Doe v. City Of Lafayette

334 F.3d 606 (7th Cir. 2003)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P is a convicted sex offender. P has convictions for child molestation, voyeurism, exhibitionism, and window peeping. His last conviction was in 1991, ten years before this litigation. P’s crimes were committed in schools, a convenience store, and outside private residences. P has been hospitalized, imprisoned, under house arrest, and on probation and in active psychological treatment since 1986. D voluntarily attends a self-help group for sex offenders. P admits he still has fantasies about children, and his psychologist opines that he will likely have these urges for the rest of his life. P takes medication to control his sexual urges. In January 2000, P had sexual urges about children and decided to take a trip to the park. At P's park, he watched several youths in their early teens playing on a baseball diamond. While watching, P admits that he had thoughts about having sexual contact with the children. After watching for 30 minutes or so, P left the park. P talked to his psychologist about the incident. P was not on probation in January 2000 and was not even restricted from entering the park during his period of house arrest a decade earlier. P reported the incident to his self-help group. An anonymous source reported the facts to P's probation officer. The Police Chief, the Superintendent of the Lafayette Parks Department, and a City attorney had a discussion about P and his visit and his criminal history. The City Parks Department then issued an order permanently banning P from entering any City park property at any time and for any purpose under threat of arrest for trespass. D did not provide any pre-issuance review of the ban, nor was P afforded an opportunity to appeal. The ban order is both geographically and temporally broad. The ban order against P had no termination date. P sued D seeking to lift the ban, challenging it under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The district court granted D’s motion, finding neither a violation of the First Amendment nor a Fourteenth Amendment problem with the ban. P appealed.