Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/07/2016

Home

Zoning Bulletin March 10, 2016 I Volume 10 I Issue 5 COLORADO (01/25/16) This case addressed the issue of whether a city's zoning ordinance, which effectively banned certain sex offend- ers from residing within the city, was preempted by Colorado law regulating sex offenders. The Background/Facts: Stephen Brett Ryals ("Ryals") was a convicted sex offender in Colorado. When he was released from prison in 2003, he was required, under the Colorado. Sex Offender Registra- tion Act ("CSORA"), to register as a sex offender for a decade after his release. (CSORA § 16-22-103(1)(a).) In 2012, Ryals purchased a home in Englewood, Colorado (the "City"). He then contacted the local po- lice to register as a sex offender. A police officer informed Ryals that, under the City's Ordinance 34 (the "Ordinance"), sex offenders were not allowed to live within the city limits. The Ordinance was a zoning ordinance, which made it unlawful for sexually violent predators and sex offenders required to register under CSORA to "establish a permanent residence or temporary residence within two thousand feet (2,000') of any school, park, or playground or within one thousand feet (1,000') of any licensed day care center, rec- reation center, or swimming pool (other than pools located at private, single-family residences)." (EMC 7-3-3(A).) According to estimates, those restrictions made 99% of the city off limits to qualifying sex offenders. Nevertheless, Ryals attempted to register with the police department as a sex offender, and, when he did so, he was issued a citation for violating the Ordinance. Ryals then sued the City in federal district court. Among other things, Ryals asserted that the City's Ordinance was preempted by Colorado's sex offender regulations. In Colorado, the Sex Offender Management Board ("SOMB") is tasked with management of sex offenders who are subject to the supervision of the criminal justice system. One of SOMB 's duties is to determine the "best practices for living arrangements for and the loca- tion of adult sex offenders within the community." (C.R.S. § 16-11.7- 103(4)(g).) In that effort, the SOMB publishes guidelines, one of which pertains to sex offender residency. That guideline provides that, when a sex offender seeks to change residences "any change of residence must receive prior approval by the supervising officer." (Standards and Guidelines § 5.620(K).) The federal district court held that the Ordinance was preempted by Colorado state law. First, the court concluded that the Ordinance ad- dressed a matter of mixed state and local concern because it implicated both local and state interests. It then concluded that, in its operation, the Ordinance conflicted with the state's comprehensive regime for regulating sex offenders and therefore was preempted by state law. The © 2016 Thomson Reuters 3