Clarification issued in sex offender ruling
By Elizabeth Billips Associate Editor

A one-word clarification in a Superior Court sex offender ruling has lowered the 1,000-foot buffer back down on thousands of sex offenders who hoped they might be exempt from Georgia's residency requirements.

Though not all political players agree, District Attorney Danny Craig says the recent clarification in the controversial Mann case shows the residency exemption will only apply to sex offenders who acquired property, or interest in a property, after their convictions.

The confusion goes back to Nov. 21 when Justice Carol Hunstein struck down a residency portion of the law which prohibits sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of any place children gather - like daycares, churches, schools and community pools.

The case at hand involved Clayton County sex offender and homeowner Anthony Mann, who was suing the Department of Corrections after his family was forced to move when two new daycare centers opened nearby.

Justice Hunstein ruled in Mann's favor, calling Georgia's residency restriction "unconstitutional."

Her ruling left law enforcement agencies in a lurch, not knowing whether it could be extended to all of Georgia's 15,000 sex offenders or only those who owned property.

Attorney General Thurbert E. Baker wondered too and filed a motion late last month requesting reconsideration or clarification.

He questioned whether the decision was a "blanket declaration" or whether it applied only to sex offenders in circumstances similar to Mann's.

The Superior Court has now replied, clarifying a portion of the ruling which originally stated the residency restriction is unconstitutional "because it permits regulatory taking of property without just and adequate compensation."

The clarification actually boils down to the replacement of one word: "because." In its place are the words "to the extent that."

While human rights activists and attorneys continue to argue over the interpretation, Craig says the ruling is now clear.

"I don't think it's confusing anymore ... that is, unless you lend your ear to those who suggest that all criminal penalties are unconstitutional," he said. "And that's absurd."

Craig says that nearly every sex offender in Georgia will be held to the original residency restrictions. The ruling doesn't apply to sex offenders who don't own property, he said, nor to those who bought property before they were convicted.

"It's a very narrow opinion … in fact, so narrow, I don't think it applies to anyone in our area," Craig said, referring to Burke, Richmond and Columbia counties. "It probably won't affect more than ten sex offenders in the entire state."

He says the only remaining question is whether the ruling will be extended to lease holders with interest in post-conviction properties.