Illinois Supreme Court Stands Firm Upholding Residency Restrictions for Child Sex Offenders

The Illinois Supreme Court ruled 6-0 that the residency restriction, which limits where convicted child sex offenders can live, is constitutional and passes the “rational basis test”. This means that the government has to show that a rational connection exists between a law’s purpose and the way that law is applied.    

Sex Offender Registry Requirements  

The Illinois Sex Offender Registration Act requires that those convicted of a sexual offense against a minor must register with the chief of police in the municipality in which he or she resides (excluding Chicago, which has a fixed registration location) or with the sheriff in the county in which he or she resides if it is an unincorporated area or if no police chief exists. This same registration rule also applies when a previously convicted offender is only temporarily domiciled for a period of 3 or more days.

The Case at Hand  

This ruling from the Illinois Supreme Court came about from a case involving a man convicted of aggravated criminal sexual abuse in 2003. Martin Kopf was a high school basketball coach and sexually abused a member of his team at a sleepover after also having served the minor boy with alcohol. Kopf has reportedly not reoffended after serving three years’ probation.  

In 2018, he and his wife sought approval from the Illinois State Police and the Hampshire Police Department before purchasing a home in Hampshire, a village in Kane County. According to records, both agencies approved this move. However, three months after moving in, they were told that a daycare facility was within 500 feet of their new home, which violates the residency restrictions, so they would have to move.  

Kopf brought suit to dispute the constitutionality of the law. In 2021, Kane County Circuit Judge Kevin Busch decided that the law was unconstitutional both “on its face” and as applied to Kopf’s case. The Illinois Supreme Court disagreed, and found that the law was not unconstitutional on its face nor was there any factual evidence of it being unconstitutional in the way it was applied to Kopf.  

Strict Scrutiny vs. Rational Basis  

Courts use two standards to decide whether a law is constitutional. One of those standards is “strict scrutiny,” and it applies to cases involving what is known as “fundamental rights,” which are rights either explicitly enumerated in the Constitution or implicit in the interpretation of its clauses. These rights are considered so crucial for individual liberty and justice that without them, neither would exist, according to a famous 1937 opinion by the United States Supreme Court Justice Benjamin Cardozo.  

For rights that are considered less fundamental, courts apply the “rational basis test,” explained in a previous paragraph. In the case of limiting where convicted child sex offenders live, it is legitimately in the legislature’s interest to protect children from sexual predators in their vicinity, and having a safeguard in place to keep them separated is a reasonable pursuit towards that end.

Source

https://news.wttw.com/2024/04/06/