August 22, 2013
DENVER – In a case brought by ACLU attorneys, a federal district court yesterday invalidated an Englewood ordinance that restricts where persons convicted of certain sex offenses can live, ruling that the ordinance violates the Colorado Constitution.
Englewood’s ordinance makes it a crime for persons convicted of certain sex offenses to live within 2000 feet of any school, park, or playground, or 1000 feet of any licensed day care center, recreation center or swimming pool, or any property located next to a bus stop, walk-to-school route, or recreational trail.
Judge R. Brooke Jackson ruled that the ordinance “leaves essentially no place for offenders to live” and pushes sex offenders into neighboring cities, causing an impermissible conflict with “the state interest in the uniform treatment, management, rehabilitation, and reintegration of sex offenders during and after state supervision.”
“Local ordinances that ban sex offenders from living in a particular community provide a false sense of security,” said Mark Silverstein, ACLU Legal Director. “As the State Sex Offender Management Board has noted, these ordinances don’t prevent sex offenses and they don’t increase safety. Instead, they make communities less safe by interfering with offenders’ efforts to reintegrate into safe, stable, and supportive environments. And when town after town enacts similar restrictions, it poses the risk that sex offenders are driven underground and disconnected from treatment and supervision.”
The Sex Offender Management Board (“SOMB”), which is charged by the state legislature with evaluating and treating sex offenders, has urged communities not to enact local residency restrictions because blanket restrictions cause offenders to drop out of the statewide registration system and prevent offenders from successfully reintegrating into society.
The ACLU’s lawsuit was filed on behalf of Brett Ryals, who was unaware of the ordinance when he bought a home in Englewood in 2012. Mr. Ryals had served a two-year sentence from a 2001 felony conviction and had completed state-mandated treatment, rehabilitation, and parole. When he attempted to comply with his legal obligation to register his new address, he was informed that he was not permitted to live in Englewood.
The ruling will likely impact other Colorado jurisdictions, including Greenwood Village, Castle Rock, Lone Tree, Commerce City and Greeley, that have adopted similar ordinances.
The ACLU legal team, led by ACLU Cooperating Attorney Dan Williams of Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, also included Jennifer Sullivan, Hetal Doshi, Shelby Myers, and ACLU Staff Attorney Sara Rich.

Learn more about this case.

Judge rules execution details needed to further public conversation about the death penalty

DENVER –Disclosure of Colorado’s current execution protocol will further the public interest and facilitate public conversation about the state’s use of the death penalty, according to a ruling issued yesterday by Denver District Court Judge R. Michael Mullins.

The court ruled that the Colorado Department of Corrections’ denial of an ACLU of Colorado request for access to a “restricted distribution” document outlining Colorado’s execution protocol and training was “arbitrary and an abuse of discretion.”

“We welcome the Court’s ruling. It’s a good day for transparency in public records and for furthering the public conversation about the death penalty in Colorado,” said ACLU of Colorado Legal Director Mark Silverstein.

According to Judge Mullins’ ruling, “CDOC has failed to demonstrate that disclosure of a properly redacted Execution Protocol would be contrary to the public interest. Particularly in light of Governor Hickenlooper's recent reprieve, which calls for a public conversation about the death penalty in Colorado, disclosure of these records would further the public interest.”

“The public has an interest in knowing how Colorado intends to carry out its executions, one of any government’s most serious functions,” said Lauren Schmidt of Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP, who argued the case as a cooperating attorney on behalf of the ACLU. “The Court’s ruling will help facilitate an important discussion about Colorado’s lethal injection procedures.”

Though the court’s ruling did not specify a deadline for providing the redacted document, Silverstein said he hopes the Department of Corrections will make it available “as soon as humanly possible.”

more on this case

Statement of ACLU of Colorado Deputy Director Stephen Meswarb on Denver District Attorney Mitch Morrissey’s decision to seek the death penalty in the Fero’s bar case

“The ACLU of Colorado is disappointed by Denver District Attorney Mitch Morrissey’s decision to pursue the death penalty in this case. The death penalty is immoral, unjust, and expensive, and every execution and death warrant perpetuates an arbitrary system that can and does make irreversible mistakes.
“When prosecutors choose to pursue death, as Morrissey did today, they validate a deeply flawed system and disregard the substantive costs, both in terms of morality and actual taxpayer dollars, that accompany their decision.”