroactive Law  jconline.comIndiana court limits sex offender residency law. Indianapolis –

 Convicted sex offenders who lived near schools or other places frequented by children before a state law

 restricting their residency was enacted in 2006 would not have to move under a ruling by the Indiana Supreme Court.

The court ruled this week that the residency law violated the Indiana constitution by retroactively punishing Anthony W. Pollard,

 a Blackford County sex offender who died in December.Pollard had owned his home in northeastern Indiana for about

10 years when he was convicted of a sex offense against a child in 1997. He was then charged in January 2007 with violating

 the 2006 law that prohibits convicted sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of a school, public park or youth program

 center.The state Supreme Court decision said the residency law prevents a sex offender from living in his home even if

he bought it before the law took effect and even if a school or youth center moved within 1,000 feet of a home where he

already lived.“Although the statute does not affect ownership of property, it does affect one’s freedom to live on one’s own property,”

 Justice Robert Rucker wrote. “A sex offender is subject to constant eviction because there is no way for him or her to find a

permanent home in that there are no guarantees a school or youth program center will not open within 1,000 feet of any given

 location.”Bryan Corbin, a spokesman for the attorney general’s office, which handled the appeal, said a staff attorney

 interpreted the ruling to apply only to offenders who were charged, convicted and sentenced before the residency

 law was enacted.The decision was the latest by the state Supreme Court to find that certain laws regarding state

oversight of sex offenders violate the Indiana constitution’s ban on laws punishing people for acts that were legal

 when they were committed.In April, the court overturned a man’s conviction for not registering as a sex offender

 because he had already completed a sentence for child molestation before the state’s Sex Offender Registration Act was passed._________________________________________________________________

__NJ High Court Strikes Down Residency Lawshttp://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2009/05/new-jersey-high-court-bars-sex-offender.phpAP : NJ

 court strikes down sex offender residency limit.

New Jersey’s Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that towns cannot ban sex offenders from living near schools, parks,

or other places where children gather.The court struck down two municipal ordinances that restricted where convicted

 sex offenders could live, a ruling that invalidates similar laws in more than 100 other towns across the state. The two

 cases, in Cherry Hill and Galloway townships in southern New Jersey, highlighted Megan’s Law, which requires convicted

sex offenders to register their whereabouts with law enforcement.The broader issue, though, centered on whether towns

 have the authority to pass ordinances that may conflict with state laws.In its 6-0 decision, the Supreme Court echoed a

 2008 appellate ruling that sided with the plaintiffs. Justice John E. Wallace Jr. did not participate.All 50 states have some

 version of Megan’s Law, but the cases decided Thursday are the first of their type to reach a state Supreme Court,

said Frank Corrado, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union who represented the unidentified plaintiff in

 Galloway Township. The ACLU filed a lawsuit in Vermont this week challenging a similar ordinance in the town of Barre,

near Montpelier.“We continue to feel these laws are counterproductive and don’t accomplish their purpose,” Corrado said

 Thursday. “There’s no real connection between limiting where someone can live and a sex offense occurring in a park

 or public place.” Stratis said supporters of the ordinances will now have to rely on the state Legislature to expand

 Megan’s Law or explicitly authorize towns to craft their own rules. Lawmakers are expected to revisit several bills

 that have been on hold pending the Supreme Court ruling.Iowa’s legislature recently revised a state law to relax

restrictions on where lower-risk sex offenders can live, but also created buffer zones that prevent them from entering

areas where children congregate.Under Megan’s Law, convicted sex offenders may only live in a residence approved

 by a parole officer, and must notify authorities when they change addresses and employment. The law forbids anyone

 from using an offender’s criminal record to deny housing.Both New Jersey towns have ordinances that prohibit sex

 offenders convicted of offenses against minors from living within 2,500 feet of schools, parks, playgrounds and

day care centers. In all, about 120 towns in New Jersey have passes similar ordinances.The Galloway Township case

involved a Stockton College student who had served two years’ probation for criminal sexual contact committed

 when he was 15 against a 13-year-old girl. He was designated under Megan’s Law as a Tier I offender, meaning

 he was considered to have the lowest risk of re-offense.
The township sent him a notice telling him he could not live on campus since his dorm was within 2,500 feet of a

 day care center.The two plaintiffs in the Cherry Hill case, James Barclay and Jeffrey Finguerra, moved into a

 motel within 2,500 feet of Camden Catholic High School while they awaited approval for a new residence from

their parole officers. The township found them guilty of violating the ordinance and fined them.