The People, Respondent,v.Michael Diack, Appellant.BriefN.Y.January 5, 2015QCourt of ~ppeals of tbe ~tate of 1f!etu ~ork THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, - against- MICHAEL DIACK, APL 2014-00041 Indictment No. 25159/2009 Respondent, Appellant. BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE NEW YORK CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION Dated: DANA B. WOLFE MARIKO HIROSE COREY STOUGHTON AMOLSINHA JASON STARR CHRISTOPHER DUNN New York Civil Liberties Union Foundation 125 Broad Street, 19th Floor New York, N.Y. 10004 Telephone: (212) 607-3300 Facsimile: (212) 607-3318 dwolfe@nyclu.org Attorneys for Amicus Curiae New York Civil Liberties Union November 21, 2014 New York, New York DISCLOSURE STATEMENT PURSUANT TO RULE 500.l(f) The NYCLU hereby discloses that it is a non-profit, 50l(c)(4) organization, and is the New York State affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union. 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS DISCLOSURE STATEMENT PURSUANT TO RULE 500.l(f) ........................... i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................. iii INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1 STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE ........................................... 3 ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................... 4 I. THE PROLIFERATION OF LOCAL RESIDENCY RESTRICTIONS ACROSS NEW YORK STATE CREATES A COMPLEX, OVERLAPPING, AND INCOHERENT SCHEME OF REGULATION ....................................................................................... 5 Map: New York County and Town Residency Restrictions ......................... 7 II. LOCAL RESIDENCY RESTRICTIONS ARE PREEMPTED BECAUSE THEY PROHIBIT WHAT STATE LAWS PERMIT. ............ 13 III. LOCAL RESIDENCY RESTRICTIONS ARE INVALID UNDER CONFLICT PREEMPTION BECAUSE THEY UNDERMINE THE STATE'S POLICY CONCERNS ....................................................... 17 CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................... 25 11 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Consolidated Edison Company of NY. v. Town of Red Hook, 60 N.Y.2d 99 (1983) ................................................................................ 4, 13, 17 DJL Restaurant Corporation v. City of New York, 96 N.Y.2d 91 (2001) ............... 4 Doe v. Bucci, 05-CV-740 (N.D.N.Y. June 13, 2005) .............................................. 4 Doe v. County of Rensselaer, 24 Misc. 3d 1215(A) (Rensselaer Sup. Ct. 2009) ................................................................................... 5 Doe v. Pataki, 120 F.3d 1263 (2d Cir. 1997) ........................................................... 4 In re Afton C., 17 N.Y.3d 1 (2011) .......................................................................... 3 Jancyn Manufacturing Corpation v Suffolk County, 71N.Y.2d91 (1987) ........... 17 Landsdown Entertainment Corpation v. New York City Department of Consumer Affairs, 74 N.Y.2d 761 (1989) .......................................................... 13 People v. Blair, 23 Misc. 3d 902 (Albany City Ct. 2009) ................................... 5, 6 People v. Diack, 41 Misc. 3d 36 (N.Y. App. Term 2d Dep't. 2013) ..................... 20 People v. Harnett, 16 N.Y.3d 200 (2011) ................................................................ 3 People v. Oberlander, 22 Misc. 3d 1124(A) (Rockland Sup. Ct. 2009) ....... 5, 6, 16 Terrance v. City of Geneva, NY., 799 F. Supp. 2d 250 (W.D.N.Y. 2011) ....... 5, 16 Williams v. Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, 43 Misc. 3d 356 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2014) ............................................................... 14 111 STATUTES 9 NYCRR 365.3 ......................................................................................... 17, 20, 21 9 NYCRR 8002.7 ............................................................................................. 17, 21 City of Auburn, N.Y. § 245 ..................................................................................... 9 City of Buffalo, N.Y. § 299 ..................................................................................... 9 City of Port Jervis, N.Y. §447 ................................................................................ 10 MENTALHYG. LAW§ 10.11 .................................................................................... 15 Nassau County§ 8-130 .................................................................................... 12, 22 N.Y. CORRECT. LAW§ 168-b(l) ............................................................................. 15 N.Y. EXEC. LAW§ 259-c(l4) ................................................................................. 14 N.Y. PENAL LAW§ 65.10(4-a)(a) ........................................................................... 14 N.Y. PENAL LAW§ 220(14) ................................................................................... 14 Orange County Local Law No. 1-2008 ................................................................. 11 Town of Amherst, N.Y. § 163 ............................................................................... 10 Town of Brant, N.Y. § 130 ..................................................................................... 10 Town of Brookhaven, N.Y. § 55 .............................................................................. 9 Town of Cheektowaga, N.Y. § 200 ....................................................................... 10 Town of Fenton, N.Y. § 109 ..................................................................................... 9 Town of Hamlin, N.Y. § 250 ............................................................................. 8, 11 Town of Lancaster, N.Y. § 39 ................................................................................. 10 IV Town of Lewiston, N.Y. § 275 ......................................................................... 10, 11 Town of Malta, N.Y. § 129 ...................................................................................... 8 Town ofNiagara, N.Y. § 202 ................................................................................ 11 Town of Rochester, N.Y. § 70 ............................................................................... 10 Town of Sheldon, N.Y. Local Law No. 3-2008 .................................................... 11 Town of Tully, N.Y. § 130 .................................................................................... 11 Town of Wallkill, N.Y. § 93 .................................................................................. 10 Village of Akron, N.Y. § 124 ................................................................................ 11 Village of Depew, N.Y. § 189 ................................................................................. 9 Village of East Rochester, N.Y. § 145 ..................................................................... 9 Village of East Rockaway, N.Y. § 240 ........................................................ 8, 10, 12 Village of Floral Park, N.Y. § 74A .................................................................... 9, 12 Village of Freeport, N.Y. § 196 ............................................................................. 12 Village of Johnson City, N.Y. § 223 ........................................................................ 9 Village of Lynbrook, N.Y. § 196 ........................................................................... 10 Village of Massapequa Park, N.Y. § 279 .............................................................. 11 Village of Mineola, N.Y. § 439 ............................................................................. 12 Village ofNorth Syracuse, N.Y. § 198 .................................................................... 9 Village of Stewart Manor, N.Y. § 148 ................................................................... 12 Village of Tuckahoe, N.Y. § 19A-3 ......................................................................... 8 v OTHER AUTHORITIES Beth M. Heubner et al., An Evaluation of Sex Offender Residency Restrictions in Michigan and Missouri (U.S. DEP'T. OF JUSTICE, July 2013) ...................................................... 18, 23, 24 Howard N. Snyder, Sexual Assault of Young Children as Reported to Law Enforcement: Victim, Incident and Offender Characteristics (BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS 2000) .............................................................. 24 Jill Levenson et al., Sex offender residence restrictions: Sensible crime policy or flawed logic? Federal Probation 71:2-9 (2007) .................................. 18 Kelly M. Socia, The Efficacy of County-Level Sex Offender Residence Restrictions in New York, 58 CRIME & DELINQUENCY 612 (2012) ................... 23 Kelly M. Socia, Examining the Concentration of Registered Sex Offenders in Upstate New York Census Tracts (CRIME & DELINQUENCY, April 2014) ............................................................... 18 Kelly M. Socia, The policy implications of residence restrictions on sex offender housing in Upstate NY, 10 CRIMINOLOGY & PUBLIC POLICY 3 51 (2011) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19, 20 Kelly M. Socia, Residence Restrictions are Ineffective, Inefficient, and Inadequate: So Now What?, 13 CRIMINOLOGY & PUB. POL. 179 (2014) ........................................................... 6 New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, Three Year Post Release Follow-Up Report (2009) .......................................... 22 Phyllis Blood et al, State Legislation Monitoring Report FY2007 (IOWA DIV. OF CRIMINAL AND JUVENILE JUSTICE PLANNING 2008) ................... 24 Vl PERIODICALS Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers Policy Position, Sexual Offender Residence Restrictions (August 2, 2014) ............................... 18 Joseph Goldstein, Housing Restrictions Keep Sex Offenders in Prison Beyond Release Dates, N.Y. TIMES, Aug. 21, 2014 ................................... 14, 17 Lawmaker's sex offender proposal, ROCHESTER 13 WHAM-TV, Oct. 22, 2014 ....................................................................................................... 6 Megan Brockett, Owego passes sex offender residency restriction law, BINGHAMTON PRESS & SUN-BULLETIN, Aug. 19, 2014 ...................................... 6 Vll INTRODUCTION This appeal presents the issue of whether New York's comprehensive regime for regulating the approximately 37,000 people subject to the State's registry for sex offenses preempts local laws that impose materially harsher residency restrictions. The State has chosen to restrict the residence of registrants it determines to pose a higher risk to public safety but allow all others the choice of where to live, as long as they register their addresses. Yet Nassau County has passed a local law prohibiting every person on the registry, regardless of his or her risk of reoffending or the nature of the offense, from living in vast swaths of the County-within 1,000 feet of a school, 500 feet of a park, or 2,000 feet of where the victim of their offense resides or works. The New York Civil Liberties Union submits this amicus curiae brief to provide the Court with a statewide perspective underscoring the correctness of the Appellant's argument that State law preempts Nassau County's residency restriction. Nassau County's law is only one of at least 130 similar local provisions across the State that have created a confusing, overlapping, and ever- changing landscape of local rules about where people on the registry can live and where they can go. Despite the fact that every court to consider whether such laws are preempted-with the exception of the Appellate Term decision on appeal here-has concluded that they are, local laws continue to proliferate. 1 Local residency restrictions conflict with the State's regime for managing people registered for sex offenses and undermine the policy goals of that regime. Local laws impose far broader and harsher restrictions than the State's regime, subjecting more registrants to more extreme limitations on where they can reside for longer periods of time. By prohibiting what the State regime purposefully permits, local residency restrictions run afoul of conflict preemption principles. Moreover, by thwarting the State's more tailored and moderate regime, local residency restrictions upset the balance struck between, on the one hand, a policy of keeping certain registrants out and, on the other hand, a policy of promoting stable housing, access to treatment, and community re-integration. Nassau County may believe its local law complements the State's interest in public safety, but its position is not evidence-based. Research consistently demonstrates that residency restrictions foster instability, compromise public safety, and are ineffective at protecting communities. Competing, proliferating local restrictions drive registrants out of populated areas and into rural communities less equipped to provide treatment services and far from registrants' own families and support networks. This not only threatens public safety but also unfairly pushes the costs of this social problem onto parts of the State least equipped to deal with them, demonstrating clearly the need for a uniform State approach. 2 For these reasons, as well as the additional reasons set forth in the Appellant's briefs, the Court should find that Nassau County's local residency restriction is invalid under established principles of conflict preemption and send a clear signal that the State system of regulating registrants preempts local residency restrictions like Nassau's. STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE The New York Civil Liberties Union ("NYCLU") is the New York State affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union. The NYCLU is a non-profit, non- partisan organization with tens of thousands of members across the State. The NYCLU is committed to the defense and protection of civil rights and civil liberties, including the constitutional rights of people convicted of criminal offenses. The NYCLU has filed amicus curiae briefs in a number of cases that affect the rights of people required to register under the New York State Sex Offender Registry Act. See, e.g., In re Afton C., 17 N.Y.3d 1 (2011) (holding that the presence of a registered sex offender in the home, of itself, was insufficient to support a finding of parental neglect); People v. Harnett, 16 N.Y.3d 200 (2011) (holding that failure to warn a defendant that guilty plea could trigger the Sex Offender Management and Treatment Act did not automatically invalidate a guilty 3 plea); Doe v. Bucci, 05-CV-740 (N.D.N.Y. June 13, 2005)1 (in support of plaintiffs' motion for injunctive relief barring the enforcement of Binghamton's residency restriction); Doe v. Pataki, 120 F.3d 1263 (2d Cir. 1997) (holding that New York State's Sex Offender Registry Act did not violate the ex post facto clause of the federal constitution). The NYCLU routinely fields requests for help from people on the registry seeking to comply with the State's requirements while navigating the numerous local laws limiting their residence and movement. ARGUMENT This Court's jurisprudence on preemption is well-established and articulated in the Appellant's brief: local laws are preempted by State laws either when they are in conflict with State laws, or when the State has created a regulatory scheme that demonstrates its desire to occupy a particular field. See DJL Rest. Corp. v. City of New York, 96 N.Y.2d 91, 95 (2001); Brief for Appellant Michael Diack (May 2, 2014) (hereinafter, "App.'s Br.") at 16. While field preemption and conflict preemption are "often interrelated, each is in itself a sufficient basis for invalidating a local law." Consol. Edison Co. of NY. v. Town of Red Hook, 60 N.Y.2d 99, 105 (1983). Every court to decide whether local residency restrictions in New York are preempted-until the Appellate Term 1 Available at www.nyclu.org/pdfs/binghamton sexoffender amicus 070705 .pdf (last accessed 11/20/2014). 4 decision on appeal here-has found them to be invalid under either field preemption or conflict preemption or both. 2 As the Appellant's brief thoroughly discusses the State's detailed regulatory scheme and how it evinces the State's intent to occupy the field of regulating people on the sex offender registry, this amicus curiae brief focuses on the alternate argument of conflict preemption. In particular, this brief will provide an overview of the proliferation of local residency restrictions across the State and how they directly conflict with State law and with the State's interest in a uniform and balanced system of regulating people on the registry. I. THE PROLIFERATION OF LOCAL RESIDENCY RESTRICTIONS ACROSS NEW YORK STATE CREATES A COMPLEX, OVERLAPPING, AND INCOHERENT SCHEME OF REGULATION. Across New York State, at least 109 cities, towns and villages, and 21 counties have enacted laws that limit where people registered for sex offenses can reside and travel. See Appendix A. 3 And while courts have struck down some of 2 See Terrance v. City of Geneva, NY , 799 F. Supp. 2d 250, 254 (W.D.N.Y. 2011) (finding the City of Geneva's residency restriction preempted by State laws regulating people registered for sex offenses); Doe v. County of Rensselaer, 24 Misc. 3d 1215(A) (Rensselaer Sup. Ct. 2009) (Rensselaer County); People v. Blair, 23 Misc. 3d 902 (Albany City Ct. 2009) (Albany County); People v. Oberlander, 22 Misc. 3d 1124(A) (Rockland Sup. Ct. 2009) (Rockland County). 3 Not all town or county laws are available online. This number includes both laws that can be found online through internet-based codes such as eCode360.com and Municode.com, as well as local residency restrictions included in an August 2009 list of local residency restrictions created for informational purposes by the Division of Criminal Justice Services Office of Sex Offender Management (included as Appendix B). It is possible that there are additional residency restrictions that are not captured by these sources. 5 those laws on preemption grounds,4 new laws continue apace,5 fueled by what one court striking down a local residency law lamented as "local legislative scrambling to pass the most restrictive residency laws ... presently occurring, unchecked, throughout the State." People v. Blair, 23 Misc. 3d 902, 911-12 (Albany City Ct. 2009) (describing the Town of Colonie's efforts to pass a more restrictive residency restriction than Albany County, where it is located); see also People v. Oberlander, 22 Misc. 3d l 124(A), *3 (Rockland Sup. Ct. 2009) (describing local residency restrictions as a "chain-reaction of fear-driven and increasingly restrictive laws"). It is, therefore, unsurprising that one researcher described residency restrictions as both "political slam dunks" as well as "political landmines, because policy makers not supporting such policies can be labeled 'soft on crime' or 'pro sex offender."' Kelly M. Socia, Residence Restrictions are Ineffective, Inefficient, and Inadequate: So Now What?, 13 CRIM. & PUB. POL. 179, 182 (2014).6 4 See Footnote 1, supra. 5 See, e.g., Megan Brockett, Owego passes sex offender residency restriction law, BINGHAMTON PRESS & SUN-BULLETIN, Aug. 19, 2014 (reporting a new residency restriction enacted by the Village of Owego in August 2014 ), available at www.pressconnects.com/ story/news/2014/08/ 19 I owego-sex-off ender-residency- restriciton/ 14279741 (last accessed 11/18/2014); Lawmaker's sex offender proposal, ROCHESTER 13 WHAM-TV, Oct. 22, 2014 (reporting a proposed Monroe County residency law), available at www.13wham.com/news/features/top-stories/stories/lawmakers-sex-offender- proposal-16924.shtml (last accessed 11/18/2014). 6 Available at http ://www.researchgate.net/publication/260715511 Residence Restrictions Are Ineffective I nefficient and Inadequate So Now What (last accessed 11/18/2014). 6 Map: New York County and Town Residence Restrictions OnlhJ Peterborough Montpelier ,ae1l&v111e i~ on ,( ;a1em Manchester Worcester 5qdf1ton W1Uiarmpon ~tateCoJlegp ,, Allentown Altoona • NO RE SffilCTION S • TOWN ANO COUIHY LAWS • TOWN LAW(S)ONLY • REPEALEOTOWH LAW(S) • REPEALED COUIHY LAW • lllVALIOATEO COUIHY LAW (llrnberland /, cartoDB attributt0n Sources,- eCode360; Municode; NYS Sex Offender Residency Restriction Laws (DCJS Office of Sex Offender Management, 8/12/2009), 7 The unchecked race to pass local laws has resulted in a confusing, overlapping, and ever-shifting patchwork of rules on residence that vary greatly among localities, as illustrated by Appendix A. One variation among the laws is the definitions of the people who are required to comply with local residency restrictions. 7 In several towns and counties, such as the Village of East Rockaway in Nassau County and the Town of Hamlin in Monroe County, the restrictions apply to all people registered for past sex offenses. See, e.g., Village of East Rockaway, N.Y. § 240-2; Town of Hamlin, N.Y. § 250-2.8 Other local laws apply only to Level 2 and Level 3 registrants-those determined through the State's risk assessment instrument to pose a medium and high risk, respectively, of re- offending. See, e.g., Village of Tuckahoe, N.Y. § 19A-3 (preventing Level 2 and Level 3 registrants from living within 1000 feet of any parks). Still other local laws apply only to Level 3 registrants. 9 See, e.g. Town of Malta, N.Y. § 129-1 7 Local restrictions on where people registered for sex offenses can live take different forms. Some local laws expressly prohibit people from establishing a residence within certain areas. Other laws create "child safety zones" that prohibit registrants from living, working, or loitering within certain areas. Other local laws prohibit registrants from knowingly entering certain areas. Although the laws have different forms , their effect is always to serve as a residency restriction, since it is not possible to live within an area if there is a prohibition on entering the area. As a result, this brief discusses all three types of restrictions as "residency restrictions." However, as a practical matter, many local laws restrict much more than merely where registrants can reside. 8 Unless otherwise noted, all local laws are accessible at the NEW YoRK ECODE360 LIBRARY GENERAL CODE, available at www.generalcode.com/ecode360/NY (last accessed 11/19/2014). 9 Additionally, according to an informational sheet created by DCJS in August 2009 (included as Appendix B), some local laws apply only to Level 2 registrants. See, e.g. Village of Johnson City (id. at 5), Village of Endicott (id.) , Village of Windsor (id.) , Town of Conklin 8 (prohibiting Level 3 registrants from residing within one mile of enumerated locations). In other jurisdictions, the applicability of a local residency restriction hinges on whether someone's conviction offense involved a "minor." Within these jurisdictions, there is even variability in the definition of when a victim is a "minor"-with some jurisdictions setting the age at under 16, some at under 1 7, and some at under 18. 10 Another variation among the local laws is the types of locations that registrants are prohibited from living near. For example, in their most narrow form, local residency restriction laws prohibit registrants from living near schools, parks, playgrounds, and/or day care centers. See, e.g., City of Auburn, N.Y. § 245-3 (schools, child care facilities, parks and playgrounds); Town of Brookhaven, N.Y. § 55-3 (schools, parks and playgrounds); City of Buffalo, N.Y. § 299-8.1 (B) (schools, parks, playgrounds or day-care facilities); Town of Fenton, N.Y. § 109-4(A) (schools, child care facilities, parks); Village ofNorth Syracuse, N.Y. § 198-3 (schools, day-care centers, parks and playgrounds). However, many local laws go further. Some local laws expand the definition of "school" to include "non-degree-granting schools," including self-defense schools, dance (id.) , Town of Fenton (id.) , Town of Maine (id. at 6), Town of Dickinson (id.) , and Village of Afton (id. at 7). These laws were not available online and could not be verified. 10 See, e.g. Village of Depew, N.Y. § 189-2 (applying to anyone whose conviction involved a victim under 16); Village of East Rochester, N.Y. § 145-2 (applying to anyone whose conviction involved a victim under 17); Village of Johnson City, N.Y. § 223-4 (anyone whose conviction involved a victim under 18). 9 schools, swimming schools, gymnastics schools, and "similar instruction/programs." See, e.g., Village of Floral Park, N.Y. § 74A-l. Other towns and counties prohibit registrants from living in proximity to public libraries, youth centers, churches that operate "any child or youth centered program," dance or concert halls, skating rinks, bowling alleys, movie theaters, mini-golf businesses, video arcades, laser tag or paintball facilities, or, at their most broad, any spaces where "minors congregate for sponsored, programmed activities." 11 Other local laws prohibit registrants from living near locations that have no relationship with preventing contact with minors-including senior citizen assisted care facilities, fire halls, and the residences of other registered "sex offenders."12 Other towns force registrants to live away from concentrated population centers, including apartment buildings, trailer parks, condominiums, hotels and motels, or "clustered housing developments." 13 The Town of Hamlin 11 See Village of Lynbrook, N.Y. § 196-3 (libraries); Town of Brant, N.Y. § 130-3 (churches that operate youth-centered programs); Town of Cheektowaga, N.Y. § 200-3 (dance or concert halls and skating rinks; Town of Rochester, N.Y. §§ 70-2-3 (bowling alleys), available at www.townofrochester.ny.gov/Pages/RochesterNY Codes/Chapter%2070- Child%20Safety%20Zones.pdf (last accessed 11/19/2014); City of Port Jervis, N.Y. §447 (movie theater, mini-golf businesses, video arcades, laser tag or paintball facilities); Town of Lancaster, N.Y. § 39-2 (spaces where "minors congregate for sponsored, programmed activities"). 12 Town of Amherst, N .Y. § 163-3 (senior citizen facilities); Town of Lewiston, N .Y. § 275-7 (fire halls); Village of East Rockaway, N.Y. § 240-3(B) (other registered "sex off enders"). 13 See, e.g., Town of Wallkill, N.Y. § 93-2 (two-family or multifamily dwellings, apartment buildings, co-ops, condominiums,, mobile home parks, or other "clustered housing developments,'' hotels, motels and rooming houses); Town of Rochester, N.Y. § 70-2 (two- family dwellings, multi-family dwellings, apartment buildings, co-ops, condominiums, mobile 10 goes even further by prohibiting registrants from living within 1000 feet of any part of town that is zoned "R-H (Residential High/Density)." Town of Hamlin, N.Y. § 250-2. There is also great disparity in how far people must stay away from specified locations: local laws range from prohibiting people from being anywhere from 300 feet to 2000 feet to one-mile (5,280 feet) from the locations identified by the laws. 14 The result of these laws is wide variation in the restrictions that registrants face even when they are within the boundaries of a single county. In Nassau County alone, ten cities and villages-East Rockaway, Floral Park, Freeport, Lynbrook, Malverne, Massapequa Park, Mineola, Stewart Manor, Valley Stream, and the City of Glen Cove-have enacted their own laws to regulate where home parks, "clustered housing developments", hotels, motels and rooming houses), available at www.townofrochester.ny.gov/Pages/RochesterNY Codes/Chapter%2070- Child%20Safety%20Zones.pdf (last accessed 11/19/2014); Town of Tully, N.Y. § 130-3 (multifamily dwellings, apartment buildings, co-ops, condominiums, mobile home parks, "clustered housing developments") . 14 See, e.g., Town of Lewiston, N.Y. § 275-7 (prohibiting registrants from living within 1000 feet of enumerated locations); Orange County Local Law No. 1-2008 (creating "child safety zones" which prohibit registrants from "loitering" within 300 feet of enumerated locations), available at www.co.orange.ny.us/filestorage/1158/16145/Local Laws 2008.pdf (last accessed 11/20/2014); Town of Sheldon, N.Y. Local Law No. 3-2008 (prohibiting registrants from living or entering within 1000 feet of specified locations), available at www.townofsheldon.com/uploads/Local Law 3-2008 - Sex Offender Residency.pdf (last accessed 11/20/2014); Village of Akron, N.Y. § 124 (prohibiting registrants from residing within 1500 feet of enumerated locations); Town of Niagara, N.Y. § 202 (prohibiting registrants from residing within 2000 feet oflocations); Village of Massapequa Park, N.Y. § 279-3 (prohibiting registrants from establishing a residence within one-mile of schools, parks, or other registered sex offenders). 11 registrants may live. Thus, while the Nassau County law prohibits registrants from living within 1000 feet of a school, within 500 feet of a park, or within 2000 feet of the residence or workplace of the victim of the registrant's offense, Nassau County § 8-130.6, 15 those living in East Rockaway are further prohibited from living within 1000 feet of places of worship or public libraries. Village of East Rockaway, N.Y. § 240. Registrants in Floral Park must avoid living near self- defense schools, swimming schools, or gymnastics schools. Village of Floral Park, N.Y. § 74A. Registrants in Freeport, Lynbrook, Mineola, Stewart Manor, and Valley Stream cannot live within 1000 feet of a park, even though the County law only requires that they live 500 feet away from a park. See Village of Freeport, N.Y. § 196; Village of Lynbrook, N.Y. § 196; Village of Mineola, N.Y. § 439 (Local Law No. 1-2007); Village of Stewart Manor, N.Y. § 148. The chaotic patchwork of local residency restrictions and the local legislative scrambling to pass more and more laws provides essential context for the Court to understand how Nassau's law in this case poses a threat to the balanced and comprehensive approach to regulation of registrants enacted by the State and why a uniform State approach to this issue is necessary. 15 Available at www.nassaucountvny.gov/agencies/Legis/documents/LocalLaw 25- 2009.pdf (last accessed 11/20/2014). 12 II. LOCAL RESIDENCY RESTRICTIONS ARE PREEMPTED BECAUSE THEY PROHIBIT WHAT STATE LAWS PERMIT. Local residency restrictions are invalid under conflict preemption because they render illegal residences expressly permitted by State law: they apply to more people, an increased number of locations, and last for a greater length of time than the State's residency restrictions. As this Court has held, conflict preemption invalidates local laws that "prohibit what would be permissible under State law." Consol. Edison Co. of New York, Inc. v. Town of Red Hook, 60 N.Y.2d 99, 108 (1983). Conflict preemption applies even if it is possible to comply with both State law and the more stringent local law-for example, this Court has held that a local law which required bars to close by 4:00 am was preempted by a State law which required them to close by 4:30 am because the more stringent local law "render[ ed] illegal what is specifically allowed by State law." Landsdown Entm 't Corp. v. New York City Dep 't of Consumer Affairs, 74 N.Y.2d 761, 762-763 (1989). This conflict preemption principle applies equally to local residency restrictions. New York State has set restrictions on where some, but not other, registrants can reside through the operation of three laws: the Sex Offender Registration Act ("SORA"), the Sexual Assault Reform Act ("SARA"), and the Sex Offender Management and Treatment Act ("SOMTA"). First, all people convicted of offenses involving a victim under the age of 18 and all registrants 13 determined to pose the highest possible risk of re-offense (Level 3 registrants) are prohibited under SARA from "knowingly entering" within 1000 feet of a school while they are subject to parole, probation or post release supervision. See N.Y. PENAL LA w § 65 .10( 4-a )(a) (establishing mandatory probation and conditional discharge restrictions preventing certain registrants from knowingly entering a "school"); N.Y. EXEC. LAW§ 259-c(14) (establishing a mandatory parole condition to the same effect); N.Y. PENAL LAW§ 220(14) (defining a "school" as any school building or any publicly accessible space "located within one thousand feet" of a school's property line). Notwithstanding Nassau County's unconvincing attempt to paint this regulation as only a "tangential" limitation on travel, Brief for Respondent Nassau County (June 19, 2014) (hereinafter, "Resp. 's Br.") at 36, as a practical matter, it prohibits this category of people on the registry from living within 1,000 feet of school property. See, e.g., Williams v. Dep 't of Corr. and Cmty. Supervision, 43 Misc. 3d 356 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2014) (affirming that a registrant subject to SARA is not permitted to live in large swaths of Manhattan and the Bronx because there are no residential addresses outside the 1000-feet buffer law). In fact, this prohibition is so restrictive that the State has recently been incarcerating people past their maximum prison expiration dates when they can find no residence that complies with the prohibition, as is the case for many people from New York City. See Joseph Goldstein, Housing 14 Restrictions Keep Sex Offenders in Prison Beyond Release Dates, N.Y. TIMES, Aug. 21, 2014. 16 Second, people on the sex offender registry who are considered to pose the highest and clearest threat of committing subsequent sex crimes are regulated pursuant to SOMTA. Among this group, those placed under Strict and Intensive Supervision and Treatment ("SIST") are only permitted to live in specific residences authorized by a court. See MENTAL HYG. LAW§ 10.1 l(a)(l). If imposed, the SIST residency restriction remains in place until a court orders its termination. MENTAL HYG. LAW§ 10.ll(h). Finally, the State permits all other registrants to live anywhere in the State, subject to a comprehensive system of registering and verifying their residential addresses pursuant to SORA. All people subject to SORA must register a variety of personal information, including their home address or expected place of domicile, with the State. N.Y. CORRECT. LAW§ 168-b(l). The information must be kept updated, is verified at regular intervals, and any changes must be reported within ten days. Id.§§ 168-f(2), 168-f(4). Nassau County misses the point in arguing that localities are free to pass their own local residency laws because New York has chosen not to impose residency restrictions on this final category of individuals on the sex offender 16 Available at www.nytimes.com/2014/08/22/nyregion/with-new-limits-on-where-they- can-go-sex-offenders-are-held-after-serving-sentences.html (last accessed 11/5/2014). 15 registry. Resp. 's Br. at 21. The point is that New York made the considered decision not to impose residency restrictions on this group of people-those deemed by the State to pose the lowest threat to public safety-thus permitting them to live where they choose in the State, including close to family and loved ones and other support. Local residency restrictions directly conflict with State laws by prohibiting this group of people from living in vast swaths of the State where they have the right to live under State law. See, e.g., People v. Oberlander, 22 Misc. 3d 1124(A), *4 (Rockland Sup. Ct. 2009) (finding that Rockland County's residency restriction law "impermissibly conflicts with the State enactments in the area in that it prohibits all housing described in the statute"); Terrance v. City of Geneva, NY., 799 F. Supp.2d 250, 252 (W.D.N.Y. 2011) (noting that "[t]he conflict between New York State law and the [the City of Geneva Law] is that Terrance's current disputed residence is not prohibited according to State residency restrictions under N.Y. Penal Law§ 65.10(4)(a)"). Because local residency restrictions directly conflict with State laws by prohibiting what State laws allow, the Court should find them invalid under conflict preemption. 16 III. LOCAL RESIDENCY RESTRICTIONS ARE INVALID UNDER CONFLICT PREEMPTION BECAUSE THEY UNDERMINE THE STATE'S POLICY CONCERNS. Local residency restrictions conflict with the balanced approach to sex offender management taken by the State, thereby undermining the State's goals of public safety, community reentry, and preventing recidivism. This Court has recognized that local laws are invalid under conflict preemption in such situations where they "tend to inhibit the operation of the State's general law and thereby thwart the operation of the State's overriding policy concerns." Jancyn Mfg. Corp. v Suffolk County, 71N.Y.2d91, 97 (1987) (citation omitted). Local residency restrictions undermine the State's interest in facilitating reentry, see 9 NYCRR 365.3(c); 9 NYCRR 8002.7(c), and foster instability, which exacerbates the risk of possible recidivism. The practical consequence of residency restriction laws is that they prevent those who have been convicted of sex offenses from living with their families after being released from prison. See, e.g., Joseph Goldstein, Housing Restrictions Keep Sex Offenders in Prison Beyond Release Dates, N.Y. TIMES, Aug. 21, 2014 (reporting that "sex offenders who have been deemed fit for release must often live as transients, exiled from their families' homes if they are too close to schools or parks."). 17 The result is that people are frequently forced into transient housing or homelessness, a problem 17 Available at www.nytimes.com/2014/08/22/nyregion/with-new-limits-on-where-they- can-go-sex-offenders-are-held-after-serving-sentences.html (last accessed 11/18/2014). 17 further exacerbated by difficulties in securing employment. See, e.g., Beth M. Heubner et al., An Evaluation of Sex Offender Residency Restrictions in Michigan and Missouri (U.S. DEP'T. OF JUSTICE, July 2013) at 10 ("while all sex offenders ... experienced difficulties securing housing and obtaining employment, sex offenders were presented with additional challenges because of the residency restriction laws"); Kelly M. Socia, Examining the Concentration of Registered Sex Offenders in Upstate New York Census Tracts (CRIME & DELINQUENCY, April 2014), at 4 ("interviews with [registered sex offenders] have indicated that these policies have forced them out of their previous residences and into housing that is farther from family members, employment options, and treatment facilities"). 18 Research consistently concludes that destabilizing conditions, such as those created by local residency restrictions, may exacerbate the risk of recidivism. 19 It is for this precise reason that the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers ("A TSA")-a national association of clinical treatment providers for those convicted of sex offenses-has adopted a policy position opposing the use of 18 Available at http :l/cad.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/04/14/0011128714526563 (last accessed 11/20/2014). 19 See, e.g., Jill Levenson et al. , Sex offender residence restrictions: Sensible crime policy or flawed logic? Federal Probation 71:2-9 (2007) ("Residence restrictions and their consequences are apt to challenge the coping skills of many sex offenders when they face transience and instability as a result of these laws. Precarious living arrangements have the potential to exacerbate dynamic risk factors associated with reoffense, such as lifestyle instability, substance abuse, negative moods, and lack of social support"), available at www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/FederalCourts/PPS/Fedprob/2007- 12/sexOffendResRestrictions.html (last accessed 11/20/2014). 18 residency restrictions as a sex offender management tool. See Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers Policy Position, Sexual Offender Residence Restrictions, (8/2/2014).20 ATSA cautions that "unintended consequences of residence restrictions include transience, homelessness, instability and other obstacles to community reentry," which can threaten, rather than advance, public safety. Id. at 2. These problems of failure of re-entry are compounded by the proliferation of local residency restriction laws fueled by not-in-my-backyard politics. One study, which examined what would happen if residency restrictions were implemented in 47of62 New York Counties, comprising 88% of the counties in upstate New York, concluded that such proliferation would result in registrants being forced to move to the most rural neighborhoods-neighborhoods that "lack adequate support structures that are conducive to successful reentry and rehabilitation," including access to treatment, employment opportunities, and public transportation. Kelly M. Socia, The policy implications of residence restrictions on sex offender housing in Upstate NY, 10 CRIMINOLOGY & PUBLIC POLICY 351, 365 (2011).21 The study speculated that further residency restrictions 20 Available at www.atsa.com/pdfs/Policy/2014SOResidenceRestrictions.pdf (last accessed 11/20/2014). 21 Available at http :l/onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1745- 9133.2011.00713.x/abstract (last accessed 11/20/2014). 19 in New York State may ultimately increase sexual and non-sexual recidivism rates. Id. Such a dynamic also illustrates how local residency regulations tend to shift community problems from one geographic area to another-generally shifting them from more wealthy areas to less advantaged areas. This is precisely what the State has decried as "not appropriate for any one community or county to bear an inappropriate burden in housing sex offenders because another community has attempted to shift its responsibility for those offenders onto other areas of the State." 9 NYCRR 365.3(c). While the Appellate Term found it "implausible that there could be a need for statewide uniformity for residency restrictions for such sex offenders given the fact that housing in rural areas is not necessarily in as high demand as it is in urban areas," People v. Diack, 41 Misc. 3d 36, 39 (N.Y. App. Term 2d Dep't. 2013), lv. to appeal granted, 22 N.Y.3d 1155 (2014), this is, in fact, the precise reason why there is a critical need for statewide uniformity: residency restrictions render more dense parts of the State off-limits, and less densely populated parts of the State therefore bear a disproportionate burden of accommodating the registrants pushed within their borders. Throughout its sex offender management laws, the State has evinced its dual policy goals of protecting the public and facilitating reentry. In passing SORA, the first of three laws related to regulating the residences of registrants, the 20 State made clear that it was creating a comprehensive system of regulation that takes a "balanced approach" which "protect[ s] the public" while not "unreasonably infring[ing] on the offender's right to travel or privacy." (Introducer's Mem., Bill Jacket, L. 1995, ch. 192, at 6-7); see also id. at 6 (describing SORA as creating a "balanced and comprehensive approach"). 22 The State further declared its intent by issuing regulations to govern the housing of registrants on parole or probation which proclaim that "[ s ]ex offender management, and the placement and housing of sex offenders, are areas that have been, and will continue to be, matters addressed by the State." 9 NYCRR 365.3(b); 9 NYCRR 8002.7(b). Among the policy concerns weighed by the State are promotion of public safety, facilitation of re-entry and reduction in recidivism. 9 NYCRR 365.3(c); 9 NYCRR 8002.7(c). Local residency restrictions undermine this approach by furthering pervasive misperceptions about sexual assault and creating insurmountable barriers to reentry for registrants. Examining Nassau County's contentions in its brief demonstrates this point. For example, the County asserts that people convicted of sex offenses need to be more highly regulated because they have high rates of re-offending. See Resp.'s Br. at 2-8. The legislative intent ofNassau County's residency restriction asserts that "sex offenders are prone to recidivism" 22 Available at http ://image.iarchives.nysed.gov/images/images/128472.pdf (last accessed 11/20/2014). 21 and that the public needs to be protected from the "particular danger" they pose. Nassau County§ 8-130.1 ("Legislative Intent").23 However, research consistently belies these assertions, finding instead that people convicted of sex offenses have, comparatively, very low rates of re- offense. For example, in its most recent (2009) Three Year Post Release Follow- Up Report, the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision found the re-offense rates for people convicted of sex offenses ranged from 0% to 5 .2%. 24 As a comparison, the same study found a re-offense rate of 9.6% for people incarcerated for all crimes.25 For certain top-level offenses it is higher-for example, the re-offense rate for third degree burglary is 15.9%, for possession of stolen property is 14 .9%, and for possession of dangerous weapons is 12.3%.26 Thus, Nassau County's contentions regarding the dangers of recidivism, which rely on citations to dicta in judicial opinions rather than on evidence-based studies or data, are utterly unsupported and underscore the dangers of permitting localities to second-guess the State's policy choices. 23 Available at www.nassaucountyny.gov/agencies/Legis/documents/LocalLaw 25- 2009.pdf (last accessed 11/19/2014). 24 Available at www.doccs.ny.gov/Research/Reports/2013/2009 releases 3vr out.pdf (last accessed 11/19/2014). Specifically, by top level charge, DOCCS found the following return to custody rates, for non-parole violations within three years ofrelease from prison: first degree rape - 2.9%; first degree sodomy- 1.75%; first degree sexual abuse - 4.0%; other violent felony sex offense - 0.0%; other sex offenses - 5.2%. These re-offense rates include both people who re-offend with a subsequent sex offense, as well as people who re-offend with a drug, property, or other crime. They do not include people who returned to custody for parole violations. 2s Id. 26 Id. 22 The County also asserts that it is "common sense" that it should be able to prohibit registrants from "residing in close proximity to places where children could naturally congregate, such as schools and playgrounds[.]" Resp.'s Br. at 8. But the County's "common sense" is, again, not supported by science. Empirical research consistently finds that there is no support for the contention that people commit sex offenses by targeting victims through living near places where children congregate. The only study to examine whether the existence of county- level residency restrictions were associated with a reduction in re-offenses in New York State found that "despite being popular with many politicians and residents, these policies are simply not effective at achieving the intended goal of protecting residents from [registered sex offenders] in the community." Kelly M. Socia, The Efficacy of County-Level Sex Offender Residence Restrictions in New York, 58 CRIME&DELINQUENCY 612, 631 (2012) (emphasis in original).27 Research in other states affirms the consensus view that excessively harsh residency restrictions do not protect children. For example, a study of Minnesota registrants who re-offended between 1990 and 2005 found that none of the people who committed another offense did so by making a direct contact with a victim under 18 at a school, park, or daycare center within 1000 feet of the registrant's 27 Available at http ://cad.sagepub.com/content/58/4/612.short (last accessed 11/19/2014). 23 home. 28 Similarly, evaluations of the efficacy of residency restrictions in Michigan, Missouri, and Iowa concluded that they do not advance public safety as intended. 29 Local residency restrictions like Nassau's are antithetical to the State's attempt to draw the difficult and delicate line between public safety, re-entry, and reducing recidivism in regulating people who had been convicted of sex crimes. Because the restrictions conflict with the State's policy balance, this Court should find the local residency laws preempted. 28 Beth M. Heubner et al, An Evaluation of Sex Offender Residency Restrictions in Michigan and Missouri , at 16 (U.S . DEP'T. OF JUSTICE, JULY 2013), available at www.ncjrs.gov/pdffilesl/nij/grants/242952.pdf (internal citation omitted). 29 See id. (concluding that Michigan and Missouri's residency restrictions are unlikely to "mitigate or reduce the risk of recidivism among sex offenders"); Phyllis Blood et al, State Legislation Monitoring Report FY2007 (low A DIV. OF CRIMINAL AND JUVENILE JUSTICE PLANNING 2008) (finding that "[t]he enforcement of [Iowa's] 2000-ft residency restrictions does not appear to have had an effect on reducing the number of sex offenses with child victims"), available at www.humanrights.iowa.gov/cjjp/images/pdf/Monitoring%20Report%20FY2007.pdf (last accessed 11/20/2014). Residency restrictions may also fail to advance public safety because they do not address the context in which the overwhelming majority of child sexual assault occurs. Research demonstrates that the majority of child sexual assault is perpetrated by people already known to the victim. For example, the Bureau of Justice Statistics found that 93% of sexual assault victims under the age of 17 are assaulted not by a stranger, but by a family member or an acquaintance. Howard N . Snyder, Sexual Assault of Young Children as Reported to Law Enforcement: Victim, Incident and Offender Characteristics (BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS 2000), available at www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/saycrle.pdf (last accessed 11/20/2014). 24 CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, this Court should reverse the decision below and hold that Nassau County' s residency restiiction is preempted by State law. Dated: November 21, 2014 New York, N.Y. Respectfully Submitted, DANA B. WOLFE MARIKO HIROSE COREY STOUGHTON AMOLSINHA JASON STARR CHRISTOPHER DUNN New York Civil Liberties Union Foundation 125 Broad Street, 19th Floor New York, N.Y. 10004 Telephone: (212) 607-3300 Facsimile: (212) 607-3318 dwolfe@nyclu .org Counsel for Proposed Aniicus Curiae New York Civil Liberties Union 25 Appendix A New York County-level Sex Offender Residency Restrictions "CS ... "' c Ciu !:; ~ ...... ...... - :::Ii Day ~ -;; Ill a a a~ i::; ~ - - - Park :e~ cu Cll Cll ..c: .... I~ .9 > > > = Care ~ .!!t .!!t "' Iii ~~ V'I ftJI ~~ - ~ CL [Albany County] • • • • • • • • • Broome CoLL11t( • • • • • • • Cayuga CClu:nty • • • • • • Chrm;mqo Coonty • • • • • • • • Franklin Coti nty • • • • • • JeffeiTson County • • • • • • • • • Nassau County • • • • • • • • N:iagara County+ • • • • • • • • Ont!:id;J (~ty • • • • • • • Orange tountt • • • • • • • • • • Otsego County-* • • • • • • • • Putnam Cou:nty • • • • • • • [Rens'Selaer Coonty] • • • • (RodblMl Coonty] • • • • • • • • • Saratoga County • • • • • • • • Seneca (ou.nty • • • • • • Suffcl{k Cou:niy • • • • • • W•1nen Coonty • • • • • • • • • Wad!Dgtoo ~tyt • • • • • • • • Sources: New York e{ode 360~ Municode.rnm;. NYS Sex Offender Residency Restriction Laws (DCJ S Office of Sex Offender Management, 8/12/2 009) '" Only applies to people whose crime of conviction involved a minor + Repealed Law [Law Invalidated by a Court] Create infographics 'ij·fi!ff MF New York Mun,icipal Sex Offen,der Residency Restrictions ~ -.::5 ........ N """" - c ov .,.. 0 ::I Day c:: ~ ... c: - - - 0 Park Q 4' Q cu Qi ~ .... "! 3 .c: +:> > > ..c en Care 0 ~ u >.. ! ~ ~ ~ ~ "' .!! . .9 a. .... Afton+ • • • • Akron· • • • • • • • • Atexatdria Say+ • • • • • Amherst • • • • • • • • Antwerp• • • • • • • • Auburn • • • • • • Aurora· • • • • • • • • • Blasdell • • • • • • • • • Boston· • • • • • • • • • Brant" • • • • • • • • • Brookhaven· • • • • • • Buffa[ll" • • • • • • • Canand "gu.a· • • • • • • • Candor+ • • • • • • • Central. Square • • • • • Chan plain • • • • Chatll!!au~~ • • • • Chee owaga• • • • • • • • • Chenango • • • • • Cicero • • • • • • Colden· • • • • • • • • • Conklin+ • • • • • Depew· • • • • • • • Dickinson· • • • • • • Dun "rlt .. • • • • • • • East Aurcu•1· • • • • • • • East RDchester" • • • • • • East Rodraway • • • • • • • • • Eden· • • • • • • • • • Sources: New York eCode 360; Municode.com; NYS Sex Offender Residency Restriction Laws (Office of Sex Offender Management, 8/12/2009) • Only applies to people whose crime of conviction involved a minor +Subsequently repealed Create fnfographics ._,.!j,j,if!..+ New Yor:k Municipal Sex Offen,der Residency Restrictions ~ - J:i ........ ,...... ....... - c 0 .... .... Q ::I Day ~ .~ - c - - - c Park e Q> Q Cll Cll ~ ... "' .t:::. 'i:i > > .c ~ Care ~ :::i 5 ~ .... l!! E ~ CLI ~ V'll a! fiii .9 ..... .!! 0::: 0 CL .... Ellenburg+ • • • • • Elma • • • • • • • • Endicott+ • • • • • Evans· • • • • • • • Farnham+ • • • • • • • ~nton • • • • • Roral Park • • • • • • • • • franld.inviUe• • • • • • • • Freeport • • • • • • • • • Geneva+ • • • • • • • Glen CDve • • • • • • • Grand lslaid • • • • • • • Hamburg· • • • • • • • • • Ham "n • • • • • • • • • Holland" • • • • • • • • Huntington • • • • • • • Hurley • • J;iy+ • • • • • Johnson Qty • • • • Jorda\ • • • • • • • • • rKenrnore • • • • • • lacki!w;nna• • • • • • • • • laocaster Town· • • • • • • • unustu Ylh~· • • • • • • • Lewton • • • • • • • lodiport aty. • • • • • • Lockport Town • • • • • • Lynbroo • • • • • • • • • lyoru; • • • • • • • • MadJid • • • • • Maine • • • Sources: New Ye>rk eCode 360; Municode.com; NYS Sex Offender Residency Restriction Laws (Office of Sex Offender Management, 8/ 12/2009) • Only applies to people whose crime of conviction involved a minor +Subsequently repealed Create infographics _.U.!.!f!.:E New York Municipal Sex Offender Residency Restrictions "CJ ~ ::i ....... ,..... """" - c ov ... 0 :::::s Day ~ .?; .... .,:: - - - 0 Park 0 "'..!2 cu cu cu .... . c: ..c: -> > > .c a"l Care "" ::::i 0 :::! .... >-!t !I ~ "' n:s :a ~ ..9 - - 0 0.. ...... Malooo • • • • • Malta • • • • • Malverne • • • • • • Mas Sapt!<[WI Park • • • • • • Middleport • • • • • • • Middletown • • • • • • • Mineola • • • • • • • • • Mooers • • • • • • • Newfane· • • • • • • • • N'ewste~ • • • • • • Niagara• • • • • • • • • Niagora Falls • • • • • • North Syracuse • • • • • • North Towanda • • • • • • • Olean· • • • • • • • Ortha-d Partc· • • • • • • • Palmyra • • • • • • • Pendleton • • • • • • • Port Jervis· • • • • • • • • • Porter • • • • • • • Riverllead • • • • • • • • R«Mmr (Town) • • • • • • • • • Rome· • • • • • • • Rouses Point" • • • • • Royalt:cn • • • • • • Salanilllca • • • • • • • ~ug~ {Tawnl • • • • Savannah • • • • • • Seneca Falls • • • • Sheldon • • • • • • • stoan.· • • • • • • • • • Sources: New York eCode 360; Municode.com; NYS Sex Offender Residency Restriction Laws (Office of Sex Offender Management, 8/12/2009) • Only applies to people whose crime of conviction involved a minor + Subsequently repealed Create infographics 'ij.!l.!.!f !..F New York Municipal Sex Offender Residency Restrictions "Cl ... J:I T"I ....... "" - OU "" 0 :::Ii Day c:: £: ... c: - - - Park Q ~~ cu ~ ~ .c ·11 > c::n Care ~ ~ ..,, res ...;;i - flll::.,S CL Somerset• • • • • • • • Soutnharnpto11 • • • • • • • Springvi\le • • • • • • • • • • Stewart M o • • • • • • • • Tow d I City) • • • • • • • • Towanda iTow11) • • • • • • • • Tuckahoe • • • Tutly • • • • • • • • Union • • • V, U y StJeam • • • • • • Walden • • • • • • Wa11.kiU • • • • • • • • • Waterloo • • • • • • • • ~~t S n ca • • • • • • • Wh t ' • • • • • • • • Windsor • • • • • • Youngstown • • • • • • • Sources; New York eCode 360; Munic:ode.c:om; NYS Sex Offender Residency Restriction Laws (Office of Sex Offender Management, 8/12/2009) Only applies to people whose crime of conviction involved a minor + Subsequently repealed Create lnfographlcs ·!.]~!l·fo* Appendix B NYS Sex Offender Residency Restriction Laws August 11, 2009 The New York State Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) does not restrict where a registered sex offender may live or travel. However, some local laws (county, city, town or village) restrict where a registered sex offender may live or travel. PLEASE NOTE: These local laws, charted below, are made available for informational purposes only. The Office of Sex Offender Management (OSOM) attempts to ensure that the information is accurate and complete but cannot guarantee the accuracy of the laws presented as this information is obtained from outside sources. Therefore, this chart should not be relied upon as a complete record of all residency restrictions in New York State nor as a substitute for the law itself In the event that errors are found, kindly contact OSOM. County County Law Municipality Law County County Municipality Law Law Albany X* Ontario x Allegany Orange x x Broome x x Orleans Cattaramms x Oswego Cayuga x x Otsego x Chautauqua x Putnam x Chemung Rensselaer X* Chenango x Rockland X* Clinton x Saratoga x x Columbia Schenectady x Cortland Schoharie Delaware Schuyler x Dutchess x Seneca x x Erie x St. Lawrence x Essex x Steuben Franklin x x Suffolk x x Fulton Sullivan Genesee Tioga x Greene Tompkins Hamilton Ulster x Herkimer Warren x Jefferson x x Washington x Lewis Wayne x Livingston Westchester x Madison Wyoming x Momoe x Yates Montgomery Bronx Nassau x x Kings Niagara x x New York Oneida x x Queens Onondaga x Richmond *no longer valid. DCJS - Office of Sex Offender Management 4 Tower Place Albany, NY 12203 NYS Sex Offender Residency Restriction Laws August 11, 2009 Thirty six of New York's sixty two counties and boroughs have passed some form of residency restriction legislation. Twenty one have county laws and fifteen counties have laws at the municipal level. The following chart details the 16 city, 48 town and 32 village laws. County Municipality County Municipality Broome Village of Johnson City Nassau Village of East Rockaway Village of Endicott Village of Mineola Village of Windsor Village of Floral Park Town of Conklin Village of Lynbrook Town of Union City of Glen Cove Town of Fenton Village of Valley Stream Town of Chenango Village of Massapequa Park Town of Maine Town of Dickinson Niagara City of Lockport Town of Pendleton Cattaraugus Village of Franklinville Town of Royalton City of Olean City of Niagara Falls City of Salamanca Town of Niagara Town of Somerset Cayuga City of Auburn Town of Porter Village of Youngstown Chautauqua City of Dunkirk City of North Tonawanda Town of Lewistown Chenango Village of Afton Town of Lockport Village of Middleport Clinton Town of Champlain Town of Ellenburg Oneida City of Rome Village of Rouses Point Town of Mooers Onondaga Town of Cicero Village of Jordan Erie Town of Amherst Town of Tully Village of Depew Town of Lancaster Ontario City of Canandaigua Town of Aurora City of Geneva Town of Cheektowaga City of Lackawanna Orange Town of Wallkill Village of Sloan City of Port Jervis Town of Evans City of Middletown Town of Elma Town of Brant Saratoga Town of Malta Town of Hamburg DCJS - Office of Sex Offender Management 4 Tower Place Albany, NY 12203 Essex Franklin Jefferson Monroe NYS Sex Offender Residency Restriction Laws August 11, 2009 Town of Tonawanda Villa e of Waterloo Town of Eden Town of Seneca Falls Villa e of Lancaster Town of Madrid Town of West Seneca Villa e of Farnham Town of Boston Town of Brookhaven Town of Whales Town of Holland Villa e of East Aurora Town of Rochester Town of Ja Villa e of Tuckahoe Town of Sheldon Town of Hamlin Villa e of East Rochester DCJS - Office of Sex Offender Management 4 Tower Place Albany, NY 12203 County Albany Broome NYS Sex Offender Residency Restriction Laws August 11, 2009 Details of Law Date Passed County law: Unlawful for level 2 and 3 sex July 10, 2006 offender to reside within 1,000 feet of a public or Effective nonpublic elementary or secondary school or a September 1, 2006 NO LONGER child care facility. VALID Challenges: Albany City Court judges' rulings: J. Kretser - residency restrictions not unconstitutional, Local Law okay J. Keefe - Local Law pre-empted, so did not reach the Constitutional issue. Challenge to Albany County Law in Supreme Court, Albany County in front of Justice McDonough, brought by Terry Kindlon, pro bono on behalf of clients. The Albany County sex offender residency law was struck down because it is pre-empted by state statute. "McDonough, in his five-page ruling, said arguments by the three sex offenders 'demonstrate that the state has expressed a desire to legislate in the field of sex offender monitoring, regulating and management, thereby preempting and prohibiting localities from doing so."' County law: Level 2 and level 3 sex offenders are May 25 , 2007 prohibited from knowingly entering into or upon (Amended June 13, 2008) 1,000 feet from any school grounds, any facility or institution primarily used for the care of treatment of persons under the age of eighteen, or public park. County law: Level 2 and level 3 sex offenders are May 18, 2007 prohibited from maintaining a residence, either (Amended June 13, 2008) permanently or temporarily, within 1,000 feet of DCJS - Office of Sex Offender Management 4 Tower Place Albany, NY 12203 Broome Continued NYS Sex Offender Residency Restriction Laws August 11, 2009 any school grounds, and facility or institution primarily used for the care or treatment of persons under the age of eighteen or public park. December 6, 2005 Village of Johnson City: Unlawful for level 2 sex offenders to enter into or upon any school grounds or any facility or institution primarily used for the care or treatment of persons under the age of 18. August 28, 2006 Village of Endicott: Unlawful for a level 2 sex offender to enter into or upon any school grounds or any facility for minors (including any building, structure, athletic playing field, playground of any public or private elementary, parochial, intermediate, junior high, vocational high school or any area accessible to the public [sidewalks, streets, parking lots, public parks, swimming pools, playgrounds, store, restaurants] located within 1,000 feet of any school or any parked automobile or other parked vehicle located within 1,000 feet of any school. Village of Windsor: Unlawful for level 2 sex February 6, 2007 offenders to knowingly enter into or upon any school grounds or any facility used for the care or treatment of persons under the age of 18. Town of Conklin: Unlawful for level 2 sex February 14, 2006 offenders to knowingly enter into or upon any school grounds or any facility or institution primarily used for the care or treatment of persons under the age of 18. Town of Union: Level 2 and level 3 sex offenders February 21 , 2006 are prohibited from knowingly entering into or upon any area within 1,000 feet of school grounds, community recreational facilities or any facility or institution primarily used for the care or treatment of persons under the age of 18. Town of Fenton: Unlawful for level 2 sex October 10, 2006 offenders to knowingly enter into or upon any school grounds, any facility or institution primarily used for the care or treatment of persons under the age of 18, or public park, or to maintain his/her DCJS - Office of Sex Offender Management 4 Tower Place Albany, NY 12203 Broome Continued Cattaraugus NYS Sex Offender Residency Restriction Laws August 11, 2009 residence within 1,000 feet of any school grounds, any facility or institution primarily used for the care or treatment of persons under the age of 18, or public park. Town of Chenango: Unlawful for level 2 and level March 5, 2007 3 sex offenders to enter into or upon any school (Amended March 20, 2008) grounds, any facility or institution primarily used for the care of treatment of persons under the age of 18, or public park. Unlawful for level 2 and level 3 sex offenders to permanently or temporarily reside within 1,000 feet of any school grounds, any facility or institution primarily used for the care or treatment of persons under the age of 18, or public park. Town of Maine: Unlawful for level 2 sex offenders, whose victim was under age 18 or was designated a April I 0, 2007 sexual predator, from knowingly entering within 1,000 feet into or upon any school grounds or any facility or institution primarily for the care or treatment of persons under the age of 18. Town of Dickinson: Unlawful for level 2 sex offender to enter within 1,000 feet of any school November 13 , 2006 grounds or any facility or institution primarily used for the care or treatment of persons under the age of 18. No county law Village of Franklinville: Sex offenders shall not October 26, 2006 newly occupy any real property, acquire any real property by lease or otherwise or establish a place of lodging within 1;4 of a mile of a school, day-care center, playground. Park or school grounds. Citv of Olean: Sex Offenders over 18 years of age September 23 , 2008 who have committed a sex offense against a child of the age 16 years or under may not live or reside within 1,000 feet of a school, park, playground, or day-care center unless otherwise permitted by a supervised release program or unless residency was established prior to the law. DCJS - Office of Sex Offender Management 4 Tower Place Albany, NY 12203 Cayuga Chautauqua Chenango Clinton NYS Sex Offender Residency Restriction Laws August 11, 2009 City of Salamanca: Unlawful for a registered sex October 29, 2007 offender to occupy any real property, acquire any real property by lease or otherwise establishing a place of lodging within 114 of a mile of any school, licensed daycare center, playground, park or school grounds. County law: Unlawful for registered level 2 and 3 November 30, 2005 sex offenders to reside or enter within a radius of 500 feet from entrances of a public or private school, nursery school, pre-school, child care facility, playground or park. City of Auburn: Unlawful for a level 3 sex offender February 1, 2007 to reside or enter within 500 feet of a public or (Amended May 19, 2008) private school, nursery school, pre-school, child care facility, playground or park. No county law City of Dunkirk: Unlawful for registered level 2 October 25 , 2006 and 3 sex offenders to reside within 1,000 feet of a public or private school, nursery school, pre-school, child care facility, playground, or park. Unlawful for registered level 2 and 3 sex offenders to enter into any public or private school, nursery school, pre-school, child care facility, playground, or park. No county law Village of Afton: Level 2 sex offenders are February 21 , 2006 prohibited from knowingly entering into or upon any school grounds or any facility or institution primarily used for the care or treatment of persons under the age of eighteen. No county law Town of Champlain: Unlawful for a level 2 or 3 sex October 1, 2007 offender to reside within 1,000 feet of a child care facility or school grounds. Town of Ellenburg: The residence of a sex offender June 4, 2007 shall not be real property comprising a child care DCJS - Office of Sex Offender Management 4 Tower Place Albany, NY 12203 Dutchess Erie NYS Sex Offender Residency Restriction Laws August 11, 2009 facility or school grounds. Village of Rouses Point: Unlawful for a level 2 or 3 March 15, 2007 sex offender to reside within 1, 000 feet of an elementary or secondary school or a child care facility or playground or playground area. Town of Mooers: Unlawful for a person who, has July 17, 2008 been convicted of an offense defined in Art. 130, 235 , or 263 against a minor child, or, is a level 2 or 3 registered sex offender, to permanently or temporarily acquiring any real property by purchase, lease, land contract, rental agreement for tenancy, or otherwise or establish a place of lodging within 1,500 feet of school grounds, playgrounds, camp grounds, recreational fields , child care facilities or any other similar location where potential victims would gather. Countv Law: Registered sex offenders who reside November 16, 2007 in Dutchess county must complete and sign a Sex Offender Verification Form under oath. No County Law Town of Amherst: Registered sex offenders shall October 24, 2005 not newly occupy, acquire by lease or other wise establish a place of lodging within 1;4 of a mile of a school, day care center, playground or park. Village of Depew: Unlawful for a registered sex January 27, 2006 offender, over the age of 18 years who has been convicted of an offense against a child of the age of 16 years or under, to reside or live within 1,500 feet of any school, park, playground or day care center. Town of Lancaster: Unlawful for registered sex February 7, 2006 offenders, over the age of 18 years who has been convicted of an offense against a child of the age of 16 years or under, to reside or live within 1,500 feet of any schools, day care centers, teen clubs, teen centers, Lancaster and Depew Boys and Girls Clubs, YMCA facilities, Town of Lancaster parks and playgrounds, any other structure or open space where minors congregate for sponsored, DCJS - Office of Sex Offender Management 4 Tower Place Albany, NY 12203 Erie Continued NYS Sex Offender Residency Restriction Laws August 11, 2009 programmed activities and any community centers where minors congregate. Town of Aurora: Unlawful for a registered sex March 9, 2006 offender, over the age of 18 convicted of an offense against a child age 16 or younger, to reside or live within 1,500 feet of any school, park, playground, day care center, community center or Boys and Girls Club. Town of Cheektowaga: Unlawful for a registered sex offender, over the age of 18 years who was March 10, 2006 convicted of an offense against a child age 16 or younger, to reside or live within 1,500 feet of any school, park, playground or day care center, teen/community center, teen facility, dance hall, or skating rink. Excludes the territory of the villages of Sloan and Depew. Citv of Lackawanna: Unlawful for a level 3 April 12, 2006 registered sex offender, or a registered sex offender over the age of 17 convicted of an offense upon a child age 16 or under, to reside or live within 2,000 feet of any school, park, playground, athletic field, or day care center. Village of Sloan: Unlawful for a registered sex April 21 , 2006 offender to reside or live within 1,500 feet of any school, park, playground or day care center, teen/community center, dance hall, or skating rink. Town of Evans: Unlawful for a registered sex April 28, 2006 offender, over the age of 18 convicted of an offense against a child age 16 or younger, to reside or live within 1,500 feet of any school, park, playground or day care center. Town of Elma: Unlawful for level 2 and level 3 sex May 12, 2006 offenders to reside, live, occupy, acquire by lease, rental agreement or otherwise establish a place of lodging within 2,000 feet of any community center, Boys and Girls Club, private and public school, athletic fields, playgrounds and parks, including but not limited to Creek Road, Village Green, and Elma meadows Park facilities; library facilities; child day DCJS - Office of Sex Offender Management 4 Tower Place Albany, NY 12203 Erie Continued NYS Sex Offender Residency Restriction Laws August 11, 2009 care facilities ; recreation facilities open to persons 18 years of age and under; pre-school facilities; and/ or any other places and/ or areas children traditionally meet and congregate. Town of Brant: Unlawful for a registered sex May 15, 2006 offender, over the age of 18 convicted of an offense against a child age 16 or under, to reside or live within 1,500 feet of any school, park, playground, day care center, teen/community center, or church which operates any child or youth-centered program. Town of Hamburg: Unlawful for a registered sex May 22, 2006 offender, over the age of 18 convicted of an offense against a child age 16 or under, to reside or live within 1,500 feet of any school, park, playground, day care center, teen/community center, teen facility, dance hall, skating rink, swimming pools, group family providers, or family child care providers. Town of Tonawanda: Unlawful for a registered sex June 12, 2006 offender, over the age of 18 convicted of an offense against a child age 16 or under, to live within 1,500 feet of any school, park, playground, day care center, teen/community center, teen facility, dance hall, skating rink, swimming pools, group family day-care providers, or family child care providers. Town of Eden: Unlawful for registered sex June 22, 2006 offenders to reside or live within 1,500 feet of any school, park, playground, day care center, teen/community center, church which operates any child or youth-centered program, dance hall, skating rink, public swimming pools, group family providers, and family care providers. Village of Blasdell: Unlawful for a registered sex June 25 , 2006 offender to reside or live within 1,500 feet of any school, park, playground, day care center, teen/community center, church which operates any child or youth-centered program, dance hall, or skating rink. DCJS - Office of Sex Offender Management 4 Tower Place Albany, NY 12203 Erie Continued NYS Sex Offender Residency Restriction Laws August 11, 2009 Village of Lancaster: Unlawful for a registered sex July 27, 2006 offender, over the age of 18 years who has been convicted of an offense against a child of the age of 16 years or under, to reside or live within 1,500 feet of any school, park, playground or day care center. Town of West Seneca: Unlawful for any sex August 17, 2006 offender to establish a permanent or temporary residence within 1,500 feet of any school, child- care facility, community center, public park or open space where children congregate for sponsored or programmed activities. Village of Farnham: Unlawful for a registered sex September 25 , 2006 offender to reside or live within 1,500 feet of any school, park, playground, day care center Town of Boston: Unlawful for a registered sex December 26, 2006 offender to reside or live within 1,500 feet of any school, park, playground, swimming pool, day care center, family child care providers, group family providers, teen/community center, teen club, church which operates any child or youth centered program, dance hall, skating rink, or any other structure or open space where minors congregate under the age of 18 for sponsored, programmed activities. City of Tonawanda: Unlawful for level 2 and 3 sex March 6, 2007 offenders to reside or enter within 1,000 feet of a public or private school, nursery school, pre-school, child care facility, playground, park, library, teen/community center, teen facility, dance hall, skating rink, swimming pool, or family child care providers. Village of Kenmore: Unlawful for a person March 11 , 2008 convicted of a sexual offense in New York State or (Amended March 24, 2008) any other state or jurisdiction, or who has been convicted in a Federal District Court of any offense involving child pornography to live within 1,000 feet of a licensed school, pre-school, child care center, day care center or park. Town of Whales: Unlawful for a person convicted June 13, 2008 DCJS - Office of Sex Offender Management 4 Tower Place Albany, NY 12203 Erie Continued Essex Franklin NYS Sex Offender Residency Restriction Laws August 11, 2009 of a sexual offense upon a child of the age of sixteen years or under in New York State or any other state or jurisdiction, or who has been convicted in a Federal District Court of any offense involving child pornography to reside or live within 1,500 feet of any school, park, preschool, playground, athletic field, child care center, or daycare center. August 13, 2008 Town of Holland: Unlawful for a person over the age of 18 years convicted of a sexual offense upon a child of the age of 16 years or under in New York State of any other state or jurisdiction, or who has been convicted in a Federal District Court of any offense involving child pornography to reside or live within 1,500 feet of any school, park, preschool, playground, athletic field, child care center, or daycare center. April 25 , 2006 Village of East Aurora: Unlawful for any registered sex offender, over the age of 18 convicted of an offense against a child age 16 or under, to reside within 1,500 feet of a school, park, playground, or day-care center. Village of Hamburg: Unlawful for any registered October 15, 2007 sex offender, over the age of 18 convicted of as sexual offense against a child age 16 or under, to reside within 1,500 feet of a school, park, playground, recreation center or day-care facility. Citv of Buffalo: Unlawful for a registered sex November 30, 2005 offender over the age of 18, convicted of a sexual offense against a child age 16 or under, to reside within 1,500 feet of a school, park, playground, or day-care center. Town of Jay: Level 2 and 3 sex offenders are October 31 , 2007 prohibited from residing within 1,000 feet of any real property comprising a public or non-public elementary or secondary or a child care facility or a playground or playground area. County law: The residence of a sex offender shall April 16, 2007 not be located within 1,000 feet of a child care DCJS - Office of Sex Offender Management 4 Tower Place Albany, NY 12203 Jefferson Jefferson Continued Monroe NYS Sex Offender Residency Restriction Laws August 11, 2009 facility or school ground. Village of Malone: Sex offenders cannot reside April 4, 2007 within 1,000 feet of any real property comprising a child care facility or school grounds. Village of Chateaugay: Unlawful for a person who, June 8, 2007 has been convicted of an offense defined in Art. 130, 235 , or 263 or Section 225.25 against a minor child, or, is a level 2 or 3 registered sex offender, reside within 1,000 feet of any real property comprising a child care facility or school grounds. County law: Unlawful for level 2 and level 3 sex July 11 , 2007 offenders to establish residence or domicile within 500 feet of any land utilized as a camp, daycare center, park, playground or school. Village of Alexandria Bay: Unlawful for any level November 19, 2007 2 or level 3 sex offender to establish a permanent or temporary residence within 200 feet of any school ground, park, playground, or recreational area. Unlawful for any level 2 or level 3 sex offender to enter, stop, sit, or stand within any park, playground, or recreational area. Village of Antwerp: Level 2 and 3 sex offenders July 11 , 2007 are prohibited from establishing residence or domicile within 500 feet of the nearest property line of any land used as a camp, daycare center, park playground or school. No county law Town of Hamlin: Unlawful for a sex offender to November 26, 2007 reside, have employment within, or loiter for purposes of committing any crime within a Child Safety Zone: the area within 1,000 feet of a public or private, elementary, middle or high school, designated school bus stop, child care facility, nature preserve, park, playground, public or private youth center or public swimming pool, public or commercial recreational facility clearly designed to attract children including, but not limited to, theaters, bowling alleys, sports fields, exercise or DCJS - Office of Sex Offender Management 4 Tower Place Albany, NY 12203 Nassau NYS Sex Offender Residency Restriction Laws August 11, 2009 sporting facilities and additionally, two-family or multi-family dwellings, apartment buildings, co- ops, condominiums, mobile home (trailer) parks, hotels, motels, and rooming houses, including all areas within the Town of Hamlin which are zoned R-H (Residential- High Density). Village of East Rochester: Adult sex offenders are February 26, 2009 prohibited from living within 2,000 feet of schools, playgrounds, parks, recreational facilities, community centers or day care facilities . Any sex offenders living within this limit (currently only 4); have until February 9, 2010 to move. Countv law: Unlawful for a registered sex offender April 17, 2006 to reside within 1, 000 feet of a school and 500 feet of the property line of a park; sex offenders with residences in the prohibited area, prior to the effective date of this law, are exempt. Village of East Rockaway: Unlawful for a November 30, 2006 registered sex offender to establish a residence or domicile within 1, 000 feet of any school, place of worship, child day-care center, community center, public library, public park, playground and other recreational facility, or within 1,000 feet of another registered sex offender. Village of Mineola: Unlawful for a registered sex January 29, 2007 offender to establish a residence or domicile within 1,000 feet of any school, child day-care center, community center, public library, park, playground or other recreational facility. Village of Floral Park: Unlawful for a registered March 12, 2007 sex offender to establish a residence or domicile within 1,000 feet of any school, child day-care center, community center, public library, park, playground or other recreational facility. Village of Lynbrook: Unlawful for a registered sex March 15, 2007 offender to establish a residence or domicile within 1,000 feet of any school, child day-care center, community center, public library, park, playground DCJS - Office of Sex Offender Management 4 Tower Place Albany, NY 12203 Niagara NYS Sex Offender Residency Restriction Laws August 11, 2009 or other recreational facility. City of Glen Cove: Unlawful for any registered sex March 16, 2007 offender to reside within 1, 000 feet of a school or child-day care center or within 500 feet of the property line of a park. Village of Valley Stream: Unlawful for all May 29, 2007 registered sex offenders to reside within 1,000 feet of any public or private nursery, elementary, middle or high school; or licensed day care center; or a playground. No shelter housing within 1,000 feet of any public or private nursery, elementary, middle or high school; or a licensed day care center or playground shall permit the placement of a registered sex offender. Village of Massa12egua Park: It shall be unlawful April 9, 2009 for any registered sex offender to establish a residence or domicile within a 1 mile radius of any school and park or another registered sex offender. Unlawful for Level 2 and 3 sex offenders to reside, July 2, 2008 be employed or commit a crime within 1,000 feet of the real property boundary comprising a public or private, elementary, middle or high school, child care facility, park, playground, public or private youth center or public swimming pool. City of Lock12ort: Unlawful for level 2 and level 3 April I 0, 2006 sex offenders to reside within, or enter within, 1,000 feet measured from the main, or secondary, or tertiary entrances of a public or private school, nursery school, pre-school, child care facility, playground, or park. Town of Pendleton: Registered sex offenders shall May 8, 2006 not newly occupy any real property, acquire any real property by lease or otherwise or establish a place oflodging within 1,000 feet of a school, day care center, playground or park. Town of Royalton: Unlawful for level 2 and level 3 May 18, 2006 sex offenders to reside within, or enter within a radius of 1,500 feet measured from the main, or DCJS - Office of Sex Offender Management 4 Tower Place Albany, NY 12203 Niagara Continued NYS Sex Offender Residency Restriction Laws August 11, 2009 secondary, or tertiary entrances of a public or private school, nursery school, pre-school, child care facility, playground, or park. City of Niagara Falls: Unlawful for level 2 and May 8, 2006 level 3 sex offenders to reside or enter within 1,500 feet of a public or private school, nursery school, pre-school, child care facility, playground, or park. Town of Niagara: Unlawful for level 2 and level 3 May 22, 2006 sex offenders, over the age of 18 convicted of an offense against a child 16 year or under, to reside or live within 2,000 feet of any school, pre-school, day care facility, park, community center, athletic facilities or private recreational facilities. Town of Somerset: Unlawful for level 2 and level 3 August 14, 2006 sex offenders to reside within, or enter within, a radius of 1,500 feet of a public or private school, nursery school, pre-school, child care facility, playground, or park. Town of Porter: Unlawful for level 2 and level 3 August 28, 2006 sex offenders to reside permanently or temporarily, or acquire any real property by purchase, lease, land contract, rental agreement for tenancy, or otherwise, or establish any place of lodging within a radius of 1,000 feet of all school, play grounds, parks, day care centers, nursing homes, assisted living facilities or fire halls. Village of Youngstown: Unlawful for a sex November 30, 2006 offender to reside within, or enter within, a radius of 750 feet of a public or private school, nursery school, pre-school, child care facility, playground, or park. City of North Tonawanda: Registered sex offenders December 7, 2006 shall not newly occupy any real property, acquire any real property by lease or otherwise or establish a place of lodging within one-quarter of a mile radius of a school, day care center, playground or park. Town of Lewiston: Unlawful for level 2 and level 3 February 21 , 2007 DCJS - Office of Sex Offender Management 4 Tower Place Albany, NY 12203 Oneida Onondaga NYS Sex Offender Residency Restriction Laws August 11, 2009 sex offenders to reside permanently or temporarily, or acquire any real property by purchase, lease, land contract, rental agreement of or tenancy or otherwise, or establish any place of lodging within 1,000 feet of all schools, playgrounds, parks, day- care centers, nursing homes, assisted living facilities or fire halls . Town of Lockport: Unlawful for a level 2 or level 3 November 15, 2007 sex offenders to reside or enter within 500 feet of a public or private school, nursery school, pre-school, child care facility, playground or park. Village of Middleport: A sex offender shall not November 17, 2008 reside within, or enter within, 500 feet from the main, secondary, or tertiary entrances of a public or private school, nursery school, pre-school, child care facility, playground, or park. Sex offender may enter the radius for the sole purpose of employment, shopping, attending appointments, or traveling from one point to another, but may not enter the premises of the prohibited premises. Countv law: Unlawful for a level 2 or 3 registered October 10, 2007 sex offender to reside or be within 1,500 feet of Oneida County parks, playgrounds, schools and child-care centers City of Rome: Unlawful for level 2 and level 3 sex April 9, 2007 offenders to maintain or establish a residence or domicile 1,500 feet of any land utilized in whole or in part as a school, park, playground, or daycare center. No county law Town of Cicero: Unlawful for level 2 and level 3 January 16, 2008 registered sex offenders to establish or maintain a (Amended) residence within a 1 mile radius of any school or day-care center. Unlawful for level 2 and level 3 registered sex offenders to establish or maintain a residence within a 1,500 foot radius of any park or playground. Village of Jordan: Unlawful for any registered sex March 9, 2007 offender to reside within 2,500 feet of any school, DCJS - Office of Sex Offender Management 4 Tower Place Albany, NY 12203 Ontario Orange NYS Sex Offender Residency Restriction Laws August 11, 2009 designated public school bus stop, day-care center, community center, park, playground or other place where children regularly congregate. Town of Tully: Unlawful for level 2 and 3 sex February 11 , 2009 offenders to reside, have employment or loiter within 500 feet of a child safety zone, defined as the real property comprising a public or private elementary, middle or high school, child-care facility, nature preserve, park, playground, public or private youth center, swimming pool or beach or other public or commercial recreational facility clearly intended to attract or serve children, incl but not limited to dance studios, arcades, theaters, bowling alleys, sports fields , sporting facilities, multifamily dwellings (3 families or more), apartment buildings, co-ops, condominiums, trailer parks, or other clustered housing developments (e.g. 10 or more single family homes on less than 1/3 acre). No county law Citv of Canandaigua: It shall be unlawful for a sex March 16, 2006 offender to establish a residence or domicile within a) 1,000 feet of the property line of any land utilized, in whole or in part, as a school; or b) 500 feet of the property line of any land utilized, in whole or in part, as a park, a playground, or a day- care center. City of Geneva: Unlawful for a level 2 or 3 April 2, 2008 registered sex offender, convicted of a sexual offense against a minor, to reside within 1,000 feet of a school or 500 feet of a park, playground, or daycare center. County law: A local law establishing Child Safety Zones, prohibiting certain sexual offenders from loitering within 300 feet of specified locations, making such violations a Class "B" Misdemeanor and subject to imprisonment and/or fines. Unlawful for any person who has been previously convicted of committing a crime in New York State January 7, 2008 (Amended since November 2007) DCJS - Office of Sex Offender Management 4 Tower Place Albany, NY 12203 Orange Continued NYS Sex Offender Residency Restriction Laws August 11, 2009 or in any jurisdiction in which the victim is a child under the age of 18, who is required to register under the New York State Sex Offenders Registration Act to remain in a child safety zone or loiter within 300 feet of areas where children are likely to congregate including public or private educational facilities that provide educational instruction to children in grades pre-k through 12, child care facilities, licensed child care centers, residential and group homes for children, recreational facilities (includes, but not limited to parks, playgrounds, forest preserve, conservation area, jogging trail or running track, hiking trail, beach, water park, wadding pool, athletic field, basketball court or hockey rink, golf courses, min- golf business, video arcade, laser tag, paint ball facilities , Boys and Girls Club(s), skate park, dance, or gymnastics studio, movie theater, public or private youth centers, public swimming pools, martial arts school or family-oriented pool hall, whether publicly or privately owned, to which the public has a right of access as an invitee and which is located within the County of Orange, and other recreational areas. Town of Wallkill: Unlawful for a sex offender to July 2, 2007 reside, be employed, or loiter within a child safety zone (within 1, 000 feet of a public or private, elementary, middle or high school, designated school bus stop, child care facility, nature preserve, park, playground, public or private youth center or public swimming pool, public or commercial recreational facility clearly designated to attract children, including but not limited to theaters, bowling alleys, sports fields , exercise or sporting facilities , two-family or multifamily dwellings, apartment buildings, co-ops, condominiums, mobile home parks, or other clustered housing developments, hotels, motels, and rooming houses . City of Port Jervis: Establishing Child Safety June 9, 2008 Zones prohibiting certain sexual offenders from loitering within 300 feet of specified places where children are likely to congregate including public or non-public elementary, middle and high schools, DCJS - Office of Sex Offender Management 4 Tower Place Albany, NY 12203 Otsego Putnam NYS Sex Offender Residency Restriction Laws August 11, 2009 residential and group homes for children, registered and/or licensed child care facilities , parks, playgrounds, public or private youth centers, public swimming pools and other recreation areas, campgrounds and any other facilities designated after the adoption of this Local Law. City of Middletown: Unlawful for a sex offender June 9, 2008 to have a residence or employment within a child safety zone (defined as 750 feet of the boundary lines of any parcel of real property on which is situated a school, park, youth center or child-care facility). County law: Unlawful for a level 2 or level 3 sex July 19, 2007 offender to reside within a child safety zone (1 ,000 (Amended April 4, 2008) feet of a public or private elementary, middle or high school, designated school bus stop, child care facility or licensed day care provider home, playground, public or private youth center or public swimming pool, and public or commercial recreational facility clearly designated to attract children). Unlawful for a level 2 and level 3 sex offenders to have employment within a child safety zone or to loiter for purposes of committing any crime within a child safety zone. County law: Unlawful for a Level 2 or 3 registered June 28, 2007 sex offenders to reside, have employment, or loiter (Amended April 28, 2008) for purposes of committing any crime within a child safety zone (within 1,000 feet of a public or private, elementary, middle or high school, child care facility, nature preserve, park, playground, public or private youth center or public swimming pool, public or commercial recreational facility designed to attract children, including but not limited to theaters, bowling alleys, sports fields , exercise or sporting facilities , and additionally, multi-family dwellings (three families or more), apartment buildings, co-ops, condominiums, mobile home parks, or other clustered housing developments (ten or more single family homes on less than 1/3 acre). Hotels, motel, and rooming houses shall be exempt from a child safety zone DCJS - Office of Sex Offender Management 4 Tower Place Albany, NY 12203 Rensselaer Rockland Saratoga NYS Sex Offender Residency Restriction Laws August 11, 2009 providing that the owner/manager notifies all patrons of their housing unit( s) in writing, daily; that a sex offender is living on premises. County law: Prohibits sex offenders who offended July 24, 2006 against minors from residing within 2,000 feet of a NO LONGER public or nonpublic elementary or secondary school VALID or child care facility. Challenges: Acting State Supreme Court Justice Henry Zwack threw out the Rensselaer County sex offender residency law because "after considering New York's comprehensive laws regulating registration of sex offenders and their management, treatment and residency restrictions, he sided with recent court opinions that the state laws trumped local ones. County law: Unlawful for registered sex offenders February 28, 2007 to reside, have employment or otherwise enter or NO LONGER remain within 1, 000 feet of public or private, VALID AS OF elementary, middle or high school, child care JANUARY 22, 2009 facility, park, playground, public or private youth center or public swimming pool. Challenges : New York State Supreme Court Justice William Kelly has struck down this law on January 22, 2009 on the grounds that the State of New York has pre-empted the field, leaving no room for a county or other government unit to impose further restrictions . "Justice William Kelly, in an eight-page decision, found that State has specifically taken the responsibility for sex offenders." County law: Unlawful for a registered sex offender April 20, 2006 to reside or have employment within 1,000 feet of a public or private, elementary, middle or high school, child care facility, park, playground, pubic or private youth center or public swimming pool. Town of Malta: Unlawful for registered level 3 sex December 5, 2005 offenders to reside within the Town of Malta within DCJS - Office of Sex Offender Management 4 Tower Place Albany, NY 12203 Schenectady Schuyler Seneca St. Lawrence NYS Sex Offender Residency Restriction Laws August 11, 2009 a 1 mile radius of Chango Elementary School (Chango Drive); Malta Community Park (Plains Road); Shenantaha Creek Park (East Line Road); Pasquarelle Park, Village of Round Lake; David R. Meager Community Center. Unlawful for registered level 3 sex offenders to December 6, 2005 reside within the Town of Malta within 1,000 feet of the ball field and playground at Highpointe; the multi-purpose fields with back stop at Century Farms; Collamer Park, comer east High Street and NYS Route 9; tennis courts at Woodfield Estates; Charbonneau Recreational Facility, NYS Route 9. County law: Unlawful for level 2 and level 3 sex August 23 , 2007 offenders to reside or live within 2,000 feet of the real property comprising a public or private elementary, middle or high school, child care facility, public park, public playground, public swimming pool and public or private youth center. County law: Unlawful for a Level 2 or 3 sex December 8, 2008 offender to establish residence or domicile within 500 feet measured from a camp, daycare center, playground, or school. County law: Unlawful for level 2 and 3 registered September 26, 2006 sex offenders to establish residence or domicile within 500 feet measured from a camp, daycare center, park, playground or school. Village of Waterloo: Unlawful for level 2 and level January 8, 2007 3 sex offenders to establish residence within 500 feet of any land utilized as a camp, daycare center, park, playground or school. Town of Seneca Falls: Unlawful for level 2 and December 27, 2007 level 3 sex offenders to enter or remain in or upon any town park or town recreation facility. No county law DCJS - Office of Sex Offender Management 4 Tower Place Albany, NY 12203 Suffolk Suffolk Continued NYS Sex Offender Residency Restriction Laws August 11, 2009 Town of Madrid: From and after July 1, 2008 it December 17, 2007 shall be unlawful for any level 3 sex offender to have a permanent or temporary residence in the Town of Madrid within two areas of the Town of Madrid, each area being circle and having a radius of one mile and a center located at each of the following points: 1. The intersection the center line of Main Street and the center line of Church Street; 11. The intersection the center line of State Highway 345 and the center line of Brady Road. The residence will be deemed to be within a Prohibited Area if any portion of the tax map lot on which the residence is located is within a Prohibited Area. As of July 1, 2008 it is unlawful for any level 3 sex offender to enter, remain, stop, sit, park or stand within any park, playground or recreational area, library, or school ground in the Town of Madrid. County law: Unlawful for all registered sex March 21 , 2006 offenders to reside within 1;4 mile of any public or private nursery, elementary, middle or high school, or a licensed day care center, or a playground. County law: No shelter or housing accommodation shall permit or cause the placement of any registered sex offender if such shelter or housing accommodation is within 1/4 mile of the property line of any school, including, but not limited to, any public or private nursery, elementary, middle or high school; or a licensed day-care center; or a playground. County law: Unlawful for any level 2 or level 3 sex January 25 , 2007 offender to loiter within 100 feet of any playground, day care center, public swimming pool, video arcade, or youth center. Town of Southhampton: Unlawful for any December 20, 2007 registered sex offender to reside in a housing DCJS - Office of Sex Offender Management 4 Tower Place Albany, NY 12203 NYS Sex Offender Residency Restriction Laws August 11, 2009 accommodation located within one mile of (or for any person to permit, allow, fund, facilitate, or cause a registered sex offender to reside in a housing accommodation if such housing accommodation is within): a) one mile of any school located in any school district that does not offer and fund transportation services to school for all students living within one mile of their respective school, or b) 2,000 feet of any school located in any school district that does not offer and fund transportation services to school for all students living within one mile of their respective school, or c) 2,000 feet of any child care facility or municipal recreational facility as defined within this chapter. Town of Huntington: Unlawful for a registered sex February 6, 2007 offender, convicted of an offense against a minor, (Amended December 6, to establish a residence or domicile with in 114 mile 2007) ( 1, 3 20 feet) of any land utilized whole or in part as a school, child daycare center or day camp, park, beach, or playground. Unlawful for a property owner or person in charge of property to knowingly or recklessly lease or sublease his property to a registered sex offender, or to otherwise permit or allow such offender to establish a residence or be domiciled at his premises, if the property is located within a prohibited area as described above. Town of Brookhaven: Unlawful for a registered sex December 20, 2005 offender to establish residence or domicile, for a (Amended August 5, 2008) property owner to allow a registered sex offender to occupy property, within 1,320 feet of the property line of any land utilized, in whole or in part, as a school, as a park or playground. Unlawful for more than two registered sex offenders to reside in and/or occupy the same one- DCJS - Office of Sex Offender Management 4 Tower Place Albany, NY 12203 Tioga Ulster NYS Sex Offender Residency Restriction Laws August 11, 2009 family dwelling. No county law Village of Candor: Unlawful for registered level 2 November 3, 2005 and level 3 sex offenders to reside within a radius of 1,000 feet from any church, school, park, playground, cemetery or day care center. Town of Owego: Level 2 and Level 3 sex offenders December 20, 2006 are prohibited from knowingly entering into or upon any school grounds or any facility or institution primarily used for the care of treatment of persons under the age of 18. No county law Town of Saugerties: Unlawful for convicted or July 16, 2008 registered Level 3 sex offenders to reside within 500 feet from any school bus stop. Town of Hurley: Unlawful for level 3 sex offenders September 17, 2007 to reside within 500 feet of any school bus stop; unlawful for a landlord to allow any sex offender to occupy residential premises located within 500 feet of a school bus stop. Town of Rochester: Unlawful for a registered sex March 12, 2009 offender to reside, be employed or loiter within 1,000 feet of a public or private, elementary, middle or high school, designated school bus stop, child care facility, nature preserve, park, playground, public or private youth center or public swimming pool, public or commercial recreational facility clearly designed to attract children including, but not limited to, theaters, bowling alleys, sports fields, exercise or sporting facilities and additionally, two-family or multi-family dwellings, apartment buildings, co-ops, condominiums, mobile home (trailer) parks, hotels, motels, and rooming houses. DCJS - Office of Sex Offender Management 4 Tower Place Albany, NY 12203 Warren Washington Wayne NYS Sex Offender Residency Restriction Laws August 11, 2009 County law: Unlawful for registered sex offenders November 9, 2006 to reside or have employment within 1,000 feet of a public or non-public elementary or secondary school or child care facilities, public parks, playgrounds, public or private youth centers or public swimming areas. County law: Unlawful for registered sex offenders January 22, 2007 to reside or have employment within 1,000 feet of the real property comprising a public or private, elementary, middle or high school, child care facility, park, playground, public or private youth center, public swimming area, library or facility operated by the NYS OMRDD or WW ARC. No county law Town of Savannah: Unlawful for level 2 and level December 24, 2007 3 sex offenders to reside or be physically present within 500 feet of the boundary lines of any school grounds, a house of worship, a community recreational facility, a daycare facility, a special education facility, and any other facility for minors, unless granted permission. Level 2 and level 3 sex offenders are prohibited from observing, photographing, or recording in any manner the movements of vehicles, persons or minors at any school grounds, a house of worship, a community recreational facility, a daycare facility, a special education facility, and any other facility for minors. Each level 2 and level 3 sex offender must provide each school ground, house of worship, community recreational facility, daycare facility, a special education facility, and each other facility for minors with a copy of their permit prior to being present in any prohibited area. *Permits allow presence in Prohibited Areas only for so long as is reasonably necessary to accomplish the purpose for which the Permit is granted, and do not permit presence at any other times or any other reasons . DCJS - Office of Sex Offender Management 4 Tower Place Albany, NY 12203 Wayne Continued Westchester Wyoming NYS Sex Offender Residency Restriction Laws August 11, 2009 Village of Palmyra: Level 2 and level 3 sex September 15, 2008 offenders are prohibited from residing within 500 feet of school grounds, a house of worship, a community recreational facility, a daycare facility, a special education facility, a museum, a library, and any other facility for minors, unless granted a permit pursuant to the requirements of this law. Village of Lyons: Level 2 and level 3 offenders are June 30, 2008 prohibited from residing or being physically present within 500 feet of school grounds, park, playground, a house of worship, a community recreational facility, a daycare facility, a special education facility, and any other facility for minors, unless granted a permit pursuant to the requirements of this law. Level 2 and level 3 sex offenders are prohibited from observing, photographing, or recording in any manner the movements of vehicles, persons or minors at any school grounds, a house of worship, a community recreational facility, a daycare facility, a special education facility, and any other facility for minors. Each level 2 and level 3 sex offender must provide each school grounds, house of worship, community recreational facility, daycare facility, special education facility, and any other facility for minors with a copy of their permit prior to being presented in any prohibited area. No county law Village of Tuckahoe: Unlawful for any level 2 or September 17, 2007 level 3 registered sex offenders to establish a residence or domicile within a 1,000 foot radius of any park or playground. No County Law Town of Sheldon: A registered sex offender is September 16, 2008 prohibited from establishing a residence or knowingly entering in or upon any school ground and any other location where children regularly congregate such as parks, special events, DCJS - Office of Sex Offender Management 4 Tower Place Albany, NY 12203 NYS Sex Offender Residency Restriction Laws August 11, 2009 playgrounds, amusement parks, or a carnival location or within 1,000 feet of the same. DCJS - Office of Sex Offender Management 4 Tower Place Albany, NY 12203