{"id":68,"date":"2017-07-20T13:58:10","date_gmt":"2017-07-20T18:58:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/?page_id=68"},"modified":"2017-08-04T09:28:51","modified_gmt":"2017-08-04T14:28:51","slug":"residency","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/residency\/","title":{"rendered":"Residency"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\n\n
\n\n \n \n

Residency Cases<\/h2>\n\t
\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t

People v. Superior Court of Santa Cruz County (Cal. Ct. App. 2023)<\/a><\/h4>\n

California Court of Appeals opinion concluding that the Sexually Violent Predator Act prohibiting placement of certain individuals near a “school” does not exempt home schools or require the school in question to have been operating for any particular period of time prior to the individual’s planned community placement.<\/p><\/div><\/div>\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\t

Lake Naomi Club, Inc. v. Rosado (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2022)<\/a><\/h4>\n

Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court opinion holding as a matter of first impression that private, planned community restrictive covenants prohibiting the residence of individuals required to register under Pennsylvania’s sex offense registry are void as a matter of public policy.<\/p><\/div><\/div>\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\t

McGuire v. Marshall (11th Cir. 2022)<\/a><\/h4>\n

Eleventh Circuit per curiam opinion rejecting plaintiff-appellant’s Ex Post Facto challenge and concluding that the provisions of Alabama’s sex offense registration law at issue, including residency and employment restrictions, homeless-reporting requirements, travel notification requirements, and direct community notification requirements, were not punitive in effect.\u00a0<\/p><\/div><\/div>\n\t\t\n