ACLU Prevails In Challenge To Barre Residency Restriction Ordinance

The ACLU of Vermont has won its motion for summary judgment in the case of a Barre man accused of violating the city's sex offender residency restriction law.

The Washington Superior Court ruled for plaintiff Chris Hagan in a final judgment issued Sept. 4. The ruling follows Superior Court Judge Helen Toor's granting of a preliminary injunction in the case June 29.

The judgment prevents the city from enforcing the ordinance against Hagan. Toor ruled that the city lacks the legal authority to control where individuals live.

The ACLU filed the lawsuit in April. Hagan, a Vermonter, was told that he cannot live with his wife and children in the city solely because of his criminal record.

The lawsuit challenges the legality of a city ordinance passed last summer that bars individuals convicted of certain sex offenses from living in exclusion zones that encompass much of the city. The ordinance does not distinguish between individuals who re-offend or bother their neighbors, and those who do not.

In 2001, Hagan was accused of sexual assault as a result of sexual contact with a 15-year-old. He was 18 at the time. Hagan pled guilty to a lesser crime in exchange for a reduced sentence. He served time in prison, during which he completed sex offender treatment. Hagan is not on parole or probation, and is classified “low risk” to re-offend.

After his release, Hagan attended community college, started a contracting business, and met and married his wife, Amy. He, his wife, and their two children moved to Barre, not knowing of the residency restrictions. The family does not live in public housing, but in a privately owned apartment that they rent.

Even though Hagan has been a law-abiding citizen in Barre, the city notified him that he had to move out of the apartment or face daily fines.

On June 11 Judge Toor presided over nearly four hours of testimony and argument in Washington Superior Court. Her ruling on the preliminary injunction came later in the month. A status conference was held July 16 on the question of whether to make that ruling permanent.

The ACLU’s principal argument in the case has been that Barre has not been given the authority by the state to enact ordinances as far-reaching as ones that dictate where certain groups of people may or may not live.

The city maintains that even if no such specific authorization has been given, sex offenders’ residences can be regulated under the city’s general authority to eliminate nuisances.

Click to view:

-- complaint
-- motion for preliminary injunction
-- stipulation of stay
-- city`s opposition to granting of preliminary injunction
-- plaintiff`s reply to city`s opposition to granting of preliminary injunction
-- ruling granting motion for preliminary injunction
-- plaintiff's motion for summary judgment
-- judge's final ruling granting summary judgment to plaintiff

Back to Issues main page