The Kentucky Supreme Court last Thursday held that that state's sex offender residency restrictions prohibiting where offenders could live – specifically near schools or daycare centers-- were unconstitutional when applied retroactively. (Court's Holding) ( Article)
In its analysis of the case the Kentucky Court also referenced the Indiana Supreme Court's holding in State v. Pollard earlier this year that, "as applied to those who committed their crimes before the statute was enacted, Indiana's sex offender residency restriction statute constituted retroactive punishment forbidden by the ex post facto clause of the state's constitution.
"Mikaloff v. Walsh, in Ohio's Northern District Court, held that retroactive application of Ohio's residency restriction statute violated the federal ex post facto clause. An appeal in that case was dismissed at the State's request, however, presumably because the Ohio Supreme Court subsequently prohibited retroactive application of the residency restriction statute on grounds that the Ohio legislature had not expressly made the law retroactive in Hyle v. Porter.”
The Court also noted, on the other hand, that Doe v. Miller, 405F.3d 700 (8th Cir.2005) ; State v. Seering, 701 N.W2d 655 (Iowa 2005); Thompson v. State, 603 S.E.2d 233(Ga.2O04) ; People v. Leroy, 828 N.E.2d 769 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005), and Lee v. State, 895 So.2d 1038 (Ala. Crim. App. 2004) all upheld residency restriction statutes against ex post facto challenges.
Ohio statute (ORC 2950.031)
Kentucky (KRS 17.545)
Indiana (IC 35-42-4-11)