By Kevin Boneske
Staff Writer
SUAMICO – Changes to distances in the village code related to residency and loitering of convicted sex offenders were recommended May 3 by the Suamico village board.
The board is in the process of changing the code to comply with state law, which Village Attorney Ashley Lehocky said no longer allows the regulation of violent sex offenders by a local ordinance.
Under state law, Lehocky said violent sex offenders are not allowed to live within 1,500 of a designated protected zone, such as a school, licensed daycare centers and public parks.
But, she said the village code now states registered sex offenders may not live within 2,500 feet of those zones, possibly subjecting the village to a legal challenge.
Lehocky recommended reducing the restriction for residency to 1,500 feet while expanding the restriction on loitering from 50 to 150 feet.
Village Administrator Alex Kaker provided the board a list of definitions and provisions in sex offender ordinances in Brown County municipalities with the distances from protected zones where sex offenders may not reside or loiter.
“As you can tell, they are not all consistent,” he said. “Some reference sexually violent offenses in their definitions, and others have no residency restrictions at all.
Others have 500-foot loitering buffer zones.”
Kaker asked the board for input on the definition to include in the village code, as well as distances for residency and loitering buffer zones.
“Whatever is decided will be added to the June 7 village board agenda as a first reading,” he said.
Kaker said including the phrase “against a child” in language requiring registration in Suamico as a sex offender may not make it possible for the village to restrict residency of those offenders who have not committed their crimes against children.
“Should the village choose to strike the words ‘against a child’ from the proposed ordinance, we would just need to closely monitor any state lawsuits,” he said.
Trustee Dan Roddan said he doesn’t believe the village would be able to defend a legal challenge to a residency buffer zone of more than 1,500 feet for sex offenders, but he wants the loitering buffer zone “as substantial as possible.”
“I think we need to strike ‘against a child’ to allow us to be able to manage the greater spectrum of individuals, not that we can only manage towards someone that creates an act against a child, that we’re able to pursue our ordinances against those that may have harmed an adult woman, or an adult man for that matter,” he said. “I think both of those things are imperative that we stretch the loitering buffer as large as we can and also remove ‘against a child.’”
Lehocky said sex offenders could be within a loitering buffer zone, but they would not be able to loiter there.
“I think 500 (feet for a loitering buffer zone) is the largest I’ve seen,” she said. “I’m not aware of anyone who has one larger than that, but I have no reason to believe that you wouldn’t be able to enforce anything within that range (of 500 feet).”
Directed Enforcement Officer Marc Pisani said he doesn’t expect a big change with being able to enforce a loitering buffer zone expanded to 500 feet.
The motion unanimously approved by the board calls for village staff to bring forward the first reading of a sex offender ordinance June 7 to reduce the residency buffer zone to 1,500 feet and expand the loitering buffer zone to 500 feet, with the phrase “against a child” not included in the definition of a “designated offender.”
Kaker said the ordinance revision could receive final approval at the board’s June 21 meeting.