Residence Restrictions for Released Sex Offenders

Residence Restrictions for Released Sex Offenders

Order Code RL34353
Residence Restrictions for
Released Sex Offenders
February 4, 2008
Garrine P. Laney
Analyst in Social Policy
Domestic Social Policy Division

Residence Restrictions for Released Sex Offenders
Summary
Monitoring the movement of sex offenders in communities continues to be of
interest to Congress, state legislatures, and local governments. In response to some
citizens’ concerns, Congress passed the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act
of 2006 (P.L. 109-248), which, among other provisions, provides for mandatory
registration of sex offenders who are released from prison, closer scrutiny of them,
and community notification of their whereabouts. Through the community
notification process, the public has more knowledge of where sex offenders reside.
At least 23 states and hundreds of local governments have passed laws to prohibit sex
offenders, who must register as such, from living within a specified distance of a
particular area. Often, restricted areas include parks, playgrounds, recreation centers,
swimming pools, schools, bus stops, libraries, convenience stores, and other facilities
that serve large numbers of persons under 18 years of age.
With passage of the Adam Walsh Act, Congress sought to ensure through the
registration process that released sex offenders are monitored properly so that they
are no longer a threat to the public. Opponents of state and local residence restriction
laws argue that they greatly affect the ability of sex offenders to obtain housing,
employment, education, and health services. The inability of many released sex
offenders to obtain work and other services contributes to their becoming homeless.
Consequently, without an address for offenders, it becomes very difficult for law
enforcement to track them. On the other hand, proponents of the laws state that their
primary concern is protection of children from predators, not the inconvenience of
some sex offenders. Possible oversight issues related to residence restrictions include
their impact on public safety and how registration provisions of the Walsh Act are
actually implemented to determine if they conform to congressional intent.
Findings of studies commissioned by Colorado and Minnesota influenced their
approach to residence restriction laws. Colorado chose not to enact a residence
restriction law. The Colorado study addressed safety issues raised by living
arrangements of sex offenders in the community. It found that for sex offenders
under the supervision of criminal justice, residence restriction laws may not deter the
offender from sexual reoffending and should not be considered as a method to
control sexual offending recidivism. It also found that sex offenders with good
support systems had lower recidivism rates than those with poor or no support
system. In addressing residence restriction for sex offenders, Minnesota enacted a
law, but does not impose specific distance restrictions on where a sex offender can
live. It requires the agency responsible for supervising a high risk offender to
consider the proximity of the offender’s residence to other high risk offenders, as
well as to schools. The Minnesota study examined the effect of using housing
restrictions to reduce sexual recidivism. This study found that when offenders seek
a victim through direct contact, the offenders were more likely to leave their
neighborhood to commit an offense; and that residential proximity is not a major
factor in reducing sexual recidivism, but that social or relationship proximity is.
This report analyzes the issue of residence restriction laws for released sex
offenders. It will be updated to reflect any congressional legislative activity.

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Adam Walsh Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
State and Local Residence Restrictions for Sex Offenders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
State Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Localities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Homeowners Association . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Institutions of Higher Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Consequences of Residence Restrictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Impact on Law Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Homelessness of Released Sex Offenders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Pro and Con Arguments Concerning Residence Restriction Laws for
Released Sex Offenders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Proponents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Opponents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Alternative Proposals for Monitoring Released Sex Offenders . . . . . . . . . . 15
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
List of Tables
Table 1. Victim-Offender Relationship of Sex Reoffenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Table 2. Distance Between the Offender’s Residence and the Location of the
Offense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Table 3. Residence Restriction Provisions for Sex Offenders in 23 States . . . . 18

Residence Restrictions for Released Sex
Offenders
Introduction1
The question of how to protect children and the general public from sex
offenders without violating the offenders’ civil liberties continues to be of interest to
Congress and state legislators. The Department of Justice (DOJ) reports that
strangers rarely sexually offend young juveniles. In 2000, strangers were reported
as offenders in 3% of sexual assaults of victims who were under age 6, 5% of the
sexual assaults of youth from 6 through 11 years of age, and 10% of assaults of
juveniles from 12 to 17 years of age. According to DOJ, the vast majority of sex
offenses against minors are perpetrated by someone the child knows (such as a
biologically related, immediate family member, relative, friend or babysitter).2 Yet,
many people remain fearful that a child is more likely to be sexually assaulted or
abducted by a stranger than from someone the child knows.
In the past few years, the media have given national coverage to a number of sex
crimes perpetrated by strangers against children, including those against Jetseta Gage
of Cedar Rapids, Iowa (2005); Jessica Lunsford (2005), Sarah Lunde (2005), and
Carlie Brucia (2004) all of Florida; Elizabeth Smart of Utah (2002); and Samantha
Runnion of California (2002). In addition, two notable sexual assaults by repeat sex
offenders against young adult women, Dru Sjodin in North Dakota (2003) and
Alexandra Nicole Zapp in Massachusetts (2002), were widely reported.3 Both federal
and state governments have enacted laws with provisions that increase penalties for
crimes against children, require sex offenders released from prison to register, and
require law enforcement to monitor them.
With passage of these laws, the public has gained access to information on
where sex offenders live, work and go to school. On learning that a released sex
offender lives or works in proximity to their homes or areas where children are likely
1 For this report, Michael Matheron, Information Research Specialist, Knowledge Services
Group, provided information on provisions of state statutes that relate to residence
restrictions for released sex offenders.
2 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Statistics, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Sexual
Assault of Young Children as Reported to Law Enforcement: Victim, Incident, and Offender
Characteristics, by Howard N. Snyder, National Center for Juvenile Justice, July 2000, p.
10.
3 See for example: Fox News, “Suspected Child Abductor in Police Custody,”
FoxNews.Com, March 25, 2005; http://www.Courttv.com/trials/lynsford/index.html; and
Joh Ellement, “Convicted Sex Offender Goes to Trial in Restroom Killing,” The Boston
Globe, September 22, 2003, p. B3.

CRS-2
to congregate, many people become alarmed. They have picketed the homes of some
of the released sex offenders and have demanded that sex offenders be more closely
monitored. Consequently, to protect public safety, many states, counties, and
municipalities have passed laws that restrict where a released sex offender can live
and, sometimes, work. These state and municipal laws vary greatly, sometimes
conflict with each other and do not always recognize the various risk levels of a sex
offender reoffending. Possible issues for Congress are whether residence restriction
laws for released sex offenders actually protect public safety and whether sex
offender registration and community notification provisions of the Adam Walsh Act
are being implemented to conform to congressional intent.
This report analyzes the issue of residence restriction for released sex offenders
by briefly examining provisions of the Adam Walsh Act; identifying and comparing
residence restriction laws in a number of states; discussing the impact of residence
restriction laws on sex offenders, law enforcement and the public; presenting
arguments in support of and against residence restriction laws; and reviewing some
alternative proposals for monitoring released sex offenders. Other CRS reports
address legal and constitutional issues as well as the civil commitment of sex
offenders.4
Adam Walsh Act
Congress passed the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006
(hereafter, the Walsh Act),5 which authorizes a comprehensive national system for
managing sex offenders, of which a component is a process for sex offender
registration and community notification.6 Under provisions of the Sex Offender
Registration and Notification Act (Title I of the Walsh Act), a sex offender is an
individual convicted of a sex offense by any jurisdiction in the United States, whether
under federal, military, state, territorial, tribal or local law. Generally, federal sex
offenses include criminal offenses as defined under Title 18, Chapter 109A (sexual
abuse) and Chapter 110 (sexual exploitation and other abuse of children) of the U.S.
criminal code. In brief, the Walsh Act contains provisions to integrate state sex
offender registries, combat crimes against children by perpetrators who use the
Internet, and increase penalties for conviction of crimes against children. It provides
for a three-tier classification system for sex offenders and, based on their risk of
reoffending, determines who must register, for how long, and whether they are to be
listed on the Internet. The Walsh Act also allows sexually dangerous persons to be
civilly committed. The Act authorizes funding for local law enforcement as well as
requires the Attorney General to use the U.S. Marshals Service to assist local
jurisdictions in tracking and apprehending released sex offenders who fail to comply
4 For an analysis of legal and constitutional issues related to sex offenders, see CRS Report
RL33967, Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act: A Legal Analysis, by Charles
Doyle. For information on the issue of civil commitment of sex offenders, see CRS Report
RL34068, Civil Commitment of Sexually Dangerous Persons, by Nathan James.
5 P.L. 109-248; 120 Stat. 587; 42 USC 16901.
6 The Walsh Act also repeals and replaces provisions of several federal laws (including the
Jacob Wetterling Act, Megan’s Law, and the Pam Lychner Act) that relate to the
registration, punishment, and monitoring of sex offenders, and community notification.

CRS-3
with registration requirements. In addition, it authorizes funding for the training of
law enforcement personnel, such as probation and parole officers, who work with sex
offenders.7
The Walsh Act does not impose residence restrictions on released sex offenders
who must register. It does, however, direct the Attorney General to conduct a study
of the effectiveness of monitoring and restricting the activities of sex offenders
through conditions imposed as part of supervised release or probation. Specifically,
the study’s evaluation must include the methods of monitoring and restricting where
sex offenders can reside, work, and attend school.8 The evaluation must also include
the methods of monitoring and restricting sex offenders’ access to the Internet,
specific Internet sites, pornography, and other obscene materials. In addition, the
study must assess the ability of law enforcement agencies and courts to enforce such
restrictions, as well as the efficacy of imposing any other restrictions on sex offenders
to reduce recidivism. Not later than six months after enactment of the Adam Walsh
Act, the Attorney General was to report the results of the study to the House of
Representatives and Senate Committees on the Judiciary. DOJ is in the process of
selecting researchers to conduct this study that is required by the Adam Walsh Act.9
State and Local Residence Restrictions for Sex Offenders
Community notification provisions of the Adam Walsh Act10 allow the public
to obtain information on sex offenders through accessing the Internet. The Internet
site(s) provide the address of a sex offender, enabling an individual to determine the
proximity of a convicted sex offender’s residence. At the state and local level,
elected officials have responded to the concern of some residents by passing laws and
ordinances that use the registration and community notification requirements of the
Walsh Act to identify sex offenders and to prohibit them from living in certain areas.
The objective of these legal restrictions is to deter child sex offenders from having
direct access to children.
Depending on the state where the sex offense occurs, however, residence
restriction laws can apply to individuals who have been convicted of a wide range of
offenses, from rape of a child to exhibitionism11 or one-time acts of consensual oral
sex.12 In recent years, at least 23 states have passed laws that forbid released sex
7 For a fuller discussion of the registration provisions of the Walsh Act, see CRS Report
RL32800, Sex Offender Registration and Community Notification Law: Recent Legislation
and Issues, by Garrine P. Laney.
8 P.L. 109-248; 120 Stat. 646.
9 Telephone conversation with DOJ representative, February 1, 2008.
10 42 U.S.C. 16918-16921.
11 Wendy Koch, “Sex-offender Residency Laws Get Second Look,” USA Today, February
26, 2007, p. A1.
12 Southern Center for Human Rights, Press Release, “Federal Court Order Protects Public
F r o m H B 1 0 5 9 ’ s S c h o o l B u s S t o p P r o v i s i o n , ” J u l y 2 5 , 2 0 0 6 .
(continued...)

CRS-4
offenders from residing in certain areas. (See Table 3.) Typically, residence
restriction laws prohibit sex offenders who must register under provisions of the
Walsh Act from living within a specified distance of areas where children are likely
to congregate. These off-limit areas can include schools, bus stops, gyms, recreation
centers, playgrounds, parks, swimming pools, libraries, nursing homes, and places
of worship. Usually, the distance within which a sex offender cannot live ranges
from 500 feet to 2,500 feet of these places. While Oregon’s law does not impose a
distance restriction, it limits residence for sex offender registrants to permanent
housing that is located where children are not the primary occupants or users, unless
a parole or probation officer makes exception to the restriction.13
Residence Restrictions Provisions for Selected States. As Table 3
reveals, residence restriction laws among the 23 states that have them vary greatly.
The laws provide details on precisely where a sex offender registrant can live, with
whom, and any exceptions to the rule. States that do not provide exceptions to their
residence restriction laws include Indiana, Louisiana, Minnesota, Ohio, Oklahoma,
and Washington.
Generally, states allow a sex offender registrant to remain in a residence if the
registrant lived there prior to enactment of a residence restriction law or if a new
prohibited facility were built or opened within the forbidden designated distance of
the registrant’s living quarters. States that provide some exemption from application
of residence restriction laws to a sex offender registrant who owned or occupied
property before enactment of the measure include Arkansas, Idaho, Illinois, and
Washington. Kentucky requires an offender to move within 90 days if a new facility
opens within 1,000 feet of a sex offender’s residence. On the other hand, rather than
requiring a sex offender registrant to move, Missouri requires the registrant to notify
the county sheriff if a public or private school or child care facility opens within
1,000 feet of the registrant’s residence.
Although state residence restriction laws rarely make exceptions for persons
suffering from dementia or disability or even age, a few do. Michigan, Mississippi,
and South Dakota exempt a registrant who is either a patient in a hospital or hospice
or is committed to a mental health facility that is located within the restricted area.
Iowa exempts a person who is subject to a commitment order, is incarcerated, or is
a minor or a ward under a guardianship. Kentucky’s residence restriction law does
not apply to a juvenile on probation, parole, or enrolled in an elementary or
secondary educational program.
Residence restriction laws in some states address with whom a sex offender
registrant can live (see Table 3). Tennessee allows a registrant to reside with a minor
only if the registrant is the parent of the minor, the registrant’s parental rights have
not been terminated, and the minor or adult child of the registrant was not sexually
victimized by the registrant. West Virginia permits any sexual offender registrant
who is the parent, grandparent, or stepparent of a child to live in the same household
12 (...continued)
[http://www.schr.org/aboutthecenter/pressreleases].
13 Or. Admin. Rules Comp. § 255-060-0009 & § 291-202-0040.

CRS-5
with the child provided the stepparent was such prior to conviction for a sex offense,
the parental rights have not been terminated, the registrant did not sexually victimize
the child, and a court has determined that the child will be safe. California provides
an exemption to its residence restriction law for a registrant who wants to reside in
a single family dwelling with another sex offender registrant, as long as they are
legally related and the single family dwelling does not include a residential facility
that serves six or fewer persons.
As enacted, Georgia’s law imposes both residence and employment restrictions
on sex offenders. It prohibits anyone on the state’s sex offender registry from living,
working, or loitering within 1,000 feet of a church.14 Sex offenders on the registry
who worked within 1,000 feet of a church must resign from their jobs. Many clergy
in Georgia reportedly are confronted with the question of how to respond if a sex
offender attends church. The state law does not define “loitering”; consequently, it
is unclear whether a sex offender on the registry can attend worship or bible study,
join support groups or participate fully in church activities.15
Legal challenges to Georgia’s residence restriction law included charges that it
denied due process, violated religious freedom, and interfered with property rights.16
On November 21, 2007, in the case of Mann v. Department of Corrections,17 the
Georgia Supreme Court ruled that residence restrictions could constitute a regulatory
taking of property. However, in the same case, the court found that, as applied to a
business owner, a restriction on the owner working at his place of business need not
be found to be such a taking.
Passage of an Iowa state residence restriction law, which prohibits sex offenders
from living within 2,000 feet of a school or child-care center, was followed by cities
and counties passing stringent ordinances that bar sex offenders from libraries,
swimming pools, parks, and bike trails. Consequently, much of urban Iowa is off
limits to those convicted of sex crimes against a minor. As a result of these laws,
according to press reports, many sex offenders have moved to rural areas; others are
homeless or live in motels, at campgrounds, or at freeway rest stops.18
Penalties. As Table 3 indicates, some states treat violations of residence
restriction laws as misdemeanors while others treat violations as felonies. Fines vary
from $1,000 (Idaho and Kentucky) to $3,000 (Oklahoma) for a first offense
14 Southern Center for Human Rights, Press Release, “Evictions from Nursing Homes
Stopped,” October 30, 2006. [http://www.schr.org/aboutthecenter/pressreleases].
15 Jill Young Miller and Nancy Badertscher, “Judge Hears Sheriffs Rip Sex Offender Law,”
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, July 12, 2006, p. D2.
16 Yolanda Rodriguez, “Registered Sex Offenders: Several Changes in Place,” The Atlanta
Journal-Constitution, July 6, 2006, p. JF.1; Southern Center for Human Rights, Press
Release, “Injunction Filed to Stop Evictions from Nursing Homes,” October 12, 2006.
[http://www.schr.org/aboutthecenter/pressreleases].
17 Mann v. Georgia Department of Corrections, 2007 Ga. Lexis 849 (November 21, 2007).
18 Jenifer Warren, “Sex Crime Residency Laws Exile Offenders, California Voters Weigh
Restrictions Similar to Those Passed in Iowa,” Los Angeles Times, October 30, 2006, p. A1.

CRS-6
misdemeanor. In Mississippi, violation of the residence restriction law is a felony,
punishable by a fine of not more than $5,000 or imprisonment for not more than five
years, or both a fine and imprisonment. The penalty for a residence restriction
violation in Ohio is injunctive relief.19
State Studies. While state laws that restrict where sex offenders can live,
loiter, and work are widespread, questions remain as to whether the public is safer
as a result of them. Before enacting residence restriction laws for sex offenders, a
few states commissioned studies to determine if the laws were likely to reduce the
chances of a child being victimized by a sex offender.
Colorado. The state of Colorado authorized the Colorado Division of
Criminal Justice, Office of Domestic Violence and Sex Offender Management to
research whether there is a relationship between the living arrangements of a sex
offender, where the offender lives, and the commission of sexual crimes. The study
focused on a random sample of released sex offenders in the Denver metropolitan
area who were under probation supervision as well as an all-inclusive sample of
those living in a Shared Living Arrangement (SLA)20 over a 15-month period.21
The Colorado study found that high-risk sex offenders living in SLAs had
significantly fewer violations than those in other living arrangements. Sex offenders
in the study who reoffended while being supervised did not live any closer to schools
or child care centers than those who were not recidivists. Further, the study found
that sex offenders who committed a criminal offense while under the supervision of
the criminal justice system seemed to be randomly scattered throughout the study
areas; that is they did not appear to live any closer to schools and child care centers
than other types of offenders. Consequently, the study concluded that restrictions on
where sex offenders who are under correctional supervision reside “may not deter the
sex offender from re-offending and should not be considered as a method to control
sexual offender recidivism.”22 The Colorado study also examined the support system
for sex offenders. It defined support as “having someone significant to the offender
and/or a roommate who attends treatment with the offender, has a positive
19 Black’s Law Dictionary defines “injunction” as: “A court order commanding or
preventing an action.”
20 According to the Colorado report, as a concept, a Shared Living Arrangement is viewed
as a living environment where sex offenders can be both treated and monitored. Under SLA
two or three sex offenders live together in a house that they either rent or own. The location
of the residence and the housemates are approved in advance by the treatment provider and
supervising officer. Usually, the SLA is not placed near a school, playground, or near a
residence that has a swing set and other play items used by children. In SLA, residents are
required to hold each other accountable for their actions and responsibilities. For example,
they are expected to notify the appropriate authorities if a roommate violates curfew or has
contact with children.
21 Colorado Department of Public Safety, Division of Criminal Justice, Sex Offender
Management Board, Report on Safety Issues Raised by Living Arrangements for and
Location of Sex Offenders in the Community, March 15, 2004, pp. 12-13. (Hereafter,
Colorado Dept. of Public Safety, Report on Safety Issues.)
22 Colorado Dept. of Public Safety, Report on Safety Issues, p. 4.

CRS-7
relationship with the probation officer and treatment provider, and is well versed in
the offender’s probation and treatment requirements.”23 The study found that those
sex offenders with good support systems committed fewer rule violations and had
lower recidivism rates than those offenders with poor or no support.24
Minnesota. In conducting a study of the potential deterrent effect of residence
restrictions on reducing sexual recidivism, the Minnesota Department of Corrections
analyzed the sexual reoffense patterns of 224 recidivists released between 1990 and
2002 who were reincarcerated for a sex crime prior to 2006.25 To determine if the
224 cases might have been affected by residency restrictions, the study used the
following four basic criteria:
! Offenders had to establish direct contact with the victims rather than
gaining access to a victim through a relationship with another person
(girlfriend, fiancee, wife, acquaintance);
! Contact with the victim had to occur within at least one mile of the
offender’s residence at the time of offense;
! The location of the initial contact with a victim had to have been
near a school, park, daycare center, or other prohibited area; and
! The victim had to have been under 18 years of age when the offense
occurred.
Among other factors examined in this study were the relationship between the victim
and the sex offender, the distance between the offender’s residence and the location
of the offense; whether and what physical force was used; and whether the offender
had used alcohol or drugs. Using these criteria, the study concluded that none of the
224 sex offenses would likely have been deterred by a residence restriction law.26
Some results of the Minnesota study include:
! Of the 224 sex offenses, 85% occurred in a residential location, for
example, the offender’s or the victim’s home, while 15% took place
in a public location;
! Half of the sex offenders gained access to their victims through
collateral contact with, for instance, a girlfriend, wife, co-worker,
friend, or acquaintance; and
! Fourteen percent of the sex offenders were biologically related to
their victims.
Results of the Minnesota study indicate that social or relationship proximity play a
key role in sexual recidivism, not residential proximity. Of the 224 sex offenders in
23 Ibid., p. 31.
24 Ibid., pp. 31-35.
25 Minnesota Department of Corrections, Residential Proximity & Sex Offense Recidivism
in Minnesota, April 2007. [http://www.doc.state.mn.us/publications/documents
/04-07SexOffenderReport-Proximit.y.pdf]
26 Ibid., p. 2.

CRS-8
the study, 79% victimized someone they already knew.27 As Table 1 reveals, in the
Minnesota study the most common relationships between the offender and victim
were acquaintance/other known (23%), followed by stranger (21%), and then
significant other’s son/daughter (17%). In 14.3% of the cases, the relationship
between the sex offender and victim was family/biological.
Table 1. Victim-Offender Relationship of Sex Reoffenses
Victim-Offender Relationship
Number
Percent
Stranger
48
21.4
Acquaintance/Other Known
51
22.8
Babysitter
13
5.8
Neighbor
8
3.6
“Romantic/Dating”
13
5.8
Friend of Family
20
8.9
Significant Other’s Son/Daughter
39
17.4
Family/Biological
32
14.3
Total
224
100.0
Source: Minnesota Department of Corrections, Residential Proximity and Sex Offense Recidivism in
Minnesota, April 2007.
In the Minnesota study, the distance between the sex offender’s residence and
the location of the offense occurred further than 2,500 feet at least 48% of the time
(see Table 2). Further, the table shows that in nearly 9% of cases contact between
sex offender and victim was greater than 20 miles from the offender’s residence.
About 5% of sex offenders in the study used the telephone for their first contact,
while even less, just over 1%, used the Internet. This suggests that, at least in this
study, a sex offender is more likely to leave the area of residence to reoffend in a
more distant neighborhood.
27 Ibid.

CRS-9
Table 2. Distance Between the Offender’s Residence and the
Location of the Offense
Distance
Number
Percent
Less than 1,000 ft.
18
22.8
1,000-2,500ft.
5
6.3
2,501-5,280 ft.
7
8.8
1-2 miles
6
7.6
3-5 miles
10
12.7
6-10 miles
4
5.1
11-20 miles
4
5.1
Greater than 20 miles
7
8.8
Telephone
4
5.1
Internet
1
1.2
Unknown
13
16.5
Total
79
100.0
Source: Minnesota Department of Corrections, Residential Proximity and Sex Offense Recidivism
in Minnesota, April 2007.
Localities. Many municipal and county governments throughout the nation
also have passed laws that limit where a sex offender can reside. Residents of
communities often object to a sex offender living among them. As a town enacts
residence restriction ordinances, this can set off a chain reaction with adjacent
communities passing such laws.28 Sometimes these local ordinances exceed or
conflict with state laws. According to the press, more than 100 municipalities in
New Jersey have passed ordinances restricting the residence options for sex
offenders; nearly 50 municipalities in New Jersey place restrictions on sex offenders
that exceed state law.29 In Colorado, which has no state law, some municipalities and
counties have passed ordinances prohibiting more than one registered sex offender
28 Don Thompson, “Calif. Sex Offenders Go Homeless,” October 31, 2007, Associated
Press; Peter Y. Hong, “On His Block, a Molester,” Los Angeles Times, December 5, 2006,
p. A1; Emily Ramshaw, “Do Cities Go Too Far to Restrict Sex Offenders?,” The Dallas
Morning News, October 15, 2006; Jenifer Warren, “Sex Crime Residency Laws Exile
Offenders,” Los Angeles Times, October 30, 2006, p. A1.
29 Tom Baldwin Gannett, State Bureau, “State Pushing Town to Allow Sex Offender,” Daily
Record (Morristown, N.J.), October 19, 2006, p. NEWS02.

CRS-10
from residing in a household, family, or group home.30 As a consequence of
residence restriction laws, many sex offenders are effectively banned from living in
certain cities and towns.
Many local law enforcement officials increasingly are uncomfortable with some
residence restriction laws. Some officials have refused to enforce them, complaining
that more restrictive regulations are forcing sex offenders into rural areas or
vagrancy, making them less stable, and making law enforcement more difficult.31
Other law enforcement officials claim the local restrictions are ineffective and hard
to enforce.32 Their objections include concerns that enforcement of these restrictive
regulations could uproot so many sex offenders that it would be difficult to track
them primarily because some offenders would not report their whereabouts for fear
that they would be displaced.
Critics of residence restriction law in Georgia reportedly object to a provision
that prohibited registered sex offenders from living within a designated distance of
a school bus stop.33 The Southern Center for Human Rights and other organizations
challenged the constitutionality of Georgia’s law. As mentioned earlier in this report,
the Georgia Supreme Court found that, as applied to a homeowner, the Georgia
residence restrictions could constitute a regulatory taking of property.34 Georgia has
an estimated 285,000 school bus stops and their location can change every year.
According to many sheriffs and other law enforcement officers, most sex offenders
would have to move if this provision of state law were enforced. Several sheriff
departments in Georgia also object to enforcing a provision of the law that requires
eviction of elderly or disabled sex offenders from nursing homes or hospices.35
Homeowners Association. The residence status of convicted sex offenders
has caught the attention of some new housing developers, as they work closely with
homeowners’ associations to ban registered sex offenders from living in their
housing developments. Reportedly, potential homeowners in the development would
undergo background checks. If a homeowner becomes a sex offender after moving
into the development, the homeowners’ association can impose a fine. In addition,
30 Colorado Department of Public Safety, Report on Safety Issues, p. 9.
31 Laura Mansnerus, “Zoning Laws That Bar Pedophiles Raise Concerns,” The New York
Times, November 27, 2006, p. A1.
32 Lee Rood, “Legislature Could Ease Sex Offender Housing Law, A New Proposal Would
End the 2000-Foot Residency Rule But Add Child ‘Safe Zones’,” Des Moines Register,
December 12, 2006.
33 Laura Mansnerus, “Zoning Rules That Bar Pedophiles Raise Concerns for Law
Enforcers,” The New York Times, November 27, 2006, pp. A1, A21; Jill Young Miller and
Nancy Badertscher, “Judge Hears Sheriffs Rip Sex Offender Law,” The Atlanta Journal-
Constitution, July 12, 2006, p. D2.
34 Mann v. Georgia Department of Corrections, 2007 Ga. Lexis 8489 (November 21, 2007).
35 Laura Mansnerus, “Zoning Rules That Bar Pedophiles Raise Concerns for Law
Enforcers,” The New York Times, November 27, 2006, pp. A1, A21; Jill Young Miller and
Nancy Badertscher, “Judge Hears Sheriffs Rip Sex Offender Law,” The Atlanta Journal-
Constitution, July 12, 2006, p. D2.

CRS-11
a lien may be put on the house to collect the fine. In Lenexa, Kansas, a planned, new
housing subdivision reportedly would become the first sex-offender-restricted
development in the Kansas City area. The developer of this subdivision had
previously constructed such a restricted project in Lubbock, Texas. Registered sex
offenders are not a protected class under the Fair Housing Act. According to a
published report, the development company would like legislators to provide
financial incentives for developers to create neighborhoods that ban sex offenders.36
Institutions of Higher Education. According to a press account, at least
two institutions of higher education have expressed concerns about the presence of
sex offenders on or near their campuses. A sex offender, with convictions for
sexually abusing a child, registered as a student at the College of Staten Island. The
college campus is also home to a public high school. Although the faculty and
students at the college initially were informed that the sex offender would be
attending the school, upon further reflection, it apparently was decided not to allow
the offender to attend classes.37
The Seattle Times reported that 21 registered sex offenders were living in five
homes near the University of Washington. According to the report, the university,
with the support of the governor, had 13 of these sex offenders, who are under the
supervision of the state Department of Corrections (DOC), removed from a
neighborhood adjacent to its main campus.38 Of the 13 sex offenders, two are ranked
as Level 3 sex offenders, the state’s most violent predators. DOC staff members are
trying to find housing for the evicted sex offenders. The university also seeks to ban
more than a dozen registered sex offenders (who are not under DOC supervision)
from living near the school campus. According to university officials, they only
recently discovered how many offenders were housed in the area and the seriousness
of the crimes they had committed. A DOC spokesperson states that in these homes
the department only places sex offenders who are pedophiles and felons with
convictions for assaulting children, not sex offenders with a history of crimes against
young men or women. DOC states that the sex offenders living in the neighborhood
do not pose a threat to university students.39
The newspaper quoted one resident, identified as a Level 3 sex offender,40
saying that the homes are affordable. Further, he stated that residents of the home
police their roommates and inform the landlord when rules are violated. A
spokesman in DOC’s sex offender unit reportedly has complimented the landlord of
the properties that houses the sex offenders, stating that she is one of the best
36 The Indy Channel, “Ban Sex Offenders from Moving In,” June 13, 2006.
[http://www.theindychannel.com/family/9362047/detail.html].
37 New York Daily News, “Stay Away, College Tells Staten Island Pervert,” New York Daily
News, August 28, 2007. [http://www.nydailynews.com/].
38 Jennifer Sullivan, “University Gets Sex Offenders Booted From Area,” The Seattle Times,
October 8, 2007. [http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/].
39 Ibid.
40 A sex offender with the highest risk of sexually reoffending is given a Level 3 rating.

CRS-12
landlords with whom he has worked in King County and that she “has managed to
appropriately and diligently keep her properties in compliance [with DOC rules].”41
Consequences of Residence Restrictions
State and local residence restriction laws for released sex offenders may have
some surprising and perhaps unintended consequences for both law enforcement and
sex offenders.
Impact on Law Enforcement. In the case of law enforcement, these laws
can impact plea agreements. Plea agreements are often made in sex offender cases
because without them, cases must go to trial and, thus, must rely on victims who may
not wish to testify. Some prosecutors report having more difficulty convicting
alleged sex offenders, because once offenders discover that they will be subject to
residence requirements if they are convicted, they resist plea agreements. To the
extent this is accurate, it could reduce a prosecutor’s chances of getting a conviction
for a sex crime.42
Parole and probation officers complain that they have to find housing for
offenders and local residence restriction laws make it much more difficult for them
to do so. California law states that “an inmate who is released on parole shall be
returned to the county that was the last legal residence of the inmate prior to his or
her incarceration.”43 Notwithstanding this provision, the law provides that “an
inmate may be returned to another county if that would be in the best interests of the
public.”44 Reportedly, Mike Jimenez, president of the California parole officers
union, has stated that, “It will be impossible for parole agents to enforce Jessica’s
Law in certain areas, and encouraging ‘transient’ living arrangements just allows sex
offenders to avoid it altogether.”45 According to this report, in San Francisco, all
homes are within 2,000 feet of a school or park (areas from which sex offenders are
barred); reportedly, California still requires parolees to seek housing in the city.
Iowa’s law includes provisions that prohibit sex offenders whose victims were
minors from living within 2,000 feet of a school or licensed day-care provider. After
this law was enacted, the number of sex offenders who registered reportedly declined.
The Des Moines Register reported that the number of sex offenders who failed to
register in the state increased from 142 in June 2005 to 346 in December 2006. As
41 Ibid.
42 Lee Rood, “Keep Iowa’s Sex Offender Laws Strict, One City Says,” Des Moines Register,
February 13, 2007.
43 Calif. Penal Code § 3003.
44 Ibid.
45 Thompson, “Calif. Sex Offenders Go Homeless,” October 31, 2007, Associated Press;
Kavan Peterson, “Anti-Sex Offender Zoning Laws Challenged,” [http://www.stateline.org/],
December 9, 2006; Mansnerus, “Zoning Rules That Bar Pedophiles Raise Concerns for Law
Enforcers,” The New York Times, November 27, 2006, p. A21.

CRS-13
a consequence, some prosecutors and police oppose the residence restriction
provisions.46
Homelessness of Released Sex Offenders. Released sex offenders
(who are required to register as such) are affected by residence restrictions in
fundamental ways — housing, employment, education, and health. As a result of
residence restrictions, many sex offenders reportedly are forced into rural areas,
where there is less access to the jobs and mental health services they may need.47 A
survey of sex offenders released from prison in Indiana revealed that 37% could not
live with family members and nearly a third were refused housing.48
Sheriffs in Iowa state that many registered offenders have been forced to live in
motels, rest stops, or become homeless.49 The Boston Globe reports that, in
Massachusetts, a large number of released sex offenders are living in homeless
shelters with a range of potential victims sleeping near them. According to Jim
Greene, director of Boston’s Emergency Shelter Commission, homeless shelters “are
a militantly anti therapeutic milieu for people with mental health or other behavior
problems.”50 The incidence of homelessness among California’s registered sex
offenders, reportedly, has increased 27% since the state’s residence restriction law
became effective in November 2006. The Associated Press reports that some sex
offenders in California, who have been unable to find a place to live, avoid re-arrest
for failing to register by falsely reporting that they are homeless and then returning
to their homes in prohibited areas.51 Some law enforcement officers believe that the
homeless are more difficult to track. In many large shelters, there also is a lack of
supervision, as only a few people may even know the offender, leaving the offender
free to leave the shelter during the day.52
Pro and Con Arguments Concerning Residence Restriction
Laws for Released Sex Offenders
46 Lee Rood, “Legislature Could Ease Sex Offender Housing Law,” Des Moines Register,
December 12, 2006; Megan Woolhouse, “Can Bans Protect Kids From Attack?; Some Raise
Doubts on Residency Limits,” The Boston Globe, July 16, 2006, p. 1; Koch, “Sex-offender
Residency Laws Get Second Look,” USA Today, February 26, 2007, p. A1.
47 Koch, “Sex-offender Residency Laws Get Second Look,” USA Today, February 26, 2007,
p. A1.
48 J.S. Levenson, “Residence Restrictions and Their Impact on Sex Offender Reintegration,
Rehabilitation, and Recidivism,” The Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers
(ATSA) Forum, vol. XVIII(2), 2007, p. 5.
49 Lee Rood, “Legislature Could Ease Sex Offender Housing Law,” Des Moines Register,
December 12, 2006.
50 David Abel, “Many Sex Offenders End Up At Shelters,” The Boston Globe, June 18,
2007.
51 Thompson, “Calif. Sex Offenders Go Homeless,” October 31, 2007, Associated Press.
52 Lee Rood, “Legislature Could Ease Sex Offender Housing Law,” Des Moines Register,
December 12, 2006.

CRS-14
Proponents. Some supporters of restrictive residence laws for sex offenders
defend them by stating that, while enforcement of the laws may inconvenience some
sex offenders, their primary purpose is to protect children from predators.53 Some
proponents of residence restriction laws argue that while there are no studies
indicating that residency limits on sex offenders reduce the number of sex crimes,
“common sense and public anxiety make it a smart idea to ban former offenders from
areas where children gather.”54 Others believe more time needs to elapse before the
value of residence restriction laws can be determined and that it is too early to
consider repeal of such laws.55
Opponents. Those who oppose restrictive residence laws for sex offenders
argue that there is no correlation between someone’s residence and likelihood of
reoffending.”56 Moreover, they argue that this legislation does not protect children
from being victimized by people they know, who comprise from 80% to 90% of all
child sex abuse cases.57 Some law enforcement officials in Iowa, reportedly,
described state and local residence requirements as “feel-good laws, which heap work
on law enforcement while doing nothing to make children more safe.”58 According
to the Southern Center for Human Rights and some law enforcement officers, rather
than protecting children, Georgia’s residence restriction law actually made them
more vulnerable because it drove sex offenders from urban areas into isolated and
poorly monitored ones.59 Opponents of restrictive residence laws charge that they are
too inclusive, failing to make distinctions among sex offenders. Depending on the
state, a sex offense can range from exhibitionism, urinating in public, incest, rape,
and pedophilia. They urge that these laws should target offenders who have
committed sexual crimes against children.60 Other critics of these restrictive laws
53 Laura Mansnerus, “Zoning Laws That Bar Pedophiles Raise Concerns,” New York Times,
November 27, 2006, p. A1; Jill Young Miller, “Critics: Sex Offender Law Would Drive
Them Underground,” The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, March 17, 2006.
54 Jenifer Warren, “Sex Offender Crackdown Is Tied to Trend,” Los Angeles Times,
September 18, 2006, p. B1.
55 Koch, “Sex-offender Residency Laws Get Second Look,” USA Today, February 26, 2007,
p. A1.
56 Lee Rood, “Legislature Could Ease Sex Offender Housing Law,” Des Moines Register,
December 12, 2006.
57 Ibid.
58 Lee Rood, “Keep Iowa’s Sex Offender Laws Strict, One City Says,” Des Moines Register,
February 13, 2006; Koch, “Sex-offender Residency Laws Get Second Look,” USA Today,
February 26, 2007, p. A1.
59 Southern Center for Human Rights, “Sex Offender Residency Restrictions Harm Public
S
a
f
e
t
y
,
”

M
a
r
c
h

2
1
,

2
0
0
7
.
[http://www.schr.org/abouthecenter/pressreleases/HB1059_litigation/PressReleases/pres
s_1].
60 Koch, “Sex-offender Residency Laws Get Second Look,” USA Today, February 26, 2007,
p. A1.

CRS-15
state that they unfairly target persons who have served their sentence and turned their
lives around.61
Alternative Proposals for Monitoring Released Sex Offenders
Using residence restrictions to prohibit released sex offenders from living in
areas children frequent is not the only way to potentially deter sex offenders from
sexually reoffending. Some alternative proposals to this approach include improving
how an offender is targeted for special monitoring, reducing the size of the restricted
area, improving the support system for an offender, and better educating the public
about who is more likely to sexually victimize a minor. There is some support for
using Global Positioning Systems (GPS) to monitor sex offenders. GPS enables law
enforcement to detect a sex offender’s location and whether the offender has entered
a restricted area. Some believe that this system is well suited for tracking sexual
predators and other violent, high-risk offenders. Others, however, express concern
about the high cost of using GPS for tracking purposes.62
A proposal, supported by both the Iowa County Attorneys Association and the
Iowa State Sheriffs’ and Deputies’ Association, would allow sex offenders to reside
where they wish, but would require them to acquire written permission before
entering “safe zones” around schools or child-care centers. Another proposal would
refine and enhance provisions of residence restriction laws that target sexual
predators, providing for the most serious offenders to be tracked closely and
increasing funding for prevention efforts that would be directed at both adults and
children.63 It has also been suggested that off-limit areas need to be made smaller.
In doing so, it would be easier for offenders to find housing outside the zone and
there still could be a buffer around children’s areas.64 Laura A. Ahearn, director of
Parents for Megan’s Law, advocates longer prison sentences and some form of
supervision for life for convicted sex offenders.65
A Shared Living Arrangement (SLA) for released sex offenders, as used in the
Colorado study discussed earlier in this report, is another possible approach to
monitoring sex offenders. Under SLA two or three sex offenders reside in a house
that has been approved in advance by the treatment provider and supervising officer.
The sex offenders must notify the appropriate authorities if a housemate has contact
with children or violates any other rules. A cited advantage of SLA is that it allows
for both the treatment and monitoring of sex offenders.
61 Trannon Goble, “Homeless Offenders? New Law Evicts Thousands From Their Homes,”
The Chatsworth Times (Chatsworth, Georgia), June 14, 2006.
62 Peter Y. Hong, “On His Block, A Molester,” Los Angeles Times, December 5, 2006, p.
A1.
63 Lee Rood, “Legislature Could Ease Sex Offender Housing Law,” Des Moines Register,
December 12, 2006.
64 Courier-Post, “More Controls Needed to Check Sex Offenders,” (Cherry Hill, New
Jersey), March 20, 2007, Section B, p. 6G.
65 Robert F. Worth, “Questions About Legality and Effectiveness,” The New York Times,
October 3, 2005, p. B1.

CRS-16
Conclusions
Research on whether residence restriction laws actually reduce the recidivism
rate of sex offenders is limited. The results of studies commissioned by two states,
however, provide some understanding of the relationship between where a sex
offender resides and sexually offends. The Colorado study indicated that restricting
where a sex offender, who is under supervision, lives may not deter the offender from
sexual reoffending and should not be used as a method to control sexual recidivism.
In addition, the study found that sex offenders with a good support system violated
fewer rules and had lower recidivism rates than those with poor or no support system.
The Minnesota study found that sex offenders who seek direct contact with a victim
usually leave their neighborhood to commit an offense to minimize the chance of
being recognized. Also, the Minnesota study found that social or relationship
proximity had a greater impact on sexual recidivism than residential proximity.
Residence restrictions for sex offenders may not be the most effective way to protect
public safety. In light of the findings of these two studies, the debate on the use of
residential proximity to protect the public from sex offenders may be expanded to
include social or relationship proximity as well as other factors.
Because of residence restriction laws, sex offenders often end up in rural areas.
Many rural areas lack the law enforcement personnel and resources to adequately
monitor sex offenders. Consequently, some sex offenders are poorly monitored and
may more easily threaten public safety.
Federal
courts
and,
generally, state courts have ruled that efforts to protect the
public have a higher value or priority than a sex offender registrant’s need to freely
choose a place to live. Because hundreds of jurisdictions have enacted residence
restriction laws, often the laws are confusing to sex offenders and cast doubt in the
minds of some on whether they are indeed protecting the public from sex offenders.
The legality of many local residence restriction ordinances is being challenged,
especially if they exceed or conflict with state laws. For instance, a New Jersey state
law (Megan’s Law) prohibits the registration status of a sex offender from being used
to deny housing or other accommodations. This law has enabled the state of New
Jersey to legally challenge local residence restriction laws. The Georgia Supreme
Court found that, as applied to a homeowner, residence restriction could constitute
a regulatory taking of property. However, in the same case, the court found that, as
applied to a business owner, a restriction on the owner working at his place of
business need not be found to be such a taking of property.
In the Walsh Act, Congress directed the Attorney General to conduct a study
that evaluates the effectiveness of monitoring and restricting the activities of sex
offenders to reduce sex offense recidivism. Among other considerations, the study
is to specifically evaluate the effectiveness of monitoring and restricting the activities
of sex offenders, including restrictions on the areas in which sex offenders can reside,
work, and attend school. Many state and local residence restriction laws conflict with
each other and do not recognize the different risk levels of sex offenders. Reportedly,
as a result of these laws, some sex offenders are not registering as required under the
Walsh Act and, consequently, are not being monitored. Possible oversight issues
include monitoring and restricting the activities of sex offenders, especially where

CRS-17
they can reside, work, and attend school, to bring some uniformity to residence
restriction laws; examining residence restriction laws and their impact on public
safety; and reviewing the way registration provisions of the Walsh Act are actually
being used, and if they conform to congressional intent.

CRS-18
Table 3. Residence Restriction Provisions for Sex Offenders in 23 States
Residence
Distance/
Penalty for
State/Citation(s)
Exceptions to Residence Restrictions
Type
Restricted Area
Noncompliance
Alabama
Any
2,000 feet of a school or child care facility
Residence restrictions do not apply to
Class C felony

offenders when “subsequent changes to
Ala. Code §15-20-26
1,000 feet of property on which any of his/
property” occur within 2,000 feet of
her former victims, or the victim’s imme-
his/her residence.
diate family members reside

Residence restrictions do not apply if the
Anywhere a minor resides
offender is the parent, grandparent, or
stepparent of the minor.a
Arkansas
Any
2,000 feet of public or private elementary
Residence restrictions do not apply if the
Class D felony

or secondary school or child care facility
offender’s residence was “owned” prior
Ark. Code Ann. §
to July 16, 2003, or was “owned,” “occu-
5-14-128
pied” and “purchased” prior to the date
that a facility was subsequently estab-
lished.b
California
Any
2,000 feet of any public or private school,
(1) Single family residence prohibition
Possible revocation of

or park where children regularly gatherc
does not apply if the persons are legally
parole
Calif. Penal Code § 3003.5
Also, a parolee
related by blood, marriage, or adoption,
may not, during
and
the period of

his/her parole,
(2) Single family dwelling does not in-
reside in any sin-
clude a residential facility which serves
gle family dwell-
six or fewer persons.
ing with any other
sex offender.

CRS-19
Residence
Distance/
Penalty for
State/Citation(s)
Exceptions to Residence Restrictions
Type
Restricted Area
Noncompliance
Florida
Any
1,000 feet of school, child care center,
Residence restrictions do not apply to
Third degree felony if

park, or playground
offenses that occurred on or before No-
the original conviction
Fla. Stat. Ann. § 794.065
vember 30, 2004.
was a first degree fel-
ony or higher

First degree misde-
meanor if the original
conviction was a sec-
ond or third degree
felony
Georgiad
Any
1,000 feet of elementary or secondary
None
A felony punishable by

school, child care center, church, or area
imprisonment for not
Ga. Code Ann. § 42-1-15
where minors congregate
less than ten nor more
than 30 years.
Idaho
Any
500 feet of a school
Residence restrictions do not apply if
Misdemeanor

offender’s residence was “established”
Idaho Code Ann. § 18-
prior to July 1, 2006.
8329(1)(d)
Illinois
Any
500 feet of elementary or secondary
Residence restrictions do not apply if the
Class 4 felony

school
offender’s residence was “owned” and
Ill. Compiled Statutes Ann.
“purchased” before July 11, 2005.
§ 5/11-9.3(b-5)

CRS-20
Residence
Distance/
Penalty for
State/Citation(s)
Exceptions to Residence Restrictions
Type
Restricted Area
Noncompliance
Ill. Compiled Statutes Ann.
Any
500 feet of:
Residence restrictions of § (b-5) do not
Class 4 felony
§ 5/11-9.4(b-5) & (b-6)

apply if the offender’s residence was
(1) playground, child care center, day care
“owned” and “purchased” before June
center, part day child care facility, or a
26, 2006.
“facility providing programs or services

exclusively directed toward persons under
Residence restriction of § (b-6) does not
18 years of age.” [§ (b-5)]
apply if the offender’s residence was

“owned” and “purchased” before August
(2) the victim(s) [§ (b-6)]
22, 2002.
Indiana
Anye
1,000 feet of school property, a youth
None
Class D felony

program center, or a public park
Ind. Ann. Code § 35-42-4-

11(c)
1 mile of victim’s residence
Iowa
Any
2,000 feet of public or nonpublic elemen-
Residence restrictions do not apply if the
Aggravated misde-

tary or secondary school, or child care
offender is subject to an order of com-
meanor
Iowa Code Ann. § 692A.2A
center
mitment, is incarcerated, or the offender
is a minor or a ward under a guardian-
ship.

Residence restrictions do not apply if the
offender has established a residence prior
to July 1, 2002, or a school or child care
facility is newly located within 2,000 feet
of offender’s residence.
Kentucky
Any
1,000 feet of a high school, middle school,
Residence restrictions do not apply to a
Class A misdemeanor

elementary school, preschool, publicly
youthful offender probated or paroled
for a first offense, and
Ken. Rev. Stat. Ann. §
owned playground, or licensed day care
during his or her minority, or enrolled in
a Class D felony for
17.545
center f
an elementary or secondary education
the second and each
program.
subsequent offense

CRS-21
Residence
Distance/
Penalty for
State/Citation(s)
Exceptions to Residence Restrictions
Type
Restricted Area
Noncompliance
Louisiana
Any
1,000 feet of any public or private elemen-
None
Fine of not more than

tary or secondary school, child care center,
$1000, imprisonment
La. Stat. Ann. §
playground, public or private youth center,
for not more than six
91.1(A)(2)
public swimming pool, or free standing
months, or both
video arcade facility
La. Stat. Ann. § 538D(1)(c)
Any
1,000 feet of any public or private elemen- None
Revocation of parole,
tary or secondary school, child care center,
fine of not more than
playground, public or private youth center,
$1,000, imprisoned for
public swimming pool, or free-standing
not more than six
video arcade facility
months, or both
Michigan
Any
1,000 feet of a Student Safety Zone, which
Residence restrictions do not apply if:
A misdemeanor for the

is statutorily defined as “the area that lies

first offense, punish-
Mich. Compiled Laws Ann.
1,000 feet or less from school property.”g
(1) An offender is under 20 years old,
able by imprisonment
§ 28.735
attends secondary or post-secondary
for not more than one

school, and resides with his/ her parent
year or a fine of not
or guardian;
more than $1,000, or

both.
(2) An offender is under 26 years old,
attends a special education program, and
Any subsequent viola-
resides with his/her parent/ guardian, or
tion is a felony punish-
resides in a group home or assisted living
able by imprisonment
facility;
for not more than two

years or a fine of not
(3) An offender who was residing within
more than $2,000, or
a student safety zone before January 2,
both.
2006;

(4) An offender who is a patient in a
hospital or hospice;

CRS-22
Residence
Distance/
Penalty for
State/Citation(s)
Exceptions to Residence Restrictions
Type
Restricted Area
Noncompliance

(5) An offender who resides within a
student safety zone because the individ-
ual is an inmate or resident of a prison,
jail, juvenile facility, or other correc-
tional facility or is a patient of a mental
health facility under an order of commit-
ment.h
Minnesota
Any
No specific distance indicated; however,
None
None indicated

when an offender assigned to the highest
Minn. Stat. Ann. § 244.052
risk level (Level III) is released to reside
Subd. 4a
in the community, or when a released
offender changes residence, the agency
responsible for the offender’s supervision
must take into consideration “the proxim-
ity” of the offender’s residence to that of
other Level III offenders, as well as
“proximity to schools” and, to “the great-
est extent feasible, mitigate the concentra-
tion of Level III offenders.”

CRS-23
Residence
Distance/
Penalty for
State/Citation(s)
Exceptions to Residence Restrictions
Type
Restricted Area
Noncompliance
Mississippi
Any
1,500 feet of a public or nonpublic ele-
Residence restrictions do not apply if:
A felony punishable by

mentary or secondary school, or child care

a fine not more than
Miss. Code Ann. § 45-33-
center
(1) the offender is serving a sentence at a
$5,000, or imprison-
25
jail, prison, juvenile facility or other
ment for not more than
correctional institution or facility;
five 5 years, or both

(2) the offender is subject to an order of
commitment;

(3) the offender is a minor or a ward
under a guardianship;

(4) the offender established his/her resi-
dence prior to July 1, 2006, or a school
or child care facility is subsequently
located within 1,500 feet of the of-
fender’s residence.
Missouri
Any
1,000 feet of any public or private elemen-
Residence restrictions do not apply if an
Class D felony, any

tary or secondary school, or child care
offender has already established a resi-
subsequent violation
Mo. Stat. Ann. § 566.147
center
dence and subsequently a public or pri-
is a class B felony
vate school or child-care facility is built

or placed within 1,000 feet of his/her
Class A misdemeanor
residence. The offender must notify the
for not reporting to
county sheriff within one week of the
sheriff when a new
opening of the facility and provide verifi-
facility opens, further
able proof that he/she resided there prior
violations are Class D
to the opening of the facility.
felonies

CRS-24
Residence
Distance/
Penalty for
State/Citation(s)
Exceptions to Residence Restrictions
Type
Restricted Area
Noncompliance
Mo. Stat. Ann. § 211.181
Any
1,000 feet of the residence of the victim
Residence restrictions do not apply when
None indicated
(until the victim is 18 years old)
the juvenile offender and the abused

child are siblings or children living in the
Note: Restrictions apply to juvenile of-
same home.
fenders
North Carolina
Any
1,000 feet of any public or private elemen-
Residence restrictions do not apply when
Class G felony

tary or secondary school, or child care
changes occur in the ownership of or use
N. Car. Gen. Stat. Ann. §
center
of property within 1,000 feet of a regis-
14-208.16
trant’s registered address
Ohio
Any
1,000 feet of any public or private school
None
Injunctive relief

Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2950.031
Oklahoma
Anyi
2,000 feet of any public or private elemen-
First offense: Up to

tary or secondary school, “educational
$3,000 fine, or 1 - 3
Okla. Stat. Ann. § 590
institution,” playground, park, or licensed
years imprisonment, or
child care center
both

Subsequent offenses:
Up to $3,000 fine, or 3
years minimum im-
prisonment, or both
Oregon
Permanent hous-
Locations where children are the “primary
Residence restrictions do not apply when
None indicated

ing, not “transi-
occupants or users”
made by the supervising parole/probation
Or. Rev. Stat. Ann. §
tional housing”j
officer if it is determined that there is
144.642 & § 144.644
“sufficient information to support an

exception” to the resident restrictions “in
Or. Admin. Rules Comp. §
terms of public safety and the rehabilita-
255-060-0009 & § 291-
tion of the offender.”k
202-0040

CRS-25
Residence
Distance/
Penalty for
State/Citation(s)
Exceptions to Residence Restrictions
Type
Restricted Area
Noncompliance
South Dakota
Any
500 feet of a “community safety zone”
Residence restrictions do not apply
None indicated

(CSZ) which includes any elementary or
within a CSZ if the offender is incarcer-
S. Dakota Cod. Laws § 22-
secondary school, public park, public
ated, in a health care facility, or receiving
24B-22 & § 22-24B-23
playground, or public pool
services from a licensed community
service provider located within a com-
munity.

Residence restrictions do not apply to an
offender who established his/her resi-
dence prior to July 1, 2006.

Residence restrictions do not apply if the
school, public park, public pool, or pub-
lic playground was built or established
subsequent to the offender’s establishing
residence at the location
Tennessee
Any
1,000 feet of
Residence restrictions do not apply when
Class E felony.

an offender resides with a minor, if the
Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-39-
(1) any public, private, or parochial ele-
offender is the parent of the minor.l
211
mentary or secondary school, “licensed”

day care center, other child care facility,
Residence restrictions do not apply if
public park, playground, recreation center,
changes in the ownership or use of prop-
or public athletic field;
erty within 1,000 feet of an offender’s

primary or secondary residence occur
(2) the offender’s former victim(s), or
after an offender establishes residence
where the immediate family members of
the victim(s) reside;

(3) may not “knowingly establish a pri-
mary or secondary residence or any other
living accommodation where a minor

CRS-26
Residence
Distance/
Penalty for
State/Citation(s)
Exceptions to Residence Restrictions
Type
Restricted Area
Noncompliance
resides”
Washington
Any
800 feet of a Community Protection Zone,
Residence restrictions do not apply to
Revocation of commu-

i.e., “the facilities and grounds of a public
offenders who were convicted before
nity custody
Wash. Rev. Code §
or private school”m
after September 1, 2001.
9.94A.712(6)(a)(ii)
West Virginia
Any
1,000 feet of:
Residence restriction prohibiting of-
Possible revocation of

fender from residing in any household
supervised release
W. Va. Code Ann. § 62-12-
(1) an elementary or secondary school, or
with a child under 16 years old does not
26(b)
child care center;
apply if the offender is the child’s parent,

grandparent, stepparent.n
(2) the residence of the victim(s)

Residence restrictions do not apply prior
(3) may not reside “in a household in
to March 8, 2003.
which a child under sixteen resides”
Source: Westlaw, State Law Databases. Information compiled on December 7, 2007.
a. Exceptions: Residence restrictions do apply, however, if “(1) The adult criminal sex offender’s parental rights have been or are in the process of being terminated as provided by
law. (2) The adult criminal sex offender has been convicted of any criminal sex offense in which any of the offender’s minor children, grandchildren, or stepchildren was the
victim. (3) The adult criminal sex offender has been convicted of any criminal sex offense in which a minor was the victim and the minor resided or lived with the offender
at the time of the offense. (4) The adult criminal sex offender has ever been convicted of any criminal sex offense involving a child, regardless of whether the offender was
related to or shared a residence with the child victim.” Ala. Code §15-20-26(c)(1-4).
b. Neither exception, however, applies to an offender who pleads guilty or nolo contendere to, or is found guilty of another sex offense after the facility is established, or after July
16, 2003. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-14-128(c)(1)(2).
c. “Nothing in this section shall prohibit municipal jurisdictions from enacting local ordinances that further restrict the residency”of any offender. Calif. Penal Code § 3003.5(c).
d. On November 21, 2007, the Georgia Supreme Court found that, as applied to a homeowner, the Georgia residence restrictions could constitute
a regulatory taking of property. However, in the same case, the court found that, as applied to a business owner, a restriction
on the owner working at his place of his business need not be found to be such a taking.
e. “‘Reside’ means to spend more than two nights in a residence in any thirty day period.” Ind. Ann. Code § 35-42-4-11(b).
f. “If a new facility opens, the registrant shall be presumed to know and, within ninety (90) days, shall comply with this section.” Ken. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 17.545(2)(b). Also note,
“Any registrant residing within one thousand (1,000) feet of a high school, middle school, elementary school, preschool, publicly owned playground, or licensed day care

CRS-27
facility on July 12, 2006, shall move and comply with this section within ninety (90) days of July 12, 2006, and thereafter, shall be subject to the penalties set forth under
subsection (3) of this section.” Ken. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 17.545(4).
g. Student Safety Zones are established by Mich. Compiled Laws Ann. § 28.733(f).
h. None of these exceptions, however, applies to an individual who initiates or maintains contact with a minor within that student safety zone. Mich. Compiled Laws Ann. §
28.735(3)(a-e).
i “Any nonprofit organization established and housing sex offenders prior to June 2, 2006 is permitted to continue its operation.” Okla. Stat. Ann. § 590
j “[T]ransitional housing means housing intended to be occupied by a sexually violent dangerous offender or a predatory sex offender for 45 days or less immediately after release
from custody.” Or. Admin. Rules Comp. § 255-060-0009(2) & § 291-202-0040(2). Also, “a sex offender may not reside with another sex offender who is on probation,
parole, or post-prison supervision unless approved by the Parole Board, supervising authority, or supervising officer.” Or. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 144.102(3)(b)(M). This does
not apply to residential treatment facilities or halfway houses for sexual offenders. Id.
k. “In making this determination, the following factors must be considered: (a) Other residential placement options pose a higher risk to the community, or (b) An enhanced support
system that endorses supervision goals and community safety efforts is available at this residence, or (c) Enhanced supervision monitoring will be in place (e.g. electronic
supervision, curfew, live-in-care provider, along with community notification), or (d) This residence includes 24-hour case management, or (e) The offender is being released
from prison unexpectedly and more suitable housing will be arranged as soon as possible. If any of these factors apply to the offender and the residence under review, an
exception to the permanent residence prohibition may be allowed.” Or. Admin. Rules Comp. § 255-060-0009(3) & § 291-202-0040(3). Also note, “If a supervising officer
makes an exception under this rule, the supervising officer must inform the community affected by this decision about the reasons for the decision prior to the offender’s release
from custody.” Or. Admin. Rules Comp. § 255-060-0009(4) and § 291-202-0040(4).
l. Exceptions: “[S]uch an offender may reside with a minor, if the offender is the parent of the minor, unless one (1) of the following conditions applies: (1) The offender’s parental
rights have been or are in the process of being terminated as provided by law; or (2) Any minor or adult child of the offender was a victim of a sexual offense or violent sexual
offense committed by the offender.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-39-211(c).
m. Community Protection Zones are established by Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.030(8).
n. Exceptions: Residence restrictions do apply, however, if the offender becomes the stepparent of the child after being convicted; the offender’s parental rights to any children in
the home have terminated; the child is a victim of a sexually violent offense perpetrated by the offender, and the court determines that the offender is likely to cause further
harm. W. Va. Code Ann. § 62-12-26(b)(2).