CA - Why Are So Many Sex Offenders Getting Murdered in California's Prisons?

Original Article

02/18/2015

By Seth Ferranti

In prison, there is no creature lower than a sex offender. Even snitches get a pass before these guys. SOs, chomos, pedophiles—the nicknames all mean the same thing, and they help average convicts differentiate themselves from those they like to believe are the real monsters.
- The nicknames do NOT all mean the same thing!

A recent report from the Associated Press suggests inmates in the California state prison system are getting killed at twice the national average, with sex offenders disproportionately likely to meet their demise inside—which is awful, but not too surprising given how much hatred is directed at those inmates. But why would one state stand out so much from the rest?

"That's the culture in California prison," Kilo, a Blood doing life in California under the three strikes law, tells me. "It's taboo and pretty much all the races make an issue out of it, as far as dealing with child molesters and stuff like that. But the Hispanics and the whites—they really make a big issue out of it, as far as stabbing them and getting them out of the prison population."

Read the entire article

See Also:

• AP Exclusive: Many sex offenders killed in California prison
• Experts: Reducing Prison Populations Best Way To Keep Sex Offenders Safe Behind Bars

CA - Peaceful Protest to be held in the City of Carson on March 7

Original Article

02/17/2015

California RSOL will lead a peaceful protest in the City of Carson on Saturday, March 7, in order to highlight the harm done by the city’s sex offender ordinance. That ordinance bans registered citizens from being present in or within 300 feet of public places including the library, parks and swimming pools as well as private places including fast food restaurants that have a children’s playground.

The peaceful protest will begin at Carson City Hall at 10 a.m. near the water fountain. Registered citizens, family members, and all who support them are invited to join the event. Refreshments will be served.

“This is a unique opportunity for registered citizens and those who support them to show up, stand up and speak up,” stated California RSOL vice president Chance Oberstein.

The event will include a march to John D. Calas Sr. Park near the intersection of 223rd and Cluff Streets. The current city law prohibits registered citizens from visiting this park, however, family members and supporters are welcome there. Registered citizens will be served lunch at a distance outside the 300-foot limit.

See Also:

• Monthly Meeting April 11, Lobbying April 10/11 in Sacramento

CA - Sex-offender laws are ineffective and unfair, critics say

Original Article

10/17/2014

By Puck Lo

Frank Lindsay, 62, is a father, small-business owner and avid surfer. He’s also one of 105,000 people in California — and 760,000 nationally — listed as a sex offender. In accordance with federal law, his name, photograph and home address appear in a public, online offender registry. In 1979, Lindsay, then 27, was convicted of lewd and lascivious acts with a minor under the age of 14.

“I thought I could do whatever I wanted,” Lindsay says. “Add on some alcohol, and I was a real asshole.”

Today, Lindsay considers himself a reformed man. He says he hasn’t had a drink in 30 years, is a Taoist and advocate for restorative justice — encouraging violent people to make amends for their actions. But, he says, “It seems that I can never be forgiven.”

Few groups are as widely despised as sex offenders. Activities prosecuted as sex offenses vary by state, but can include public urination, consensual sex between teenagers, streaking, prostitution, downloading child pornography and rape. In some states, law-enforcement officials distribute flyers to notify neighbors of registrants’ convictions. Some registrants are prohibited from using the Internet. In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that indefinite detention at psychiatric hospitals — or “civil commitment” — of sex offenders is constitutional.

The first law requiring sex offenders to register publicly and for life was passed in California in 1947 and targeted gay men, according to Andrew Extein, executive director of the Center for Sexual Justice. But many of today’s laws have their origins in the late 1970s, when feminists and social conservatives worked together to publicize high-profile “stranger danger” attacks on children, says Roger Lancaster, anthropology professor at George Mason University and author of “Sex Panic and the Punitive State.”

Beginning in the mid-1990s, several laws went into effect that changed how sex-offense cases were prosecuted. In 1994, states were required to create databases of sex offenders. Two years later, Megan’s Law, named for a 7-year-old in New Jersey who was brutally raped and murdered by a neighbor with two previous sex convictions, allowed states to make those registries public. States passed their own versions of the law; in some cases, they required that neighbors be notified of paroled offenders’ previous convictions. Later laws moved those sex-offender databases online, created a national registry, required lifetime registration of people 14 years old and up and imposed harsh mandatory minimum sentences for crimes involving children.

But almost 20 years after the passage of Megan’s Law, criminologists and judges, along with a burgeoning movement of sex-offender registrants and their families, are challenging not only the constitutionality of the laws but their effectiveness in reducing sexual assault. In January, a California court ruled in favor of a paroled sex offender who had argued that city and county “child-safety zone” ordinances prohibiting people in the registry from using parks, beaches and similar recreation areas were an unconstitutional form of banishment. In April, the state Supreme Court upheld the ruling by declining to review it.

See Also: California Reform Sex Offender Laws

Read the entire article

CA - Tehachapi removes local sex offender ordinance from the books

Original Article

07/10/2014

By JACK BARNWELL

Tehachapi's city council on Monday finalized a repeal of a local sex offender ordinance in order to stave off potential lawsuits.

City Attorney Tom Schroeter had recommended the council repeal an ordinance adopted in 2010 that was a stricter version of a California state law that prohibited any registered sex offender from loitering within 300 feet of a public or private school, park, school bus stop or similar facilities.

Two court opinions, including one case against the city of Irvine and Orange County, ruled that such local ordinances could not be enforced, and that it fell to the state to mandate such laws.

The presiding case was People v. Nguyen, which was ruled on in January in the 4th District Court of Appeal. The California Supreme Court denied an appeal of the case by the Orange County district attorney's office in April.

Tehachapi modeled its ordinance after one that Shafter had on its books at the time. Shafter suspended its law this spring, waiting to see what happens with litigation in other cities. Then it'll decide whether to amend, repeal or keep the law.

Following the court's rulings, a group called California Reform Sex Offender Laws issued letters to several cities, including Tehachapi, saying it would sue if the municipalities did not rescind the ordinances.

"They sent letters to cities in Kern County and around the state and have sued several other cities," Schroeter said.

Schroeter recommended the council revoke the ordinance, as the city would likely lose a lawsuit. It would also be responsible for any of the suing organizations' legal fees, in addition to its own.

"When they win, their legal fees have to be paid, and your fees also have to be paid," Schroeter said.

The city attorney also noted that retired Police Chief Jeff Kermode had stated no one had ever been cited under the Tehachapi ordinance.

"Our particular law is already covered under state law," Schroeter said. "Sex offenders are still well controlled by state law and the ordinance here is not going to change that."

The state law, Jessica's Law (Proposition 83), bars convicted sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of any school or any place where children gather. The law was passed by voters in 2006.

The council voted 5-0 to remove the ordinance from the city municipal code.

"In essence, we thought we were doing the right thing when we passed this ordinance to make things more restrictive," said Mayor Phil Smith. "It's been tried in court that says you can't do that so we'll just back off from our restrictions and go with what the state has on its books, which is fully enforceable."
- So is he admitting the laws are about punishment by making them more restrictive?

CA - Do Residency Bans Drive Sex Offenders Underground?

Original Article

07/07/2014

By Steven Yoder

Early last year, Los Angeles set aside a sliver of land in its Harbor Gateway neighborhood for the city’s newest and smallest park: two jungle gyms on a fifth of an acre.

The project was more than just an effort to increase the city’s green space. City Council members made clear that one of the park’s principal reasons for existence was to force 33 people on the California sex offender registry who were living in a nearby apartment building to move out. State law bars those on its registry from living within 2,000 feet of a park or school.

“We came together, working with the police department, to problem-solve, to send a message that Harbor Gateway cannot be dumped upon with a high number of registered sex offenders,” councilman Joe Buscaino said (Video) at the park’s opening.
- Just imaging how much money would be wasted if all grandstanding politician were to put pocket parks all over the state just so they can "look tough" on ex-sex offenders?  That is all this is, grandstanding!

But the state ban itself already clusters registrants into a limited number of areas, according to a September 2011 report by the California Sex Offender Management Board, which was created by the state legislature to advise it on sex offender policies.

California hasn’t been alone in its tough approach to ensuring that formerly incarcerated sex offenders pose no danger after they are released. As part of a wave of new sex offender laws starting in the mid-1990s, about 30 states and thousands of cities and towns passed such residency restrictions—prompting in turn a pushback from civil liberties advocates, state legislators and registrants themselves who argued the restrictions were not only unduly harsh but counterproductive.

But a court decision in Colorado last year could mark a shift in momentum.

In the Colorado case, _____, a high school soccer coach convicted in 2001 for a consensual sexual relationship with a 17-year-old student, was sentenced to seven years’ probation and put on the state sex offender registry.

Eleven years later, in 2012, he and his wife bought a house in the city of Englewood. But the police department told him he couldn’t live there because of a city ordinance prohibiting sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of schools, parks and playgrounds—a law that effectively made 99 percent of its homes and rentals off limits to offenders.

Englewood police also warned offenders that even in the open one percent, if they contacted a homeowner whose property wasn’t for rent or for sale, they could be charged with trespassing.

_____ sued, and last August a federal court concluded that the city’s ban went too far.

The judge ruled that it conflicted with the state’s existing system for managing and reintegrating sex offenders and could encourage other towns and cities to do the same, effectively barring offenders from the entire state. Englewood has appealed, but two of the state’s five other cities that have residence bans have softened their restrictions since the decision.

The other three are awaiting the outcome of the appeal, according to John Krieger of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Colorado, which represented Ryals.

Read the rest of the article

CA - Sex-offender ordinance to be repealed

Original Article

07/06/2014

By CRAIG SHULTZ and DAYNA STRAEHLEY

Riverside County is poised to do away with an ordinance that sets rules on where sex offenders can live or visit in an effort to avoid a lawsuit.

The county established sex-offender residency and loitering prohibitions for unincorporated areas in 2010, but the Board of Supervisors gave preliminary approval last week to repeal the law because an appeal court has invalidated similar ordinances in other municipalities.

Hemet and Beaumont changed their ordinances recently for the same reason.

The county ordinance sets limits on where parolees could live and how close they could come to schools, parks and child care centers. The court said such laws are unnecessary because local ordinances regulating sex offenders are trumped by state law, a county report states.

County counsel insisted that the 2010 law be repealed because a legal group has been suing other counties that had passed similar ordinances, said Jeff Greene, chief of staff for Riverside County Supervisor Kevin Jeffries.

“The courts have struck down every meaningful provision of our ordinance in other counties,” Greene said.

“We asked if there was any of this that ought to be salvaged,” he said. The county counsel’s office insisted that there are still “good protections for families against sex offenders.”

State penal code provisions include a lifetime requirements for sex offenders to register with local law enforcement, prohibitions against entering any park where children gather and a prohibition against a sex offender living with other sex offenders or within 2,000 feet of a school or park.

The 2010 county ordinance prohibited sex offenders from being within 300 feet of a park, school or day care center Supervisors have not heard objections to the repeal of the ordinance from the sheriff or district attorney, Greene said.

The county ordinance came amid public furor over the prospect of a child rapist and killer, _____, being released to a Perris-area group home. _____ eventually was turned away from the facility. Two court rulings said parts of the ordinance were illegal.

In September 2012, the 4th District Court of Appeal’s ruling on a San Diego County case decided that blanket restrictions of Jessica’s Law were unconstitutional.

The law, named after Jessica Lunsford, a 9-year-old Florida girl who was the murder victim of a convicted sex offender who had failed to report his whereabouts, was approved by California voters in 2006 (Proposition 83).

It requires registered sex offenders who have been convicted of a felony sex offense to be monitored by GPS devices and includes a number of other provisions that increase the legal penalties for specified sex offenses.

The ruling does not prohibit the Department of Corrections from individually enforcing residency restrictions of the law in San Diego County, but disallowed blanket enforcement.

A different division of the same Court of Appeal issued a decision earlier this year invalidating ordinances in the city of Irvine and Orange County that prohibited sex offenders from entering public parks and recreational facilities.

The state Supreme Court in April denied Irvine’s request to review the decision, keeping the ruling in place.

CA - Sex offenders sue over ordinances that ban them from places

Original Article

07/03/2014

By Jose Gaspar

BAKERSFIELD - Wasco and Taft are among a group of California cities being sued by a civil rights group that advocates on behalf of sex offenders.

In 2006, state voters approved Jessica's Law (Proposition 83), which bars sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a school or park.

Shortly after, numerous cities adopted much more restrictive local laws that prohibit sex offenders from being present in any "children's facility," such as a public library, school bus stop, or "any location that facilitates on their property classes or group activities for children."

"We believe it is a misguided and unconstitutional effort to do that," said Santa Maria attorney Janice Bellucci, president of California Reform Sex Offender Laws.

Bellucci said the group was created to give a voice to registered sex offenders.

In addition to Wasco and Taft, Shafter, Delano, Tehachapi and California City also passed similar sex offender ordinances. So far, Wasco and Taft are the only two cities in Kern County served with a lawsuit by the civil rights group.

In June, the Tehachapi City Council voted to repeal its ordinance rather than risk litigation.

"For us, it's going to be a point where we're going to be spending a lot of money on attorney fees," said Tehachapi Mayor Phil Smith. "And we will not win that battle."
- And that is why all states and counties must fight these laws!

In May, Shafter Mayor Jon Johnston wrote a letter to Bellucci stating Shafter would stop enforcing its ordinance pending further review. The city of Wasco is currently reviewing its response to the lawsuit.

For people such as _____ of Grover Beach, he said the ordinances and restrictions placed on his life have made it extremely difficult to continue with his life. According to the Megan's Law website, in 1979 _____ pleaded guilty to lewd or lascivious acts with a child under 14. He served six months in jail and was given two years probation. _____ went on to make a new life and opened a small business. He never committed a new sex crime again.

"The city of Pismo Beach awarded me volunteer of the year for a project I worked on for them," said _____.

But when word leaked about his past, _____ said his landlord terminated his lease and he was forced to lay off five employees and run his business from his home. His gross earnings fell dramatically, he said. He came home one night to find a man waiting for him inside his house. The man took a hammer to _____, who managed to fight him off, but _____ said he suffered numerous injuries. The assailant was arrested and is now in prison.

The way Bellucci sees it, not everyone on the sex offender registry should be on it.

"We have a boy on the registry because he streaked at his high school. That's a sex offense. We had a 16-year-old girl who took a nude selfie and shared it with some students at her high school, she's on the registry," said Bellucci.

And because cases like these are on the registry, they are subject to all sex offender restrictions. According to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, less then 2 percent of sex offenders on parole committed a new sex crime between 2007 and 2009. The vast majority of children who are sexually molested suffer at the hands of someone known to the family.

California Reform Sex Offender Laws is lobbying for the state to create a tiered registry that distinguishes between the severity of the offenses.

"There are people on the sex offender registry who have raped a child or an adult, and they certainly would be at the highest level," said Bellucci.

For _____, his 1979 conviction will never go away. California law requires him to register for life as a sex offender.

"That was 35 years ago I did something. That's not who I am today," said _____.

CA - Santa Fe Springs City Council repeals sex offender restrictions

Original Article

06/14/2014

By Mike Sprague

SANTA FE SPRINGS - The City Council Thursday voted 5-0 to repeal a 2010 law that doesn't allow registered sex offenders to come within 300 feet of day-care centers, libraries, schools and parks.

City Manager Thaddeus McCormack said the council didn’t have a choice after a state appellate court in January ruled that state law preempted a city of Irvine law prohibiting registered sex offenders from entering city parks without written permission from its police chief.

The state Supreme Court later declined to review the case.

In his opinion striking down the Irvine law, Justice Richard Aronson wrote, ”We conclude the state statutory scheme imposing restrictions on a sex offender’s daily life fully occupies the field and therefore preempts the city’s efforts to restrict sex offenders from visiting city parks and recreational facilities.”

Santa Fe Springs hasn't enforced its law for about a year while awaiting a decision from the court, McCormack said.

The city still has Jessica’s Law (Proposition 83), which was approved by California voters. The law bans registered sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of any public or private school or park, McCormack said.

“It’s a bit regretful that we can’t add our own restrictions,” McCormack said.

“(But) “I think the health and safety of residents of Santa Fe Springs are still going to be maintained and protected,” he said. “It’s an area where the state had weighed in and we defer to the state.”

McCormack said the city was threatened with a lawsuit from California Reform Sex Offender Laws if it didn’t repeal its law.

Janice Bellucci, president of the group, praised the city for its action.

“We are very encouraged and commend the city for repealing the ordinance that violates both the state and federal constitutions,” Bellucci said.

Bellucci said ordinances like Irvine’s and Santa Fe Springs are unfair and don’t make people safer.

The laws restricting where sex offenders can go also give families a false sense of security, Bellucci said.

“Less than 2 percent (of registered sex offenders) will commit another sex crime, according to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation,” she said. “(Sex) offenders are more likely to be a family member, a coach or a member of the clergy.”

Whittier Police Chief Jeff Piper, whose city provides police services for Santa Fe Springs, said he understands the rationale for repealing the law and doesn't expect any problems because of the presence of Jessica’s Law.

He also couldn't remember anybody in past years being charged with a violation of the Santa Fe Springs law.

CA - City being sued by registered sex offender

Original Article

06/10/2014

By Doug Keeler

Lawsuit alleges ordinance designed to keep sex offenders away from parks, other areas are unconstitutional

The City of Taft is being sued by a registered sex offender.

The suit was filed May 29 in federal court and alleges an ordinance passed in 2007 designed to keep sex offenders away from areas where children are likely to congregate is unconstitutional.

City Attorney Jason Epperson met with the Taft City Council in closed session to discuss the suit.

The suit is not unique.

The plaintiff in the suit is _____, a man convicted in 1979 of lewd and lascivious acts with a child under age 14. That conviction requires him to register as a sex offender.

Similar suits have been filed against other California cities, alleging that ordinances similar to the one in Taft violate the fifth and fourteenth amendments of the United States Constitution, the ex post facto clause of the constitution and the California Constitution.

The suits centers on city ordinance 8-13, which states, in part:

• It is unlawful for any registrant to reside within 2,000 ft. of any children's facility or child daycare center within the city.
• It is unlawful for any registrant to loiter within 300 ft. of any children's facility or child day care center within the city.

The suit, filed by Arroyo Grande attorney Janice Bellucci, doesn't seek cash damages (it does seek attorney fees and other costs) but asks the court to order the city to stop enforcing the ordinance and declare the ordinance “null and void.”

Chief of Police Ed Whiting said that he doesn't believe the ordinance has ever been enforced and has no knowledge of it being enforced against the defendant.

Bellucci is associated with a group called California Reform Sex Offender Laws.

Taft isn't alone in being sued on behalf of Lindsay, a Grover city resident.

Lompoc was sued in April and Pomona was sued in April just to name a few.

CA - California looking at purging sex offender list

Video Description:
The state of California is looking to remove some sex offenders from it's official list. The state says it will save millions of dollars by thinning the sheet of names to just the worst of the worst.

See Also:

• Sex Offender Board Calls For Registry Overhaul

CA - Sex Offender Board Calls For Registry Overhaul

Nancy O'Malley

Original Article

05/30/2014

California is one of four states that require lifetime registration of all sex offenders. The current registry holds close to 100,000, a number the California Sex Offender Management Board says is too large to handle. The board is recommending an overhaul of the system that would change the criteria for lifetime registration, taking into account the severity of the crime and the likely risk posed by the offender.


Host: Dave Iverson

Guests:

• Marc Klaas, president of the Klaas Kids Foundation
• Tom Tobin, vice-chair of the California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) and a licensed clinical psychologist

More info:

• Read the California Sex Offender Management Board's recommendation (PDF)
• State Board Says Sex Offender Registry Is a Cluttered Mess that Doesn’t Work
• California Has Realized that Sex Offender Registeries Don't Work

CA - Wasco sued over sex offender ordinance

Original Article

05/16/2014

By Jose Gaspar

WASCO (KBAK/KBFX) - A lawsuit filed Thursday in federal district court in Los Angeles by a group called California Reform Sex Offender Laws challenges a Wasco ordinance that restricts sex offenders.

"We allege that the Wasco sex offender ordinance violates both the federal and state constitutions," said Santa Barbara attorney Janice Bellucci, president of the nonprofit legal group.

Wasco approved the ordinance in 2007. It prohibits registered sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of any "children's facility."

But, it also bans registrants from being within 300 feet of a wide range of public and private locations, such as libraries, day care centers, parks and other places.

Bellucci said registrants have a right to access a library.

"There's a constitutional right to access to information. That's part of the 1st Amendment to the U.S. constitution, and that is being abridged by this city ordinance," said Bellucci.

She said the goal is to get rid of "presence restrictions" in every county in California in 2014.

Wasco city officials defend the ordinance, saying it was adopted with the intent of protecting residents and most of all, children.

"My intent is to protect the welfare and the safety of our children in our community," said Wasco Mayor Tilo Cortez.

According to Megan's Law website, Wasco has 15 registered sex offenders living within the city limits.

"Whenever you have registered sex offenders around small children, it's a concern for any parent," said Cortez.

The lawsuit is asking the federal court that it strike down the city's ordinance as null and void, and that Wasco pay all attorney fees and costs associated with the suit.

Five other cities in Kern County have similar sex offender ordinances in place: California City, Delano, Shafter, Taft and Tehachapi.

Just two weeks ago, the city of Shafter agreed to stop enforcing its ordinance after being informed by California Reform Sex Offender Laws that it, too, could be sued.

Cortez said he could not comment on the suit as the city has not yet been served.

"Obviously, we're just finding out about this, but we'll see where the law takes us," said Cortez.

CA - Sacramento County sued over sex offender ordinance

Original Article

04/30/2014

By Sam Stanton

Sacramento County became the latest governmental entity Wednesday to be sued over an ordinance limiting the movements of registered sex offenders near parks and other public places, but the practical effect of the suit may be negligible.

Attorney Janice Bellucci (Website) filed the suit in U.S. District Court in Sacramento on behalf of _____, a San Luis Obispo man who is a registered sex offender and has sued other municipalities over their ordinances limiting where sex offenders may go in public.

The suit challenges a 2006 county ordinance that forbids offenders from being within 300 feet of schools, parks, video arcades and other areas where children may be present. However, the practical effect of the suit is unclear because of earlier court rulings in Southern California that invalidated similar ordinances.

An appellate court in those cases found that such ordinances are invalid and leaves the state’s Jessica’s Law, passed by voters in 2006, as the main enforcement tool over paroled sex offenders. That measure prevents sex offenders on parole from living within 2,000 feet of schools and parks.

The Orange County district attorney had been pushing for additional local ordinances in Southern California communities, but the appeals court found them invalid. That finding was appealed to the state Supreme Court, which refused to hear the matter.

Sacramento County District Attorney Jan Scully’s office also provided information to area communities on such ordinances.

“Our goal was to support local ordinances that kept the children of our community safe by restricting registered sex offenders’ presence at parks and public places regularly frequented by children, consistent with the intent of Jessica’s Law and the constitution,” Scully’s office said in an emailed statement. “Unfortunately, our Legislature did not clarify Jessica’s Law with respect to this issue so the responsibility was left to local governments.”

“With the potential of all or most of these ordinances being rescinded in light of the court’s ruling, the Legislature should pass appropriate laws that will complement Jessica’s Law and the intent of California voters and protect our children from easy access by sex offenders.”

CA - California bill targets websites engaged in 'mug shot racket'

Original Article

04/28/2014

SACRAMENTO (Reuters) - California lawmakers took steps on Monday to bar so-called extortion websites from posting mug shots of people who have been arrested and then demanding payment to remove the photographs, even from people who are never charged with a crime.

A bill to make it unlawful to solicit or accept payment to remove, correct or modify mug shots online was unanimously passed by the California state senate on Monday, in the latest effort by more than a dozen U.S. states to stop such practices.

The California measure was inspired by the case of Bob DeBrino, who was arrested but never charged for driving under the influence while on prescription medication for an impending surgery, according to the bill's author, state senator Jerry Hill.

DeBrino's booking photo was posted online, and the film producer said he lost business as a result, Hill said in a news release. The websites that posted the picture are demanding thousands of dollars from DeBrino to remove the image, said Hill, a Democrat who represents the San Francisco suburb of San Mateo.

In what legislative researchers for the senate called an unintended consequence of laws making mug shots and other arrest information available to the public, a growing industry has developed that publishes mug shots on a website and then charges those depicted in the photos to remove their images.

"This practice is part of a growing niche industry, 'the mug-shot racket,'" senate researchers wrote in their analysis of the bill.

The bill, which goes next to the state assembly, would impose fines on violators of $1,000 or force them to pay damages and attorneys fees for victims.

If it passes, California would become the sixth state to make it illegal to charge people to remove mug shots from websites, after Georgia, Illinois, Oregon, Texas and Utah, Hill's office said. Another 14 states are considering such legislation, his office said.

CA - California courts strike down local sex-offender ordinances

Original Article

04/24/2014

By Sam Stanton

The California Supreme Court has left intact a lower-court ruling that invalidates local ordinances aimed at restricting the movements of registered sex offenders in dozens of cities statewide.

The court’s decision Wednesday not to hear a case involving a Southern California sex offender means city and county ordinances banning such offenders from public parks and other public areas no longer may be enforced, attorneys say. Instead, a state law governing where sex offenders on parole may live now stands as the main restriction.

“If I read the tea leaves correctly, it’s probably dead everywhere in California,” Susan Kang Schroeder, chief of staff to Orange County District Attorney Tony Rackauckas said Thursday.

The Orange County District Attorney’s Office had led the effort to tighten restrictions on sex offenders and advised communities in that area on how to enact such ordinances.

“We still believe that we were right on the law and we respectfully disagree,” Schroeder said. “We don’t regret the choices that we made in trying to keep sex offenders out of parks and keep children safe.”

The state Supreme Court’s action stemmed in part from an Orange County case in which a registered sex offender in Irvine went to a tennis court at a public park in violation of a local ordinance.

The offender pleaded guilty, but a public defender appealed the case and won a ruling that state law trumps such local ordinances, Schroeder said. Her office appealed that to the 4th District Court of Appeal, which agreed with the appellate decision, so the Orange County District Attorney’s Office asked the state Supreme Court to hear the matter.

That court declined to do so Wednesday. It also declined to hear a second, similar case involving an offender who was cited after going to a picnic at a county park.

The move effectively invalidates such local ordinances, Schroeder said, and leaves Jessica’s Law, passed by voters in 2006, as the main enforcement tool over paroled sex offenders. That measure, which also has faced court challenges, prevents sex offenders on parole from living within 2,000 feet of schools and parks.

Santa Maria attorney Janice Bellucci, president of a group called “California Reform Sex Offender Laws,” said the Supreme Court’s move is a “major victory” for efforts to provide more rights for individuals who must register on California’s Megan’s Law list of people with sex offenses in their pasts.

“It means that our people on the registry – and we have over 105,000 now – can now go to public and private places that they could not go to before,” she said.

Bellucci has been waging a legal battle against such ordinances throughout the state and last month filed suit in U.S. District Court in Sacramento seeking to overturn a South Lake Tahoe measure.

The South Lake Tahoe ordinance prohibits sex offenders from being in or within 300 feet of public or private schools, parks, video arcades, swimming pools or other areas where children might congregate. The ordinance allows for single trips traveling past such spots.

Bellucci said 70 cities and five counties in California have enacted such measures, and she has used a client, _____ of San Luis Obispo, a registered sex offender, as the face of her lawsuits against such ordinances.

A previous suit against El Dorado County led to a countywide ordinance being rescinded.

The ordinances have became popular statewide in recent years in light of high-profile cases involving sex offenders.

In El Dorado County, for instance, such restrictions were put in place in the wake of the notorious case of Phillip Garrido, who abducted 11-year-old Jaycee Lee Dugard from a South Lake Tahoe street in 1991 and held her as a sex slave and hostage for 18 years.

Garrido was arrested in August 2009 and jailed in Placerville until his guilty plea in 2011 resulted in a 431 years-to-life sentence.

Cases like his and others in California resulted in a wave of new ordinances that severely restricted where registered sex offenders could go, even if they were years removed from being on parole or probation.

Bellucci said she views the matter as a “civil rights issue” that ultimately should be addressed by legislators to differentiate between people who made a mistake in their past – such as urinating in public or a young adult having consensual sex with a 17-year-old girlfriend, for example – from predators such as Garrido.

_____’s lawsuit against the South Lake Tahoe ordinance was filed March 31 and stated that he is a “law-abiding citizen in good standing within his community.” The Megan’s Law registry lists the 61-year-old plumber as having a 1979 conviction for lewd and lascivious acts with a child under 14.

_____ has written a book about his life as a registered sex offender. Bellucci said she would not discuss his past.

But _____’s lawsuit said the restrictions could stop a sex offender from visiting doctor’s offices, hospitals or even businesses they might own that are adjacent to places barred to offenders.

South Lake Tahoe City Attorney Thomas Watson said the ordinance is not currently being enforced because of the legal challenges and that the city has been in talks with Bellucci. The action by the state Supreme Court could mean the council may have to rescind the ordinance, and the topic will be addressed at the next council meeting, he said.

El Dorado County District Attorney Vern Pierson said Thursday that the Legislature has failed to address the need for balanced restrictions, something that may lead to new initiative drives.

“This is more than anything else due to the Legislature’s inability to craft appropriate legislation to control the behavior and conduct of sex offenders that are out,” Pierson said.

He added that the county had crafted policies he thought were appropriate and similar to those in Orange County, allowing an offender to get written permission from the sheriff to be in certain public places around children.

“I think there’s this misimpression that we want to ban sex offenders from going anywhere and doing anything,” Pierson said. “What we’re attempting to do is deal with the unusual situations where they’re predatory. If they go to an ice skating rink because they want to look at the young children, that’s who we’re trying to prevent from being in that kind of situation.”

Conversely, Pierson said, there is no intent to bar registered sex offenders from being able to drop off their own child at school.

“It’s trying to balance the competing rights here in an appropriate way that safeguards the children,” Pierson said.

Any further efforts to change sex offender laws now must be made by legislators, Schroeder said, adding that her office still feels such local limits are appropriate.

“We felt like, for what it’s worth, I think it’s good for sex offenders not to be around children,” she said.

CA - North State Psychotherapist wants changes to Megan's Law

Dawn Horwitz-Person

Original Article

04/25/2014

Dawn Horwitz-Person is a Sex Offender Treatment Specialist in Chico. She deals with some of the most violent and dangerous convicted sex offenders in the north state. She has also been featured on "Oprah," and "Anderson Cooper 360." Oprah Winfrey flew to Chico in 2010 to meet with Horwitz-Person and four of her patients, who openly discussed how and why they chose their victims.

Horwitz-Person is one of many California Phycho-therapists hoping for changes to the California Department of Justice's sex offender registry Megan's Law, because she says it is misleading. Says Horwitz-Person, "If 90 percent of the people are offended by someone they know and love and trust, how is knowing where somebody lives going to keep your child safe?" She describes what she calls three fundamental problems with Megan's Law. She says it gives people a false sense of security, because they look at the dots on the sex offender map, determine they don't live close to any offenders, and feel safe. She says, "Ok, nobody lives by me. This is safe, and they forget that most offenders offend because they're family. People they know and love and trust. They're people they allow into their homes." Horwitz-Person adds that the registry makes people think about the stranger in the van down the street, instead of focusing on those who are allowed in the home, and given access to their kids. She says, "If it's focused on keeping that stranger danger myth alive, how are we really protecting our kids if they're not getting accurate information? We need to have conversations with our children about 'OK touch' and 'Not Ok touch.' Ninety percent of the current sex crimes are committed by people who have never been arrested, before we know who they are law enforcement knows who they are." Horwitz-Person says many predators are able to plea bargain off the registry, even though they are at high risk to re-offend. She says, "Something that may start out as felony rape will be plea bargained to somebody accepting a felony sexual battery. Felony sexual battery doesn't have to register. That person could be a really dangerous person, and they're not on Megan's Law." She cites one former patient who lives in Chico with multiple sexual battery offenses, who was able to stay off the list. She says, "I'm talking somebody who has crossed all barriers, with children, adults, men, women, animals, you name it. And this person, nobody knows about, and he's not on the registry." She says the final problem with Megan's Law is that it lumps in all offenders together, without taking into consideration the type or date of offense, and the risk assessment. She says it's a waste of money and resources to monitor some offenders, while others who are considered high-risk are not monitored once they're off probation.

The California Sex Offender Management Board has asked Governor Jerry Brown to create a risk-tier system, so that the most dangerous offenders can be more closely monitored. To watch Horwitz-Person's appearance on Oprah, click here.

CA - Santa Maria attorney files sex offender lawsuit against Lompoc

Original Article

04/23/2014

A Santa Maria attorney has filed a complaint in federal district court on behalf of a Grover Beach resident against the city of Lompoc over a sex offender ordinance the city adopted, claiming it violates both the federal and state constitutions.

Attorney Janice Bellucci, who also serves as president of the California chapter of the nonprofit organization Reform Sex Offender Laws, filed the complaint on behalf of registered sex offender _____, 61, who serves as a board member for the chapter.

In 1979, _____ was convicted of lewd and lascivious acts with a child under 14, according to the State of California Department of Justice, Megan’s Law sex offender database. He has no other subsequent felonies within the state of California, according to the database.

“We filed the lawsuit because we are protecting the Constitution. That is what’s important to us,” Bellucci said.

Lompoc Mayor John Linn said the city’s ordinance, titled “Registered Sex Offender Residency Prohibitions,” was put in place in an effort to “strike a balance between letting registered sex offenders live their lives while still protecting the women and children in our community.”

According to Linn, the Lompoc Police Department and the City’s Attorney’s office worked together to devise an ordinance to best fit the city.

“State law allowed us to put the ordinance in place,” Linn said.

In her complaint, Bellucci argues the ordinance bans sex offender registrants from residing in “vast parts of the city of Lompoc by virtue of 2,000-foot ‘residential exclusion zones’ surrounding the perimeter of certain locations.”

The complaint alleges that the ordinance also significantly restricts registrants’ access to public facilities and bans them from loitering near any privately owned business with the “child safety zones” around certain establishments and facilities.

Registrants are prohibited from loitering anywhere on the grounds or within 300 feet of schools, parks, day care centers, public libraries, school bus stops, playgrounds and any location that holds classes or group activities for children.

Sex offenders who violate the ordinance are subject to punishment including incarceration up to one year and a fine of up to $1,000 for each day of violation, according to Bellucci.

“The Lompoc ordinance violates the First Amendment, the Fifth Amendment and the 14th Amendment to the Constitution,” she said.

In the complaint, the attorney has asked that the ordinance be declared null and void as “unconstitutionally vague” and request the Central District court allow _____ to recover all reasonable attorney’s fees, cost and litigation expenses from the city of Lompoc.

“This is a civil rights issue. Our hope is that the city of Lompoc will do the right thing and repeal their ordinance,” Bellucci said.

Linn said he and the Lompoc City Council will address the merits of the complaint once they are served with the lawsuit and they have had the opportunity to review it.

“Apparently, we are not alone. Other cities have been sued from what I understand,” Linn said.

Bellucci has sent out warning letters to more than 70 cities within California to let them know they could be sued if they did not repeal their ordinances. El Centro and Costa Mesa have repealed their ordinances, while cities including Anaheim, Grand Terrace and South Pasadena agreed not to enforce their ordinances at this time. Pomona, South Lake Tahoe, National City and Carson have been sued.

CA - When sex-offender laws promote more crimes

Original Article

04/15/2014

National City has become the latest California city to face a lawsuit from a registered San Luis Obispo County sex offender over its sex-offender regulations. Frank Lindsay, 61, of Grover Beach, contends such local ordinances are superseded by Jessica’s Law, the 2006 measure adopted by California voters.

Among the provisions of Jessica’s Law is a prohibition on registered sex offenders living within 2,000 feet of any school or park. It was named for Jessica Lunsford, a Florida girl who was raped and murdered by a previously convicted sex offender.

Many communities, including National City, have adopted even more restrictive laws of their own. With the assistance of attorney Janice Bellucci — who says society must accept that sex offenders still have civil liberties — Lindsay has been making headway in going after these laws. In January, a state appellate court struck down separate measures adopted by Irvine and Orange County that required sex offenders to gain formal government permission before entering city or county parks. “The state intended to fully occupy the field of regulating registered sex offenders,” the appeals court ruled.

But instead of fighting Lindsay’s lawsuit, National City and other local cities that face similar challenges need a moment of clarity: What do they hope to achieve with sex-offender regulations?

Is the goal making sex offenders’ lives as miserable as possible? Or is it to reduce the likelihood that they will commit new sex crimes?

If it is the former, then fighting for Megan’s Law and even stricter local ordinances makes sense. If the goal is the latter, then these laws make no sense at all.

Setting up residency restrictions that make it difficult and in some cases impossible for sex offenders to stay with their families and to find work “contradicts decades of criminological research identifying factors associated with successful offender reintegration” into society, according to University of Louisville professor Richard Tewksbury and other authorities on sex-offender rehabilitation.

The released sex offender with a job, stable housing and supportive people in his life is far less a threat to the community than a sex offender who is a jobless transient kept from his family.

We understand where National City Mayor Ron Morrison is coming from when he told a U-T reporter that he hoped his city’s ordinance stayed in place: “If you are a registered predatory sex offender on children, I am sorry, you don’t get all your rights.”

We suspect the vast majority of the public shares this sentiment, which is why Jessica’s Law passed in a landslide. We also understand why folks would bristle at Bellucci’s characterization of this issue as being about civil liberties.

But if the goal is to avoid more tragedies like Jessica Lunsford’s, Californians need to think clearly and get past the bluster and demagoguery sometimes seen on public-safety issues. If existing laws make sex crimes more likely, they should be changed.

CA - Do Ex-Sex Offenders Have Civil Rights?

Original Article

04/14/2014

By Dennis Romero

They are the most loathed convicts on the planet. Even other criminals hate them. Cities in recent years have targeted them with laws that limit where and when they can be certain places, particularly on Halloween, when children are out.

But ex-sex offenders do have rights. At least that's the contention of a group called California Reform Sex Offender Laws.

It's at it again, taking the SoCal city of Carson to federal court.

The group says rules adopted by Carson in 2008 violate the constitutional rights of convicts who have paid their debts to society by serving sentences.

The organization has been suing municipalities (Carson is fourth city to sued in four weeks) that it says violate the rights of sex offenders.

Carson's law, like that of other towns, prohibits such convicts of coming within 300 feet of schools, parks, libraries, swimming pools, and bus stops.

California Reform Sex Offender Laws states:

The Carson ordinance is based upon two myths: (1) that registered citizens have a high rate of re-offense and (2) that strangers commit sexual assaults. The true rates of re-offense, according to state and federal government reports, are 1.9 percent for registrants on parole and 5.3 percent for registrants overall. More than 90 percent of sexual assaults upon children are committed not by strangers but by family members, teachers, coaches and clergy.

The group won similar cases at the California Court of Appeals level and has warned 70 cities in the state that their local ordinances limiting the movement of sex offenders are illegal under the precedents sent by the appeals panels.

Group attorney Chance Oberstein:

The presence restrictions within the Carson ordinance are inconsistent with recent decisions of the California Court of Appeals which invalidated two ordinances - one by the City of Irvine and the other by the County of Orange - as being preempted by existing state law.

Some cities reversed their laws and others agreed to put them on hold, the organization says, but Carson, after negotiations with California Reform Sex Offender Laws, stuck to its guns. The group's president, Janice Bellucci, says:

Future legal challenges by sex offenders can be expected of cities that have failed to either repeal their sex offender ordinances or agree in writing to stay enforcement of those ordinances.

CA - City of Carson sex offender ordinance challenged in federal court

Original Article

04/11/2014

A sex offender ordinance adopted by Carson, a city located within Los Angeles County, is the subject of a lawsuit filed today in Federal district court. This is the fourth lawsuit to be filed in four weeks challenging a city’s sex offender ordinance that includes restrictions regarding where more than 105,000 individuals can be present.

Specifically, the Carson ordinance prohibits registered citizens from being present in or within 300 feet of a wide range of locations including schools, parks, library, swimming pools, and bus stops. A registered citizen who violates the ordinance is subject to incarceration for a period up to one year and a fine of up to $1,000 for each day of violation.

“The lawsuit filed against the City of Carson is the unfortunate result of two failed attempts to reach a settlement agreement,” stated CA RSOL President Janice Bellucci. “The City offered to stay enforcement of the presence restrictions in the ordinance, however, that offer was made available to some, not all, registered citizens. The lawsuit was filed in order to protect the state and federal constitutions by restoring the civil rights of all registered citizens.”

The sex offender ordinance was adopted by Carson in 2008 and is in violation of both the federal and state constitutions. The provisions of the ordinance directly affect all registered citizens in the state of California as well as indirectly affect an additional 400,000 individuals who are family members.

The Carson ordinance is based upon two myths: (1) that registered citizens have a high rate of re-offense and (2) that strangers commit sexual assaults. The true rates of re-offense*, according to state and federal government reports, are 1.9 percent for registrants on parole and 5.3 percent for registrants overall. More than 90 percent of sexual assaults upon children are committed not by strangers but by family members, teachers, coaches and clergy.**
- More studies can be found here and in our archives.

“The presence restrictions within the Carson ordinance are inconsistent with recent decisions of the California Court of Appeals which invalidated two ordinances – one by the City of Irvine and the other by the County of Orange – as being preempted by existing state law,” stated CA RSOL board member and attorney Chance Oberstein. “The court held that the state statutory scheme imposing restrictions on a sex offender’s daily life fully occupied the field.”***

California RSOL sent a letter to Carson and more than 70 additional cities within California on January 20 notifying them of the recent Court of Appeal decisions and that the sex offender ordinances the cities had adopted were inconsistent with those decisions. California RSOL requested in those letters that the cities repeal their ordinances within 60 days or face a potential legal challenge.

Subsequent to issuance of the California RSOL letter, the cities of Costa Mesa and El Centro repealed their sex offender ordinances. Several additional cities, including Anaheim, Grand Terrace, and South Pasadena have agreed in writing not enforce their sex offender ordinances pending a decision from the California Supreme Court whether to grant review of the California Court of Appeal decisions.

“Future legal challenges by sex offenders can be expected of cities that have failed to either repeal their sex offender ordinances or agree in writing to stay enforcement of those ordinances,” stated Bellucci.

The first in a series of legal challenges to city ordinances was filed on March 24 against the City of Pomona; the second on March 31 against the City of South Lake Tahoe; and the third on April 8 against National City. All lawsuits have been filed in Federal district courts.

---

1. (*) See 2013 Outcome Evaluation Report, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation dated January 2014 at page 26 and Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from Prison in 1994, U.S. Department of Justice dated November 2003 at page 24.
2. (**) See Homelessness Among California’s Registered Sex Offenders, California Sex Offender Management Board dated September 2011 at page 10.
3. (***) See People v. Nguyen, 222 Cal. App. 4th 1168 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2014) and People v. Godinez, Case No. G047657, Cal. Court of Appeals, January 10, 2014 (unpublished)].