Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/02/2008

Home

Zoning Bulletin from noti:6cation and community supervision provisions after fifteen crime-free years; (3) Megan's Law specifically prohibited the denial of "housing or accommodations" to CSOs by private as well as pub- lic entities, and the Ordinances effectively denied such; and (4) New Jersey's criminal code, which Megan's Law was under, prohibited lo- cal governments from enacting ordinances that conflicted with or pre~ empted provisions of the code. The Townships had argued that the Ordinances did not conflict with Megan's Law. They said that Megan's Law dealt with registra- tion and notification regarding CSOs, while the Ordinances served a complimentary purpose of restricting locations in which CSOs lived. They contended that the Ordinances therefore provided ad- ditional measures for the safety of inhabitants. The court disagreed with what it called the Townships' "narrow characterization" of the purpose of Megan's Law. The court found that Megan's Law was comprehensive in the enforcement and monitoring it required to protect society from the risk of reoffense and to provide for the rehabilitation and reintegration of CSOs into the community. Under the second factor, the court found the Legislature's intent to exclusively regulate the activities of CSOs living in the community was clearly demonstrated by: (1) the Legislature's enactment of com- prehensive legislation in Megan's Law; (2) the development of Attor- ney General Guidelines for law enforcement for the implementation of Megan's Law; and (3) the adoption of DOC regulations governing parole supervision of CSOs living in the community. Evaluating the third factor, the court found that the oversight of CSOs living in the community required uniform treatment. The court said this was because protection of children from CSO reoffense and rehabilitation of CSOs were matters of statewide concern, not a problem particl!-lar to a murucipality. The court said that because the issues existed statewide, allowing local regulation could be "mischie- vous." Indeed, the court found that the Ordinances rendered obsolete the Megan's Law tier system of treating offenders uniformly accord- ing to their risk pf reoffense. The court found this was because the residency restrictions imposed by the Ordinances hampered a CSO's . ability to be near family and employment, which could increase the chance of reoffense. Finally, the court found that in addressing the first three factors, it had also found that the fourth and fifth factors were affirmatively met: the state scheme was comprehensive; and the Ordinances inter- fered with the legislative purpose of rehabilitating CSOs and reinte- grating them into the community. 4 @ 2008 Thomson Reuters/West 64 .-') / ; i.