Sex offender sues West St. Paul over its rule limiting where he can live

Saint Paul Pioneer Press - 11/18/2017

Nov. 18--Tom Evenstad moved into his friend's West St. Paul home on Aug. 21. Three days later, a West St. Paul police investigator called the landlord and said Evenstad had to go.

The city cited Evenstad's first-degree criminal sexual conduct conviction in 1999 as the reason he could not live in the home, a 1 1/2 -story duplex on a corner lot near Dodd Road.

Under an ordinance passed in December 2016, Evenstad and other convicted sex offenders are barred from living within 1,200 feet of schools, licensed child-care facilities or state-licensed group homes.

Evenstad, 52, not only has refused to comply with the city rule, he's challenging it in U.S. District Court in Minneapolis. He argues the ordinance is unconstitutional because it imposes retroactive punishment by banishing him from almost all of West St. Paul.

Evenstad's civil lawsuit seeks injunctive relief, which would stop the city from enforcing the ordinance. He remains in the home because a judge granted his request for "emergency relief" from the restrictions.

West St. Paul City Attorney Kori Land declined to comment on the lawsuit, other than to say that she believes it is the first of its kind in Minnesota. She referred questions to Attorney Monte Mills of Greene Espel, the Minneapolis law firm handling the case for the city. Mills also declined to comment, instead referring to the city's court documents filed in the case.

The city argues that the residency restriction is meant to "promote, protect and improve the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the city."

The lawsuit contends there is no sound evidence that residency restrictions improve public safety or prevent recidivism.

The city argues the lawsuit should be dismissed because the 8th Circuit Court already has ruled that residency restrictions for sex offenders are constitutional. The court rejected the argument that the restrictions amounted to banishment, saying such laws simply restrict where convicted offenders may reside and do not "expel" offenders from the communities, the city argues.

The city rejects Evenstad's claim that the ordinance will cause homelessness or other irreparable harm, noting that three apartment buildings and dozens of other potential rentals are outside the restricted areas.

GUILTY OF RAPE, THEN STALKING

Before they are released from prison, Minnesota sex offenders are assessed by a panel of experts to determine how likely they are to re-offend. Level 3 is considered the highest risk for re-offending.

A jury found Evenstad guilty of raping an 18-year-old Richfield woman he met through a telephone dating chatline. Before he was released from prison in 2008, he was assessed to be a Level 1 offender, meaning he is least likely to re-offend.

In 2014, Evenstad was charged with stalking or threatening several people involved in his rape conviction, including the victim, the Hennepin County prosecutor and the judge. He pleaded guilty in Ramsey County District Court to stalking charges in five cases, and was placed on probation for 20 years and ordered to remove websites he had created in his victims' names.

More recently, he violated his probation with a Facebook post and was sent back to prison. He was released Aug. 21 and went to stay at the West St. Paul duplex at 957 Galvin Ave. Then he was told the home is within 1,200 feet of both a daycare and a group home.

'BROAD' RESTRICTIONS

West St. Paul is among 84 cities, townships or counties in Minnesota with residency restrictions for sex offenders, according to the Department of Corrections.

But West St. Paul's is "extremely broad," said Adele Nicholas, a Chicago civil rights attorney who agreed to take on Evenstad's lawsuit.

Whereas most local "predatory offender" ordinances ban Level 3 sex offenders from living within a certain distance of places where children congregate, West St. Paul's includes all sex offenders, Nicholas said.

The city's inclusion of group homes is also rare, she said.

"West St. Paul is saying there are 38 (group homes) in the city limits and that no one can live within 1,200 of feet," she said. "That really puts a large swath of the city off-limits."

According to the lawsuit, Evenstad is essentially banned from living in West St. Paul because the ordinance puts about 95 percent of the city's residential housing off-limits.

In April, Nicholas and her co-counsel, Mark Weinberg, were successful in a federal lawsuit that challenged a sex offender ordinance in Pleasant Prairie, Wis. They have filed similar lawsuits this year in Wisconsin, including one against the city of Milwaukee, on behalf of sex offenders.

"These ordinances are a fairly recent phenomenon in Minnesota," Nicholas said.

RESTRICTIONS HAVE SNOWBALLED

In 2006, Taylors Falls became the first city in Minnesota to pass residency restrictions for sex offenders.

Before 2015, when Brooklyn Center passed an ordinance, no metro-area cities restricted where sex offenders could live. After Brooklyn Center enacted its ordinance, Columbia Heights and other nearby Anoka communities quickly followed suit.

Last fall, after three Level 3 sex offenders moved into South St. Paul in less than three months, the city became the first Dakota County community to restrict where sex offenders could live. Since then, West St. Paul and five other cities in the county -- Apple Valley, Rosemount, Hastings, Farmington and Inver Grove Heights -- have passed similar ordinances.

"It has become a snowball effect," said Michele Murphy, program director for the risk assessment and community notification unit at the Department of Corrections.

In 2017, 22 cities or counties in Minnesota passed sex-offender ordinances.

Anne Finn, the assistant intergovernmental relations director for the League of Minnesota Cities, said this week in a statement that residency restrictions are an outgrowth of city officials hearing from constituents "who are anxious about the idea of living near registered sex offenders."

"These city officials are clamoring for ways to be responsive to their constituents," she said.

MINNESOTA CITIES LIMITING WHERE SEX OFFENDERS CAN LIVE

Following are the 84 Minnesota jurisdictions with residency restriction ordinances prohibiting where sex offenders can live. The list, courtesy of the Minnesota Department of Corrections, is organized by year of implementation.

2006: Albertville, Taylors Falls

2009: Otsego, North Branch, Wyoming

2010: Cohasset, Cuyuna, Duluth, Moose Lake

2011: Chisago City, Grand Rapids, Lindstrom

2012: Proctor

2013: Askov, Brainerd, Finlayson, Linwood Township

2014: Cloquet, Eagle Lake, Mankato, Morristown, North Mankato, Rochester

2015: Birchwood Township, Brooklyn Center, Chisago County, Cleveland, Columbia Heights, Elysian, Grasston, Lake Crystal, Le Center, Mahtomedi, Mapleton, Minnesota Lake, Pine Island

2016: Ada, Andover, Anoka, Battle Lake, Big Lake, Blomkest, Clear Lake, Coon Rapids, Corcoran, Elizabeth, Fergus Falls, Hilltop, Lauderdale, Little Canada, Maple Grove, Mounds View, Ramsey, Rush City, Sandstone, South St. Paul, St. Francis, St. Michael, Wabasha, Watertown, West St. Paul, Willmar

2017: Apple Valley, Cosmos, Dayton, Deephaven, Detroit Lakes, Excelsior, Farmington, Greenwood, Hastings, Independence, Inver Grove Heights, Le Sueur, Le Sueur County, Maple Plain, New Prague, Newport, Orono, Pelican Rapids, Rockford, Rosemount, Shorewood, Tonka Bay