Lampitt Seeks Restrictions on Sex Offenders

Courier Post
Adam Smeltz
June 12, 2009

When the state Supreme Court last month shot down local residency restrictions on sex offenders in Cherry Hill and other towns, Assemblywoman Pamela R. Lampitt didn't accept defeat.

Instead, the Cherry Hill Democrat said, the court ruling gave the issue renewed urgency. She and legislative allies in Trenton worried that the residency question "would go away" if left alone too long.

This month, she and a half-dozen other Assembly members have signed on as primary sponsors of a fresh attempt to limit where sex offenders can live. The bill, now under consideration in the Assembly, would give municipalities an option to ban the most serious convicted sex offenders from living within 500 feet of any school, playground or child-care center. Those with low-level convictions -- classified as Tier 1 offenders -- would not be affected.

"During the lengthy period of hours when (offenders) are home, we want to make sure they're not in a playground or near a child-care center where kids congregate," Lampitt said.

She said a registered sex offender lives in her Cherry Hill neighborhood. And "when you find out that sort of information, you take an interest in it," she said.

Cherry Hill's residency limits, struck down May 7 by the Supreme Court, kept all convicted sex offenders from living within 2,500 feet of schools, playgrounds and houses of worship. The court also repealed similar rules in Galloway Township and, in the process, effectively overturned other residency restrictions in more than 100 other New Jersey towns.

The court wrote that the state Megan's Law preempted the local rules. Adopted in 1994, Megan's Law requires released sex offenders to tell law enforcement where they live and when they move.

The high court, in siding with a lower court decision, agreed that the local rules in Cherry Hill and Galloway interfered with the state's intent "to exclusively regulate this field."

Cherry Hill's ordinance had been in place since 2005.

Township spokesman Dan Keashen said the Cherry Hill administration believes "there needs to be a state solution." He said the township still is reviewing the bill in the Assembly but is generally "happy with the overall template."

Officials in other states have enacted statewide residency limits for sex offenders, though some studies have suggested that such limits can interfere with rehabilitation of sex offenders and may not be a deterrent.

New Jersey towns began to enact their own local restrictions about four years ago. They included Haddonfield, Moorestown, Voorhees and Winslow.

Winslow Township Administrator Joseph Gallagher said the municipality supports the current Assembly bill.

"It's an important issue," he said. "We believe the bill would address the needs, to protect the children in the community."

At the state League of Municipalities in Trenton, Executive Director William Dressel said the organization is concerned that the current bill would not impose a statewide standard. Without a uniform standard, he said, the approach may not stand up to inevitable legal scrutiny.

And that could open individual municipalities to more court challenges, Dressel said.

"We have been very much supportive of all efforts trying to address this issue," said Dressel, whose group helps local governments lobby at the state level.

But "we feel we have an obligation and a duty to also support legislation that will not subject municipalities to additional challenges down the road...and the large legal bills associated with those challenges," Dressel said.

The state attorney general's office did not respond to a press inquiry this week, but Lampitt said legislators have consulted with the office on residency restrictions.

She said the bill is designed without a statewide mandate because "each one of the municipalities is so different." Lampitt said the attorney general's office "wouldn't go for" a statewide order.

If the attorney general's office supports the bill, Lampitt said, "then quite possibly the Supreme Court would support it."

Reach Adam Smeltz at (856) 486-2919 or asmeltz@gannett.com