WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

S 3073

Establishes a civil remedy for the protection of animals denied proper care

2025 Regular Session Introduced by Jake Ashby and 20 co-sponsors

Permits municipalities to restrict residence of certain sex offenders within 500 feet of schools, playgrounds, or child care centers, with exceptions and non-retroactivity.

REFERRED TO AGRICULTURE
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · S 3073

Summary — S 3073 (Introduced version)

Note: The bill packet provided lists a title about “a civil remedy for the protection of animals,” but the text supplied and the provisions below concern municipal residency restrictions for certain registered sex offenders. This summary follows the bill text as provided (residency restrictions), not the mismatched title.

Purpose / Intent

S 3073 authorizes municipalities to adopt ordinances that prevent certain registered sex offenders from residing in close proximity to places where children routinely gather (elementary and secondary schools, playgrounds, and child care centers). The intent stated in the bill is to reduce the likelihood of contact between these offenders and children and thereby reduce the risk of re‑offense.

Key provisions

  • Definitions:
    • “Child care center” and “playground” adopt existing statutory definitions.
    • “Person subject to limitations” means a person older than 21 who is required to register under the State’s sex offender statute (P.L.1994, c.133 / C.2C:7‑1 et seq.) for an offense listed in C.2C:7‑2 where the victim was under 18 — excluding those whose risk of re‑offense has been determined to be low under the risk‑assessment statutory process (C.2C:7‑8).
  • Municipal authority:
    • A municipality may enact an ordinance restricting where a person subject to limitations may reside within the municipality to reduce potential contact with children at schools, playgrounds, and child care centers.
  • Distance limit:
    • Any residential prohibition established by a municipal ordinance may not extend beyond 500 feet from the real property comprising a given school, playground, or child care center.
    • Ordinances cannot be drafted to effectively prohibit persons subject to limitations from living in all residentially zoned areas of the municipality.
  • Exceptions (where the 500‑foot prohibition does not apply):
    1. The person is serving a sentence or is involuntarily committed to a correctional or psychiatric/mental health facility located within 500 feet.
    2. The person resides and receives services at a Department of Human Services‑licensed or permitted institution or facility within 500 feet.
    3. The parole board determines, after reviewing housing options, that a needs‑based exception is required.
    4. A court discharging a person from a psychiatric facility with conditions finds an exception appropriate.
  • Non‑retroactivity for established residences:
    • The ordinance may not be applied to force a person subject to limitations to move from a residence that person established within the municipality prior to enactment of the ordinance.
  • Mapping and evidence:
    • The municipal engineer must prepare a map showing locations and boundaries of prohibited residency areas; an approved map, when authenticated, is admissible and constitutes prima facie evidence of the prohibited areas. The governing body may revise and approve maps; originals are filed with the municipal clerk.
  • Savings clause:
    • The bill states it does not impair operation or enforcement of existing sex offender registration statutes (P.L.1994, c.133; P.L.1994, c.128; P.L.2001, c.167).
  • Statutory amendment:
    • The bill adds this municipal authority to the list of matters municipalities may regulate under R.S.40:48‑1 (municipal ordinance powers).

Who is affected

  • Directly affected: persons over 21 required to register for specified sex offenses involving victims under 18 (except those assessed as low risk).
  • Indirectly affected: municipalities (may adopt and administer ordinances), school districts, child care centers, playgrounds, landlords and housing providers, and parole/court systems (in administering exceptions).
  • Current residents: specifically protected if they established residency before the ordinance’s enactment.

Procedural / timeline status (as provided)

  • Introduced in Senate: April 11, 2024 (referred to Senate Law & Public Safety Committee).
  • Subsequent actions include committee referrals/amendments; Senate passage reported (June 11, 2025); delivered to Assembly and referred to Agriculture. Latest status listed: REFERRED TO AGRICULTURE. (Multiple duplicate entries in the record provided; the most recent status is referral to the Assembly Agriculture committee.)

Potential impacts / considerations

  • Public safety aim: intended to reduce child‑offender proximity to locations where children congregate.
  • Housing consequences: may limit available housing options for affected individuals and create administrative burdens for municipalities (mapping, enforcement).
  • Exceptions and non‑retroactivity mitigate some impacts (institutional residents, parole/court exceptions, and residents established before enactment).
  • Legal and practical questions may arise about enforcement, clustering of restricted persons into limited areas, interactions with state and federal constitutional and statutory protections, and coordination with parole boards and service providers.

If you want, I can (1) produce a one‑page printable fact sheet, (2) extract and compare this bill to similar municipal residency laws in other states, or (3) draft likely municipal ordinance language consistent with this bill.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.