http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op3.fwx?submit1=showop&caseno=01-3624.PDF Reactions?
Interesting case. I think the city clearly denied the plaintiff his procedural due process rights, as the majority suggests, querying why the plaintiff did not raise this "straightforward" claim. I don't think the city violated his first amendment rights by relying on his privately expressed thought as the basis for its fear that he might abuse children in the park. The use of one's expressed thoughts as evidence of a likelihood that one would commit a crime or to establish the existence of a conspiracy is commonplace, even if taking legal action before any actual act takes place is unusual. The most interesting question, I think, and one the court certainly doesn't really address, is whether, after providing a person all appropriate due process, a city can ban someone from any city property on which children are likely to be found solely because the person can be shown to have child sexual fantasies and desires and has been shown to act on them at least one time in the relatively distant past.
Bill Funk
