Attleboro Library and Police Hope to Ban Sex Offenders from Library
City officials have mixed reactions to a proposal to ban Level 2 and Level 3 sex offenders from the library building.
Photos
Videos
A bold move by the Attleboro Public Library Board of Trustees to request that Level 2 and Level 3 sex offenders be prohibited from the library has the city's Committee on Ordinances, Elections and Legislative Matters taking a close look at balancing First Amendment rights with the safety of children.
One by one, members of the library staff and board approached the committee Tuesday night to state their support for an ordinance that would affect the city's 65, Level 2 sex offenders and 15, Level 3 sex offenders. The State of Massachusetts categorizes sex offenders into three tiers – Level 1, Level 2 and Level 3. Levels 2 and 3 are considered the most severe.
"To our knowledge we have not had molestation in our library," Library Director Walter Stitt said. "What provoked this was not an incident, per se, but preventative medicine. The staff has noticed that over the years a few people on the Level 3 registry come into the library."
Attleboro Acting Police Chief Kyle Heagney said the department and the Police Commissioners are in support of an ordinance that would ban any Level 2 or 3 offender from entering the library. Heagney said he believes the ordinance to be "proper, reasonable and absolutely necessary."
Committee Chairperson Cherie Felos had several questions on how an indidvidual is categorized as Level 2 or Level 3, whether an individual can be categorized as a Level 2 offender because they were caught urinating in public (yes, they can), and if it is possible to be a Level 3 offender and never have assaulted a child (again, yes).
Attleboro Police Officer and Sex Offender Coordinator Susan Boisse said many things come into play in determining if an individual is Level 2 or Level 3, including whether they have a family history of sexual abuse, are an alcoholic or hava a drug addiction.
People who are found urinating in public are also considered Level 2 offenders in Massachusetts, according to Boise. And two of the 15 Level 3 offenders in Attleboro have never assaulted a child. Still, Boisse said she is in favor of the ordinance because offenders are often seen around schools, at baseball fields during games and around the public pools in the summer. One offender frequents the Park Street area to watch the girls at the New England Dance Academy while standing outside, Boise said.
There was a clear debate between committee members who did not want to infringe on an individual's right to enter the library because they were found urinating in public, and those who wanted to see the ordinance enacted and to include not only the library but all city-owned buildings, parks and playgrounds.
"I know our society is putting sex offenders in the class of being a leper," committee member Richard Conti said. "The library is a place to be free, and library staff are librarians not security guards."
"We are talking about the public facilities and this is a tool requested by the library staff," City Councilor Duff White said. "They have requested this as a necessary tool to make it a safe environment for the public."
"Any tool we can give our workers and the police to protect children, we need to do it and do it right," Councilor Brian Kirby said.
Conti went on to ask about security measures or deterrents that can be put in place at the library.
"The only thing I’ve seen is, when you walk in there is a rolling screen of sex offenders," Boisse said of another community library. "That is a deterrent for sex offenders to come in. I don’t’ have a problem with them going to the library, but (they should) not (be) in the children's section of the library.
Council President Frank Cook said he does not want to vote to move it out of committee until more input could be provided from the recreation department, the zoo staff and others who would be affected if such an ordinance were voted on by the committee and sent to the City Council for approval.
In This article
-
Attleboro Public Library
74 N Main St, Attleboro, MA -
New England Dance Academy
35 Park St, Attleboro, MA (Downcity Attleboro)
Diane L
4:47 pm on Friday, February 4, 2011
How would the city handle sex offenders that might have children? Are their children going to be banned from the library also? I agree that level III sex offenders should be banned from the children's section unless they are there with their children. However, the city has to be careful - they have served their time, and do have rights. Doesn't it circumvent the legal system if a person is continued to be punished for their crime after they are released from jail? I know I would not want level III sex offender near my child but it is also the parent's job to ensure their childrens safety everywhere they go including the library.
Patricia Resende
6:45 pm on Friday, February 4, 2011
Diane,
Thank you for commenting. City officials are asking those same questions of one another and are faced with balancing the safety of children with the First Amendment. This topic has garnered a lot of discussion and debate. Once it is voted out of committee it will go before the City Council. We will keep you informed on this topic throughout the process.
And yes, we will continue to post police logs as they are made available to us. Unfortunately, the APD and Attleboro District Court did not make them available last week . An updated police log will be posted Monday.
Fact Checker
9:56 pm on Friday, February 4, 2011
Ms. Resende: Without a hint of sarcasm, how is this proposed ordinance even remotely related to the first amendment?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
This is a vitally important topic for the city and needs to be enacted as soon as possible.
I thank you in advance for your response.
Michael Judge
5:56 pm on Monday, April 25, 2011
Part 1 of 4 – Fact Checker on 2/4/11:
You wrote it, but you didn't understand it. The First Amendment gives people the right to assemble, freely, on public property – like the public library. A person’s presence in a library is then for the receiving and/or dissemination of information and ideas, i.e., free speech, hence, the First Amendment. One may accomplish this through the spoken word or various media stored in a library. Level 2 will never be found constitutional by the courts, and level 3 will be a major uphill battle that will probably still be lost. Just last year, in 2010, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, ruled that Albuquerque’s regulation banning sex offenders from libraries was unconstitutional. The Court said that the law would create “an unacceptable risk of the suppression of ideas” and infringe upon the First Amendment rights of the sex offenders.
Michael Judge
5:58 pm on Monday, April 25, 2011
Part 2 of 4 – Fact Checker on 2/4/11:
More to the point, Attleboro police and City officials are a bunch of bullies who have been harassing and intimidating peaceful, church-going, elderly citizens for the past 12 years in all public fora throughout the City. We already have Court Rulings stating that they have repeatedly violated our First Amendment rights. They are now illegally trying to use trespass laws against us, further banning us from public property. They do not agree with our Roman Catholic religious beliefs, supporting pro-life and traditional marriage positions, and have therefore chilled our free speech and religious worship when we attempt to hold Rosary vigils.
Believe it or not, the recent "revelation" of police misconduct is an answer to our prayers for justice, and is only the beginning of a much larger "revelation" this City is about to have if the FBI does its job and holds City officials accountable, too. We have also contacted numerous State and Federal agencies, including the Department of Justice, and have Federal Sec.1983 Complaints pending against numerous police officers and City officials for violating our First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
Michael Judge
5:59 pm on Monday, April 25, 2011
Part 3 of 4 – Fact Checker on 2/4/11:
Everything you've been writing about the police department, and more, has been done to us for years. Heagney is now, and has been in the past, a large part of the problem, since he was in charge of operations, not to mention, our experiences with him, personally. Don't expect anything to change. It’s all talk. The evidence is overwhelming.
You will be happy to know that we have recently received a major public records appeal Ruling AGAINST the Attleboro police and City officials from the State Supervisor of Public Records, Alan Cote. It involves thousands of dollars worth of public records, illegally kept from us for years. Now, the Supreme Court will decide the fate of City officials, regarding this matter. Our case will help you and others who are also being “stonewalled” by the police department, as they continually defy State and Federal laws.
Michael Judge
6:00 pm on Monday, April 25, 2011
Part 4 of 4 – Fact Checker on 2/4/11:
Ms. Resende, you are a “breath of fresh air” to this community, and your journalistic integrity makes the Chronicle look like a high school newsletter. You have done more substantial reporting in the last few months than the Chronicle has done in the past 20 years. I hope you'll keep up the good work, remain objective, and never be afraid to print the truth. Stay tuned. –Michael A. Judge [ "Tolstoy" – that's funny! :) ]
Patricia Resende
8:24 pm on Wednesday, May 2, 2012
Michael,
I don't know how, but I some how missed your comments. It may have been because your comments were posted a few months after the initial posting. Either way, I never had a chance to say thank you. So, thank you!
Patricia Resende
8:25 pm on Wednesday, May 2, 2012
Michael,
I don't know how, but I some how missed your comments. It may have been because your comments were posted a few months after the initial posting. Either way, I never had a chance to say thank you. So, thank you!