Filed Date: Sept. 2, 2003
Closed Date: Nov. 21, 2007
Clearinghouse coding complete
This case, brought in state court in Georgia, involved a constitutional challenge to a Georgia state law which placed restrictions on where sex offenders could live or work. The law, OCGA § 42-1-15, prohibited registered sex offenders from residing or working at a location that was within 1,000 feet of any child care facility, church, school or area where minors congregate.
Appellant Anthony Mann was a registered sexual offender. Mann had previously challenged the law that prohibited him from living in his parents' home due to the geographic restriction. The Georgia Supreme Court (Presiding Judge Leah Ward Sears) rejected that challenge, finding that Mann had only a minimal property interest in living in his parents' home. Mann v. State, 278 Ga. 442, 603 S.E.2d 283 (2004).
Subsequent to his initial challenge of the law, Mann got married and moved into a home in Clayton County, Georgia in October 2003. In 2004, Mann became the half owner and day-to-day operator of a barbecue restaurant in Clayton County. Neither his home nor his business was within 1,000 feet of any child care facility, church, school, or area where minors congregate. However, sometime thereafter, a child care business opened up within 1,000 feet of Mann's house and business. Mann's probation officer then advised Mann that he would need to move and quit his business or be subject to parole revocation for violating OCGA § 42-1-15. Mann brought suit in the Georgia state court, seeking a declaration that the law was unconstitutional. The trial court rejected his challenge and Mann appealed.
On November 21, 2007, the Georgia Supreme Court (Presiding Judge Carol W. Hunstein) reversed the trial court's ruling, denying appellant's request for declaratory relief in regard to the residency restriction, finding that it was unconstitutional because it permitted the public taking of Mann's property without compensation in violation of the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the Georgia Constitution. The Court, however, found that the trial court did not err by denying appellant's request for declaratory relief as to the work restriction, holding that Mann failed to establish that the economic impact of the work restriction, as applied to him, amounted to an unconstitutional taking of his property interest in his barbecue restaurant. Mann v. Georgia Department of Corrections, 282 Ga. 754, 603 S.E.2d 283 (2007).
Summary Authors
Dan Dalton (11/26/2007)
Whitaker v. Perdue, Northern District of Georgia (2006)
Hunstein, Carol W. (Georgia)
Key, Scott (Georgia)
Baker, Thurbert E. (Georgia)
Brasher, Christopher S. (Georgia)
Phillips, J. Jayson (Georgia)
Hunstein, Carol W. (Georgia)
Sears, Leah Ward (Georgia)
Last updated Aug. 30, 2023, 3:01 p.m.
Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.State / Territory: Georgia
Case Type(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: Sept. 2, 2003
Closing Date: Nov. 21, 2007
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
A registered sex offender ordered to move out of his home because he resides within one thousand feet of a "place where minors congregate"
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: Unknown
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Georgia Department of Corrections, State
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Constitutional Clause(s):
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Mixed
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Issues
General: