NCJ Number
15829
Journal
St Louis University Law Journal Volume: 18 Issue: 2 Dated: (WINTER 1973) Pages: 214-234
Date Published
1973
Length
21 pages
Annotation
REVIEW OF POLICEMENS' EFFORTS TO REVOKE OR RELAX LAWS THAT REQUIRE THAT THEY LIVE WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS AS A CONDITION OF CONTINUED EMPLOYMENT.
Abstract
POLICEMEN IN VARIOUS CITIES HAVE FILED SUITS AGAINST MUNICIPAL RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS ON THE BASIS THAT THEY WERE 'UNREASONABLE' AND VIOLATIONS OF STATE AND FEDERAL EQUAL PROTECTION LAWS. STATE COURTS HAVE TENDED TO SUSTAIN THE CITIES' EMERGENCY READINESS ARGUMENT AS A RATIONAL BASIS FOR SUCH RESIDENCY RESTRICTIONS. IN ADDITION, THEY HAVE CITED THE VALUE OF OFF-DUTY POLICEMEN IN PROTECTING CITIZENS AND IN FOSTERING BETTER POLICE-COMMUNITY RELATIONS TO SUPPORT THEIR DECISIONS. USE OF A STRICTER TEST OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION ARGUMENT. 'COMPELLING STATE INTEREST', IS RECOMMENDED FOR POLICEMEN IN THE FUTURE. THE IMPLICATIONS OF SHAPIRO V. JOHNSON, WHICH SUCCESSFULLY CHALLENGED THE DURATIONAL RESIDENCY STATUTES FOR WELFARE ASSISTANCE USING THE COMPELLING STATE INTEREST TEST, ARE DISCUSSED.