The Daily Tar Heel
Printing news. Raising hell. Since 1893.
Monday, March 18, 2024 Newsletters Latest print issue

We keep you informed.

Help us keep going. Donate Today.
The Daily Tar Heel

Law limiting movement of sex offenders ruled unconstitutional by 4th circuit court

The court issued its opinion on Doe v. Cooper and unanimously ruled two sections of the law were unconstitutional. Subsection (a)(2), which was ruled in violation of the First Amendment, said sex offenders could not be within 300 feet of places that were primarily meant for the use, care or supervision of minors if those places were on the premises of areas not focused on minors.

Subdivision (a)(3) prevented certain sex offenders from going near places where minors gather for regular programs and was ruled unconstitutionally vague, and thus considered a violation of due process.

Jamie Markham, an associate professor at the UNC School of Government, said the intent of the law was to protect children.

“I think it was out of a sense that somebody who is a sex offender, regardless of what they were on the sex offender registry for, might be perceived as posing a risk to children, and so I think it was an effort to be as protective as possible,” he said.

Chapel Hill attorney Amos Tyndall said the law limited many forms of free speech because it is impractical to avoid going near any location intended for minors.

“ ... It includes all kinds of activity that’s associated with First Amendment, including free speech in public places as well as religious freedom — attending church,” he said.

The lawsuit was brought against then-Attorney General Roy Cooper, who is now governor-elect, and all North Carolina district attorneys by a group of registered sex offenders, who argued the law was broad, vague and a violation of due process.

“I mean, the government’s trying to protect kids but the issue is that the restriction they put in place applies to lots of sex offenders, including some whose crimes were not against children,” Markham said.

He said the N.C. legislature changed subsection (a)(2) before the ruling to no longer apply to individuals who didn’t commit crimes against minors.

Morgan Davis, an associate at Hatch, Little & Bunn, said although the law was changed, the court’s ruling is still important.

“So the legislature did go back before Doe v. Cooper and change the law, but it sets a precedent that there needs to be a higher standard of scrutiny than has been required before when crafting these laws,” she said.

Chapel Hill Attorney Taylor Hastings said the problem with the subdivision is it infringed on the constitutional rights of sex offenders whose victims were not minors.

“That doesn’t mean that if you committed sex offenses against a minor that that law wouldn’t still be constitutional — it would be— it’s just the fact that it’s too broad against those individuals that didn’t commit crimes against minors and it takes away an extremely important constitutional right,” he said.

@baileysaldridge

state@dailytarheel.com

To get the day's news and headlines in your inbox each morning, sign up for our email newsletters.

Special Print Edition
The Daily Tar Heel's 2024 Music Edition