Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Administrative Law Blogs -> Within the Scope

Administrative Law

: Within the Scope

Does Marlowe Signal a Rebuke (and Headaches) for Washington County?

By Eric L. Lipman

In an interesting opinion handed down yesterday from the Minnesota Court of Appeals, the appellate panel ruled that a Level II sex offender on supervised release, Brian Marlowe, could not be returned to jail following his failure, ?through no fault of his own,? to secure housing in the community.

Upon his release from prison following a conviction for Criminal Sexual Conduct in the First Degree, Marlowe had difficulty finding housing in the suburban communities of Washington County. Landlords in Stillwater turned him down and so did an Aunt who lived nearby.

More noteworthy is that corrections agents in Ramsey County refused to approve a transfer of Marlowe?s supervision to their county ? although there was record evidence that they would have approved such a transfer if Marlowe had been referred by agents in adjacent Anoka or Dakota Counties. Does this case signal a ?push-back? from urban counties that there are limits on the numbers of sex offenders they will accept from suburban communities? The record is not altogether clear on this point.

And while it is a crude and imperfect comparison, a publicly-accessible databank at the Minnesota Department of Correction reports that, as of this posting, Washington County had no Level III sex offenders within its borders, but neighboring Ramsey County was supervising 18 such offenders.

If predatory offenders from Washington County must be ?restructured? in community-based settings, does this ruling present new set of headaches for the Washington County Board?

The panel?s complete analysis is accessible here.

Full post as published by Within the Scope on September 17, 2008 (boomark / email).