Opinion ID: 1637809
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Facts and Procedural History of F.R. v. St. Charles County Sheriff's Department

Text: F.R. pleaded guilty to five sex offenses in 1999 and was sentenced to a prison term of seven and a half years. His sentence imposed certain obligations on him: he was required to complete a sex offender treatment program successfully before his release; [2] he was required to register as a sex offender within 10 days of his entry into any county; [3] and he was required to comply with certain fingerprinting and reporting requirements imposed on registered sex offenders. [4] He was paroled in February 2004 and has complied with the statutory requirements imposed on him as a sex offender from the time of his release from custody through the time this case was submitted to the circuit court. Missouri's legislature enacted a statute, effective in August 2004, prohibiting sex offenders from residing within 1,000 feet of schools or child-care facilities. Section 566.147, RSMo Supp.2004. [5] In June 2008, F.R. sought to move to the home of his fiancée in O'Fallon, Missouri. He notified the St. Charles County sheriff's department of his intent to reside there and was advised that its location satisfied the requirements of section 566.147. When he moved in, a flier was distributed with F.R.'s photograph, address and criminal record stating look who's moved into your neighborhood. Two days after F.R. moved in, the sheriff measured the distance between the home and a nearby child-care facility. Measuring from property line to property line  rather than building-to-building  the sheriff determined the home was only 913.34 feet from the child-care facility. The sheriff informed F.R. that he must move from the home. F.R. relocated to a motel. [6] F.R. filed suit, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief from the sheriff's determination that he could not reside at the O'Fallon home. He argued that section 566.147 was unconstitutionally retrospective in its application, an ex post facto law and impermissibly vague. He also claimed that the statute did not apply to him because his residence wrongly was determined to be within 1,000 feet of the child-care facility. The trial court rejected F.R.'s claims.