{"id":1649,"date":"2019-01-20T14:53:59","date_gmt":"2019-01-20T20:53:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/?p=1649"},"modified":"2019-10-21T15:02:24","modified_gmt":"2019-10-21T20:02:24","slug":"mann-v-georgia-dept-of-corr-ga-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/2019\/01\/20\/mann-v-georgia-dept-of-corr-ga-2007\/","title":{"rendered":"Mann v. Georgia Dep\u2019t of Corr. (Ga. 2007)"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Mann v. Georgia Dep\u2019t of Corr., 653 S.E.2d 740 (Ga. 2007)<\/h2>\n

Nature of Case: <\/strong><\/strong>Appellant was required to register as a sex offender in Georgia. Georgia state law imposed residential and occupational banishment zones. Appellant married and purchased a home with his wife, and thereafter a childcare location began operating within 1,000 feet of Appellant’s home. Appellant’s probation officer required that Appellant move, and Appellant brought a civil action in state court to enjoin the requirement that he move. Trial court rejected Appellant’s arguments, and Appellant thereafter sought review.<\/p>\n

Holding: <\/strong> Georgia Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that application of Georgia’s residential banishment law–as applied to Appellant’s case–was an unconstitutional taking. Appellant failed to demonstrate, however, that the impact of the occupational banishment zone constituted an unconstitutional taking.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Case Documents<\/em><\/h2>\n