A state appeals court upheld a Milwaukee ordinance Wednesday that prohibits child sex offenders from living in close proximity to schools.

After being convicted of a second-degree child sex offense crime in 2000, Milwaukee resident Todd Kester moved to an area close to a South Milwaukee elementary school about three years ago, according to a Court of Appeals opinion. 

However, because of a city ordinance stipulating child sex offenders cannot live within 1,000 feet of an elementary school, the city ordered Kester to move, according to the opinion

Kester and his lawyer, Larry Dupuis, contested this decision. Dupuis argued that by preventing Kester from moving houses, the city was excessively punishing him for his criminal history without an individual determination of his dangerousness, the opinion said. On these grounds, Dupuis took his client’s case to a state appellate court to try to get this decision reversed.

But Judge Maxine White affirmed the law was properly applied and decided to uphold the ordinance in court, thus prohibiting Kester from moving. 

Dupuis said he is planning to contest the appeals court’s decision and plans to move forward with the case.

“This is a serious deprivation of and intrusion on someone’s rights,” Dupuis said. “It forces them to move and to separate from their family. There are places [Kester] can never go.”

Rep. Mark Honadel, R-Milwaukee, said he does not think the ordinance is as harsh as Dupuis proclaims.

“There are so many other places they can go outside of 1,000 feet from an elementary school,” Honadel said.

In addition to disagreeing with the court’s decision, Dupuis said the ordinance in question is unconstitutional. 

According to Dupuis, the ordinance is unconstitutional on two accounts. He said it violates the ex post facto law and Kester’s due process rights.

Dupuis argues that because the ordinance was not in place until after Kester was convicted of his offense, submitting his client to the punishments laid out by the ordinance retroactively is unconstitutional.

“He’s already done his time and this will haunt him for the rest of his life,” Dupuis said.

Dupuis said the ordinance violates the ex post facto rule in the federal Constitution and a parallel provision set out in the Wisconsin Constitution.

Dupuis also said the ordinance is unconstitutional because it violates the due process clause, which he said is why he brought the case to an appeals court. Instead, he said the court had a “superficial view” of the case, and the ruling failed go into enough depth in explaining how Kester was dangerous.

Dupuis defended his client and said Kester had no criminal charges brought against him before this incident and has not had any since his conviction. He added Kester did not pose a danger to the community.

“Mr. Kester was deemed to be low risk. The state didn’t even require him to have a sex offender classification of any sort. Now he’s being punished for the rest of his life,” Dupuis said.

As to whether Kester and his lawyer plan to challenge the constitutionality of the ordinance in the Wisconsin Supreme Court, Dupuis said he currently has no specific plans to do so.