Thursday, September 06, 2007
Judges are in the news.
Why Not? gives props to U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero, who struck down parts of America’s top anti-terror law as unconstitutional 9/6/07, saying courts must be allowed to supervise cases where the government orders Internet providers to turn over records without telling customers.
Damn...foiled again, Mr. Bush!
Meanwhile, over Ohio way, U.S. District Judge James S. Gwin ruled 9/4/07 that the Ohio law restricting sex offenders from living near a school is unconstitutional for those whose crimes were committed before the 1,000-foot law went into effect.
Lane C. Mikaloff, 39, had challenged the residency restriction having been ordered from his home or be in violation of the residency restriction for living too close to a school. His story made national news after his victim publicly forgave Mikaloff upon reading of his eviction notice from his home of three years.
Regarding his claim that O.R.C. § 2950.034 is punitive in effect, Mikaloff argues the statute is punitive because (a) it restricts where offenders can live in a manner similar to probation and parole, prototypical punishments; and (b) applies for the offender’s life, irrespective of whether Ohio shows that Mikaloff poses a continuing threat. After considering the parties arguments, the Court concludes that the residency restriction violates the Constitution’s Ex Post Facto Clause.
Mikaloff's lawyer, David Singleton of the Ohio Justice and Policy Center in Cincinnati, called the decision "a landmark ruling that will have that will have national impact as courts around the country address the growing number of such restrictions.''
Ohio Attorney General Marc Dann was quick to review the case and proclaimed the decision applied only to Mr. Mikaloff. The state plans to appeal Gwin's ruling.
Read the court decision in its entirety here.
September 17th is Constitution Day. Perhaps it's time our legistators--and this country's Attorney Generals-- kicked back and gave it a good read.