Criminal defense attorney John Galligan, who represents a convicted sex offender, will be arguing his client’s case against a city ordinance - passed in May 2007 - that prohibits registered sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of premises where children gather.
Those premises include schools; day care centers; video arcades; public, commercial and semi-private swimming pools; the Killeen Municipal Golf Course; and public or private school or day care bus stops.
“There are charges pending in municipal court in Killeen that my client is allegedly in violation of their ordinance,” Galligan said. “Ultimately, this could become a lawsuit, but hopefully we can win it in municipal court.”
When all of the limitations are considered, Galligan said his client would be banished from the city limits, and that violates his client’s civil rights.
“Effectively, 85 to 86 percent of Killeen’s city limits is off limits to those people,” Galligan said.
His client is accused of a sex crime that happened on Fort Hood last year, Galligan said.
The accused, whom Galligan would not name, purchased a home and closed on it at about the same time the ordinance was passed.
“My client has never been on parole, never been on probation,” Galligan said. “After the incident that required him to register, he was renting in Killeen at a house that was closer to a school and a bus stop than the one he has now purchased.”
Galligan said he feels that cases like his client should be grandfathered into the ordinance.
“I don’t think this is constitutional,” he said.
Meanwhile, this ordinance and others similar to this are becoming more common in many areas of the country, Galligan said, and it all boils down to making people feel secure.
“A lot of people have done it because it is popular and makes people feel good,” Galligan said.
That may sound good, but in this case, Galligan said the city council failed to properly research the issue, and instead reacted impulsively.
“It demonstrates quite clearly to me that emotion, rather than careful reflection, has governed the passage of this ordinance,” he said.
City Councilman Otis Evans agreed that the ordinance might not have been properly researched before it passed, but it didn’t matter because the ordinance was basically unenforceable.
“It has a tendency to give you a warm and fuzzy, but in reality, it doesn’t do much,” Evans said. “My concern along with a couple of other people was that we could take this action, and it would look awfully good but in reality what does it do?”
Evans said when the council considered the ordinance there was concern that the measure would do little good to protect the residents from child predators.
But in good conscience, Evans said he could not vote against the ordinance.
Councilman Larry Cole echoed Evans’ sentiments that the ordinance was not an enforceable object because if a child sexual predator wants to offend, he’ll find a way despite any city ordinance.
“It really doesn’t make any difference where they live,” Cole said. “They are going to go to a school, or a playground. They’re going to be transient and as long as they can get into the city limits, we are in danger. That ordinance didn’t really attack that.”
