ST. LOUIS - Child sex offenders are no longer required to post a no candy sign on Halloween after senior District Judge John A. Ross ruled in favor of plaintiff Thomas L. Sanderson declaring a 16-year-old law unconstitutional.  

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey posted on social media that “We are appealing immediately” The post went on to say “I want Missouri to be the safest state in the nation for children. That includes Halloween.”

What You Need To Know

  • Eastern Missouri District Court Judge John A. Ross ruled the 2008 revised MO statute enforcing offenders to post "no candy" signs as unconstitutional based on precedent

  • Other parts of the statute, including leaving lights off and remaining indoors, are still in effect

  • A doctor testified sex offenders re-offend at a rate of one-third

Court documents say Sanderson, a registered sex offender, for years enjoyed giving out candy, hosting bonfires, throwing large parties, and decorating for Halloween prior to a 2008 revised law that required anyone registered as a sexual offender “to post a sign at his or her residents stating, ‘No candy or treats at this residence” on October 31.”

Offenders also were required to remain inside and turn off their exterior lights from 5 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on Halloween, which is a well-known indicator the household wasn’t participating in Halloween. Failure to comply could result in a class A misdemeanor.

According to court documents, an anonymous tip from Halloween of 2022 informed police Sanderson “dressed up in a costume and handed out candy to children, and his residence was decorated with Halloween decorations and lights. Officers also observed that he did not have a sign posted at his residence that stated, “No candy or treats at this residence.” 

The officers also stated he was hosting a Halloween party at the time of their arrival. Despite an order to cease Halloween celebrations, Sanderson continued and officers returned again. Police informed him he was in violation of the Halloween statute. 

On November 3, 2022, Sanderson was arrested. Prior to Halloween in October, Hazelwood Chief of Police James Hudanick informed all sex offenders within Hazelwood the statute, which had not been strongly enforced by the previous chief, would be enforced. 

More testimonies included in the documents came from the victim of Sanderson’s sexual offense conviction; a woman testified to the “significant impact and trauma child sexual abuse has on a victim.” 

Paul Simpson, Ed.D., testified said sex offenders re-offend at a rate of one-third and a “no candy” sign would help mitigate contact between offenders and children.

Sanderson, who wished to continue celebrating Halloween, filed in October 2023 for a temporary restraining order against the state of Missouri, Attorney General Andrew Bailey, Chief of Police for the City of Hazelwood James Hudanick, and associates of each from enforcing the revised statute.

Judge Ross’s ruling to grant the temporary restraining order only applied to preventing the state or local police from enforcing that part of the law.

On October 2, 2024, Judge Ross again ruled in favor of Sanderson, declaring the law was in violation of the first amendment and fourteenth amendments. In court documents, Judge Ross cited multiple court cases that, in summary, states a person cannot be forced to speak what they’ve not agreed to and each person has “both the right to speak freely and the right to refrain from speaking at all.”

The courts also stated precedence in similar cases where other courts ruled such signs unconstitutional. In an eleventh circuit case, McClendon v. Long, the court ruled that a sign with similar language imposed by police on an offender’s lawn was “a classic example of compelled speech.” 

“The Court finds that Halloween Statute’s sign posting requirement – is compelled speech,” declared Judge Ross in the Sanderson v. Missouri court documents. “Plaintiff has proven that the sign posting requirement compels him to speak a viewpoint in written words, directed to the public, that he does not adhere to, in violation of the First Amendment. Applying “the laws’ full range of applications,” the Court further finds that the sign posting requirement compels the speech of any registered offender in Missouri, not just Plaintiff – Defendants require the use of private property to reflect their own message “for the express purpose that it be observed and read by the public,” thereby depriving registered offenders of their freedom to speak in their own words or to not speak at all.”

Judge Ross ordered Sanderson’s request for Declaratory and Permanent Injunctive Relief granted, and declared Missouri Revised Statute Section 589.426.1(3) unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States of America.