MOAFR Education

Blog

  • Determine whether Halloween posed an increased risk

    This document summarizes a study published in Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment in 2009, which analyzed child sex crime rates on Halloween. The study aimed to determine whether Halloween posed an increased risk for nonfamilial child sexual abuse, as some states and municipalities have implemented policies restricting sex offenders’ activities during Halloween based on concerns about heightened risks.

    Using data from the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) from 1997 to 2005, the study analyzed 67,045 cases of nonfamilial sex crimes against children aged 12 and under. The findings revealed no significant increase in child sex crime rates on Halloween or the two days prior, compared to other days of the year. Victim and offender characteristics, types of offenses, and victim-offender relationships were consistent with other days. The study also found that sex crimes against children accounted for less than 0.2% of all Halloween crime incidents, with vandalism and property destruction being more prevalent.

    The study concluded that Halloween does not pose an unusual risk for child sexual abuse, and the policies targeting sex offenders during Halloween may be addressing a non-existent problem. It suggested that law enforcement resources might be better allocated to address more significant risks, such as pedestrian-vehicle accidents, which are notably higher on Halloween. The study also highlighted the need for evidence-based policymaking and questioned the effectiveness of Halloween-specific sex offender restrictions. 

    https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jill-Levenson/publication/26651243_How_Safe_Are_Trick-or-Treaters_An_Analysis_of_Child_Sex_Crime_Rates_on_Halloween/links/55af98cf08ae11d310383d55/How-Safe-Are-Trick-or-Treaters-An-Analysis-of-Child-Sex-Crime-Rates-on-Halloween.pdf?origin=publication_detail&_tp=eyJjb250ZXh0Ijp7ImZpcnN0UGFnZSI6InB1YmxpY2F0aW9uIiwicGFnZSI6InB1YmxpY2F0aW9uRG93bmxvYWQiLCJwcmV2aW91c1BhZ2UiOiJwdWJsaWNhdGlvbiJ9fQ

  • DOE v. KEATHLEY (2011)

    Missouri Court of Appeals,Western District.

    https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/mo-court-of-appeals/1565000.html

    Summary of case is John Doe v. James F. Keathley, decided by the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, in 2011.

    Here is a summary of the outcome and the court’s reasoning:

    Case Outcome

    The Missouri Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the circuit court. This means the court ruled against John Doe, who was seeking to be free from sex offender registration requirements.

    Holding and Reasoning

    1. Issue: The central question was whether John Doe was considered “convicted of a sex offense” under the federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), despite having received a Suspended Imposition of Sentence (SIS) in Missouri state court. Under Missouri law, an SIS is generally not considered a conviction for some purposes.
    2. Federal Law Controls: The Court held that the meaning of the term “convicted” in a federal statute like SORNA is a matter of federal law, not state law. This is necessary to ensure a uniform national system for sex offender registration, which was Congress’s intent in enacting SORNA.
    3. SIS is a Federal “Conviction”: Citing precedent from the U.S. Supreme Court (specifically Dickerson v. New Banner Institute, Inc.), the court found that under federal law, a plea of guilty followed by probation and a suspended imposition of sentence does constitute a “conviction.”
      • The court reasoned that a person cannot be placed on probation unless the court deems them guilty of a crime.
      • The federal statute (SORNA) applies to anyone “convicted” of a sex offense, regardless of the punishment actually imposed.
    4. Conclusion: Because Doe’s guilty plea and suspended imposition of sentence in 1992 met the definition of a “conviction” under federal law (SORNA), he was therefore required to register as a sex offender under the federal act.

  • Missouri City Reverses Position on Halloween Sign Enforcement

    As of October 2024, a federal judge ruled that Missouri can no longer enforce its law requiring registered sex offenders to post “No candy or treats” signs on their property on Halloween. This ruling struck down the sign requirement, deeming it a violation of the First Amendment’s protection against compelled speech. 

    While the sign requirement was abolished, other provisions of the 2008 Missouri law remain in effect for those on the registry during Halloween. 

    Key changes and current law

    Sign requirement abolished

    • In early October 2024, U.S. District Judge John Ross issued a permanent injunction against the sign requirement, ruling that forcing individuals to post signs was unconstitutional.
    • The ruling was the result of a lawsuit filed by a registered offender in Hazelwood, Missouri, who was arrested in 2022 for violating the Halloween restrictions.

    Remaining restrictions

    • Other parts of the 2008 law still apply to registered sex offenders during Halloween.
    • The law mandates that registered offenders must:
      • Remain inside their homes between 5 p.m. and 10:30 p.m. on Halloween night.
      • Keep their outdoor residential lights off during the evening.
      • Avoid any Halloween-related contact with children.

    Aftermath and legal challenges

    • Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey immediately announced his intention to appeal the federal court’s decision. As of September 2025, there was an update on the progress of the legal challenge in the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals.
    • In October 2025, the City of Hazelwood temporarily attempted to resume enforcement of the sign requirement, but later reversed its position.
    • This legal challenge is part of a broader national conversation, with similar sign laws in other states being challenged and struck down on First Amendment grounds.

    More on this topic:

    https://all4consolaws.org/category/acsol-news