You are here: / / THE SEXUAL ASSAULT REFORM ACT (SARA), WHICH PLACES RESTRICTIONS ON WHERE...
, ,

THE SEXUAL ASSAULT REFORM ACT (SARA), WHICH PLACES RESTRICTIONS ON WHERE SEX OFFENDERS CAN RESIDE AFTER RELEASE FROM PRISON, DOES NOT VIOLATE THE EX POST FACTO CLAUSE OF THE US CONSTITUTION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court and agreeing with the First and Second Departments, determined the Sexual Assault Reform Act (SARA), which prohibits petitioner-sex-offender from residing within 1000 feet of school grounds, did not violate the Ex Post Facto clause of the US Constitution:

Because petitioner was unable to locate housing in New York City that fulfilled the residency requirements imposed by SARA, even with respondents’ assistance (see Correction Law § 201 [5]), he remained incarcerated. * * *

We are guided … by a recent case concerning individuals in a situation akin to petitioner’s, in which the Court of Appeals held that “the temporary confinement of sex offenders in correctional facilities, while on a waiting list for SARA-compliant [New York City Department of Homeless Services] housing, is rationally related to a conceivable, legitimate government purpose of keeping level three sex offenders more than 1,000 feet away from schools,” and “[t]he existence of less restrictive methods of monitoring [individuals in these circumstances] during this period does not invalidate the use of correctional facilities” … . …

… “[i]n assessing the constitutionality of a statute, this Court does not review the merits or wisdom of the Legislature’s decisions on matters of public policy, and the fact that the restrictions are difficult and cumbersome is not enough to make them unconstitutional. Although one can argue that such laws are too extreme or represent an over-reaction to the fear of sexual abuse of children, they do not violate the [E]x [P]ost [F]acto [C]lause” … . People ex rel. Rivera v Superintendent, Woodbourne Corr. Facility, 2021 NY Slip Op 07044, Third Dept 12-16-21

 

You might also like
JUSTICE CENTER DID NOT HAVE THE STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO MAKE A NEGLECT FINDING AGAINST A FACILITY FOR PEOPLE WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES.
FOR PURPOSES OF A PERMANENT NEGLECT/TERMINATION-OF-PARENTAL-RIGHTS PROCEEDING, DIRECT PLACEMENT OF THE CHILD WITH A SUITABLE PERSON MEETS THE DEFINITION OF PLACEMENT IN THE “CARE OF AN AUTHORIZED AGENCY” SUCH THAT A PERMANENT NEGLECT PROCEEDING IS AVAILABLE AFTER DIRECT PLACEMENT FOR ONE YEAR; ALTHOUGH RESPONDENT’S PARENTAL RIGHTS HAD BEEN TERMINATED WHEN THIS APPEAL WAS CONSIDERED, THE “EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE” WAS INVOKED (THIRD DEPT).
Lump Sum Settlement with Third Party Barred Transfer of Employer’s Liability for Future Medical Payments to the Special Fund
ALLOWING THE INTRODUCTION OF A WITNESS’S GRAND JURY TESTIMONY AS A PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENT WAS (HARMLESS) ERROR (THIRD DEPT).
New Paltz Local Wetlands Law Should Not Have Been Annulled
Determination Annulled and Expunged—Hearing Officer Did Not Take Any Steps to Confirm the Reliability of the Confidential Information Upon Which the Determination Was Based
CLAIMANT, WHO DISTRIBUTED BAKED GOODS UNDER A DISTRIBUTION CONTRACT, WAS AN EMPLOYEE ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).
Facts Admitted In Guilty Plea Have Subsequently Been Found Insufficient to Constitute the Offense (Possession of Child Pornography)—Yet Vacation of the Conviction Not Warranted

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

TESTIMONY THAT THE FREQUENCY OF SEXUAL RELATIONS BETWEEN DEFENDANT AND HIS WIFE... THE OWNER OF THE OLD BRONX COURTHOUSE HAS A VALID CAUSE OF ACTION SEEKING AN...