Loading ...Someone Did Their Job, Well Sort Of.
City officials tell me they have made their first “bust” under the new sex offender ordinance. Park Rangers pulled over 52-year old Rodney Bramton today after noticing him driving erratically through Garfield Park. According to RTV 6, Rangers say they found beer in his car and that he was also wanted for failing to register as a sex offender.
I find this interesting on a couple of fronts. First, there was controversy earlier this week when I reported Park District Director Joe Wynns told me in an interview that he was “not in the sex offender business.” Wynns denies he made those remarks. I still stand by my story. Secondly, and more interesting, you have to ask if the Park Rangers would have known to go after Bramton had he not been driving erratically. Remember, there are more than 2200 sex offenders with 20 miles of Monument Circle.
And to add more fuel to the fire, there’s a question as to whether the fines ($600 for the first offense) the ordinance calls for would apply. (Also note the law doesn’t go into effect until July 1st) You might recall the ordinance was amended to avoid double jeopardy. It says “fines shall not apply when the prohibited conduct is the subject of a new offense under any applicable state or federal statute or when the prohibited conduct is the basis for the revocation of any conditions of parole or probation.” An offender who knowingly or willingly fails to register commits a Class D felony under Indiana law. Since Bramton was wanted for failing to register, it will be interesting to see if the amended language kicks in. If it does, so much for the fine.
There’s nothing like a silly law finally getting enforced (thanks to alcohol and not keen detective work). And what’s more ironic is that the primary intent of the law might not even apply in this case. It’s never a dull moment folks.
June 15th, 2006 at 9:49 pm
His conviction was for “sexual battery” in 1990 (IC 35-42-4-8), and there is no specification that it was against a child. That would mean the ordinance wouldn’t currently apply to him.
It may apply to him after July 1, though, when the state will retroactively name thousands of offenders “predators”–including those who were convicted of crimes against adults, even if the single offense happened decades ago. And once they are named “predators,” the state will also define them, as of July 1, as “offenders against children.”
June 16th, 2006 at 4:47 am
That also brings up another constitutional issue, can you charge someone with an offense if their activity was not a crime at the time the offense was committed? How about “no” under the concept of ex post facto laws. Like I said, this will be fun to watch.
June 23rd, 2006 at 2:43 pm
Quote: “Like I said, this will be fun to watch.”
Nah, it’ll fall off the radar completely. All the public will remember is that some offender got “busted” in a park, and therefore believe there is an emergency need for the ordinance.