First of all, thank you so much for providing a ministry to RSOs!!! I'm so glad you popped in here to tell us about that, but sorry you're facing a challenge with it.

Hmmm...I read the statute here: http://www.moga.mo.gov/mostatutes/stathtml/56600001501.HTML

It sounds like the sheriff is trying to play it safe and avoid any possible backlash from irate parents, who COULD make a stink. You say the other facility is "unrelated" to the facility for RSOs. Actually, the two facilities ARE related, since they're obviously under the same umbrella organization, I'm guessing.

Let's see...if I were the mother of a young child and I knew of an organization that showed any type of support for someone I considered a threat to the safety of my child, I would definitely want to make a stink about any part of that organization being near where my children play.

Now for a little background about me. I am the mother of two adult sons who are in prison in two different states for sex offenses. Unbeknownst to me at the time, both of those sons were victims of child sexual abuse by a trusted family member. I say all this so you will know why I can look at this issue from both sides. I HAVE looked at this issue from both sides and continue to do so every day.

I ache every day for the fact that my little boys were introduced to sexual activity WAY before they should have been and that it was at the hands of an adult I thought I could trust. I also ache every day that they are in prison with very long sentences for acting out, based on the abuse they were subjected to in their formative years.

You can't hear me, but I'm screaming inside, because of this! I hope that, when my sons get out of prison, if they ever do, they will be located near an organization like yours who can provide them with support and ministry. I might not even be alive, when they get out, so an organization like yours would give me tremendous hope for their future.

I suppose you could seek the help of a lawyer, but that could be costly and I'm sure you need your funds for your primary ministry. So, another idea might be to change it so the two facilities are not under the same umbrella organization. If I were you, I'd consider asking the sheriff directly whether this would solve the problem.

Thanks. Missouri used to interpret the law differently than now - it used to be by physical address of the specific facility which we think is the intent of the law. We have met with the Sheriff and other officials to no avail and are working with a few attorneys. Thank you again for sharing! Not many rescue missions (our ministry in Kansas City) allow RSO's but we've had wonderful experiences helping them and want to continue badly - two have come to me in tears out of fear that they would have no where else to go.

Not too long ago, I encountered a situation where I needed to take my ward of guardianship into a business that was, clearly within 500 feet of a daycare, which was right next door and part of the same business.

I sent the deputy sheriff an email informing her of what I was going to do. Her response was to tell me that it was okay, as long as my ward did not remain on property after the meeting was over. Her response was correct and in line with what is written in Missouri statutes.

Additionally, I have had numerous talks with the deputy who is the person responsible for registering sex offenders in the sheriff's office and addressing sex offender law questions in how they are applied. Here are some other situations I have encountered:

Can my ward go into a church with a daycare? Can my ward go into a library that is right across the street of a high school? And can my ward walk down the street of a daycare?

The response to each question was yes. My ward can do these things legally and lawfully.

The law says one cannot be in or loiter within 500 feet of a daycare, school, or park. Missouri courts interpret statutes by their plain and ordinary language used in the statute. Thus, a sex offender cannot go in a daycare for example, nor loiter within 500 feet of the daycare, school, or park, but they can most certainly go into a business that is right across the street of the park, daycare, or school because they are there for what is called "legitimate businesses purposes."

The term "loiter" is define by whether the person is there for "legitimate business purposes" or whether they are just "hanging out" on property. Thus, where the sheriff in your county is going wrong is first, that he is applying a narrow and arbitrary interpretation of the law to chill lawful and legal free speech in order to avoid political backlash and save his own political hide. Second, the sheriff is only looking at one state statute and not the others that come into play. Under the definition the sheriff in your county is applying, a sex offender would be prevented from receiving treatment at a doctors office or hospital if it is within 500 feet of a park, daycare, or school.

The key element to drive home with this sheriff is that the sex offender is there for legitimate business purposes and therefore is not loitering, as the statute defines loitering -- they sheriff cannot apply his own definition of what loitering means. Secondly, while the two buildings are related by being under the same umbrella, they are separate entities insofar as their business purposes.

The definition the sheriff is applying is what is also called "overly broad and ambiguous" so as to chill lawful and legal free speech and religious beliefs and practices not only of sex offenders, but also the organization which also has the legal right to engage sex offenders for ministry purposes. What the sheriff is arguing could be applied in ways never intended by our Missouri legislators and the statutes, for example. The sheriff could easily argue that because a business owner has two franchise fast food restaurants, then a sex offender is barred from entering any of the because one of the franchise fast food restaurants is located within 500 feet of a park, 50 miles away from the restaurant that the RSO wants to eat at.

I hope all this helps you

Very, very helpful LegalGuardian! Thank you. It seems that we will ultimately have to go to court over this and/or bring a lawsuit of some kind.

Dandoty, please tell me the name of your ministry. I travel a lot, but I am in KC quite often. I grew up in KC and have a lot of family here. In fact, I'm in KC now. You can send me a pm, if you don't want to post this info on this public forum.

LegalGuardian, thanks for posting your excellent reply. You obviously have a lot of wisdom on this.

The unfortunate reality is, RSO's and those involved with them, have to file civil suits to exercise their rights because law enforcement personnel are prone to sidestepping the law, as much as they can.

In this case, it is not RSO's who are the sole complainant about the sheriff's decision, but a private business, moreover, a religious organization and that is where the strength is the most in terms of practicing the religious beliefs of the organization, but also the right of free speech and association.

LegalGuardian covered a lot of good point and there's not much on point about this kind of issue. The residency restriction requires a distance from real property (residence) to restricted real property like a school. This statute on the other hand specifically states a distance between a person, not the real property where the person happens to be and restricted real property. Since it's been definitively declared a criminal statute by the state Supreme Court. those things are now elements that have to be proven and the only property line that even be considered is that of the restricted property.

Since the sheriff is already ignoring the difference you're probably better off bringing all of the points LegalGuardian raised and the fact this statute specifically states the individual person's distance from restricted real property up with the county's legal representative(s)

@ aladin,

The Eight Circuit Court ruled in Crum v. Vincent, 493 F.3d 988 (8th Cir. 2007) that the standard applied to determine the whether RSMo 566.147.1 applies is that of "ordinary intelligence." However, the Supreme Court of Missouri ruled in State v. Schleiermacher, 924 S.W.2d 269 (Mo. banc 1996) and State v. Turner, 245 S.W.3d 826 (Mo. banc 2008) that the standard to determine if RSMo 566.147.1 applies is based on the actual property lines involved.

Unfortunately, individual sheriff departments are using arbitrary, hypothetical, or absurd ways to determine if RSMo 566.147.1 applies and this is taking place and permitted to take place because their conduct goes unchallenged by RSO's and those involved with them, through court action to force sheriff's to abide by the due process rights of these individuals when making decisions about the applicability of RSMo 566.147.1.

Something else to think about is that some if not all counties do not require or keep accurate and up to date records of actual property lines, and some if not all counties give the discretion to the property owner to have a survey of their property line conducted and the sole discretion in whether to provide the county recorder the report from those conducting the survey. So, unless sheriff officials actually go out to the property in question and accurately measure the distance with certified equipment then their decisions are purely hypothetical, arbitrary, or absurd rather than scientifically substantiated and proved.

Thus, in the case of this thread, the first thing to look at is whether the sheriff based his decision on the actual property lines as proved by scientific standards, i.e. survey's to comply with the Missouri Supreme Court's ruling and render a decision on the basis that the two buildings are in fact within 500 feet of each other, or did he base his decision on a mere hypothetical, arbitrary, or absurd method of measuring the distance. And the second thing to look at is whether the sheriff based his decision on either correlating or countervailing statutes such as those that define loitering, or did he ignore such.

@LegalGuardian 566.147 is has been declared a civil statute not a criminal one so it's open to a broader interpretation than a criminal statute and it deals with the physical location where an offender resides, not where the offender as a person happens to be at any given moment. Also since it's civil, any interpretation or opinions of the statute cannot be applied to a criminal statute.

In State v. Wade, 421 SW 3d 429 - Mo: Supreme Court 2013, the court declared 566.150 was a purely criminal statute. 566.150 begins "Any person who has been found guilty of" followed by all the enumerated offenses that qualify and "shall not knowingly be present in or loiter within five hundred feet of any real property comprising any public park with playground equipment or a public swimming pool." so the elements are 1) a person that has been found guilty of a qualifying offense 2) real property in the form of a public park with playground equipment and/or a public pool and 3) the person must knowingly be within 500' of said real property.

Since the person and the distance are specific elements of the crime the distance can only be measured from the person to the real property line closest to the person.and anything ever said about 566.147 is absolutely meaningless in a criminal context. The difference is what needs to be pointed out to the legal representation of the county.

the person must knowingly be within 500' of said real property.

Is this "as the crow flies" or 500 feet by driving or walking?

@michiganfamily This would be straight line distance.

While 566.147.1 is said to be a civil statute, the term "residence' is determined by the property lines of where the RSO sleeps, and where a daycare child-care, or school is located. This is what I was addressing in my post above. I do not necessarily agree that it is a civil statute, but that's what those in government say it is.

When it comes to determining whether the 500 foot rule is broken, since residential matters fall into the 1000 feet rule, yes, the distance can be measured from the location of the person to the location of the daycare, child-care, or school when the person is, say, standing on a sidewalk. However, when it comes to determining if a business is within the 500 feet rule to know if the RSO may enter the building, then the distance is measured by the property lines, but even if the building is within 500 feet it does not conclusively mean that the RSO is prohibited from entering the building.

Like a lot of these statutes, many provisions contain two parts. For example, 566.147.2 contains one part that is a "reporting requirement" and a second part that is an "exception to the rule" component to permit RSO's to reside within 1000 feet of a daycare, child-care, or school if they established their residence before the daycare, etc.,opened -- not when the building itself was built or placed there.

The same applies to 566.150.1 which prohibits being "IN" a daycare, etc., and prohibiting "LOITERING" within 500 feet of the daycare, etc. The first part is unambiguous because it clearly says one cannot be "IN" a daycare etc., though it should be pointed out that in other sex offense statutes exceptions to this rule are created. The Eight Circuit Court pointed out in Crum v. Vincent, 493 F.3d 988 (8th Cir. 2007) that when interpreting statutes and what they mean a person is to apply the "ordinary intelligence" standard.

The second part is a bit more ambiguous when the statue / provision is left on its own face value because the statue does not itself define what is meant by the word "loiter." Therefore, to define this word one has to commonly examine local ordinances, but in general, the common definition is "to linger or hang around in a public place or business where one has no particular or legal purpose." If a person is in a business and conducting "legitimate business matters" then they are said NOT to be loitering.

When measuring the distance to determine if the 500 foot rule is violated, it depends. If the person is on a sidewalk for example, then yes, the measurement used is the point where the person is standing. But if the person is in a building, the point of measurement is determined by the property lines of that building and the daycare etc.

I am not saying I agree with the standard of "property lines," as this standard was created to prejudice an RSO and make it a whole lot easier for them to be prosecuted and convicted of the crime. And this is of particular importance when it comes to determining where an RSO may reside. The obvious argument is that the distance should be measured from the dwelling because that is where the RSO actually resides and not that of the property line because the RSO is not sleeping "IN" the front or backyard.

@michiganfamily

I disagree with aladdin because, a statute cannot be ambiguous, overly broad, arbitrary, discriminatory, hypothetical, or absurdly applied that it is unrealistic or impossible to meet the statutory requirements or the statue is unconstitutional. So unless I can fly or walk though walls, for example, then the distance cannot always be measured by a straight line.

Quoting another here:

Due process requires that a criminal statute afford a person of normal intelligence fair notice that conduct he may be contemplating is forbidden. State v. Schleiermacher, 924 S.W.2d 269, 275 (Mo. 1996) (citing
United States v. Harriss, 347 U.S. 612, 617 (1994)).

It also requires that a statute be specific enough and create standards clear enough to prevent arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement. Id. (citing Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156, 162 (1972)).

The failure of § 566.147 to specify the beginning and ending points of the measurement that determines criminal liability—and the patent need for such definition—renders the statute unconstitutionally vague.