MA - Templeton approves sex offender residency restrictions

Original Article

07/11/2014

By George Barnes

TEMPLETON - Voters at a special town meeting Thursday night approved a bylaw establishing sex offender residency restrictions.

The restrictions, proposed by resident Rachael Messina, were overwhelmingly approved after Police Chief Michael Bennett and Selectman Kenn Robinson both spoke in favor of the bylaw.

Chief Bennett said there are many communities across the state that have adopted residency restrictions for sex offenders. Among the communities in Worcester County with restrictions are Leominster, Bolton, Charlton, Dudley, Spencer, Webster and West Boylston.

Templeton has three Level 3 and 13 Level 2 sex offenders in town. The regulations would not affect them unless they change their residence.

The bylaw prohibits a Level 2 or 3 sex offender from establishing a permanent or temporary residence within 1,000 feet of property of public or private schools, parks, elderly housing, an over-55 community, senior citizens center or licensed day care center.

To enforce the bylaw, police may file criminal or noncriminal complaints, but in both cases the fine is $300 for each offense.

Ms. Messina said she filed for the bylaw out of concern that sex offenders posed a risk to residents of the town. It is the second time the town has approved a sex offender residency bylaw. A similar law was approved by the town in May 2013 but disallowed by the state Attorney General's office in October. The reasons given for rejecting the bylaw were it was too vague, did not sufficiently specify prohibited conduct and did not include some terms in the definitions section of the bylaw.

Ms Messina said that in the hope of winning approval this time, she drew up a new bylaw based on similar documents in other communities.

WI - Milwaukee May Restrict Where Sex Offenders Can Live

Original Article

07/11/2014

By LATOYA DENNIS



The city may limit where ex-offenders can live, because many surrounding communities have done so, resulting in a high rate of placement in the city.

When sex offenders leave prison, state law demands that they return to the county where they had lived prior to incarceration. Nearly 90 percent of the sex offenders who came from Milwaukee County, now live in the City of Milwaukee, because of restrictions suburbs enacted.

Ald. Michael Murphy says the city asked the state to intervene, but because it has not, leaders here may also limit the neighborhoods where ex-offenders can live.

“You will have 117 locations to consider for your future placement, and in reality it will be more like 15 or less and what that impact will be to your operations,” Murphy says.

Under legislation a Common Council committee advanced Thursday, sex offenders could not live within 2,000 feet of a daycare, school, playground and other places where children congregate.

Murphy says if the full council agrees, there will only be one square mile within city limits where sex offenders could live.

Ald. Bob Bauman says while he has opposed residency limits in the past, they will now get his full support, for one reason.

“It increases the perception of Milwaukee as a crime infested second rate place to live and the suburbs are great and look, we can keep out all the undesirable people. And I’m just sick and tired of that paradigm being in place. And the state seems unconcerned because these are Republican suburbs by in large, and heaven forbid those representatives are going to take on these uniform residency rules. So enough is enough the city is going to join the party and it’s your problem now,” Bauman says.

The state Department of Corrections had a representative on hand at Thursday’s hearing, Melissa Roberts. She says if the map for placements changes, authorities could lose track of sex offenders. Right now, many do reside in the city, and police know where.

“The intent of the sex offender registry is to know where sex offenders live and to be able to provide that information to the general public and to law enforcement. Where there are registry restrictions in place and sex offenders don’t have a place to live we obviously have increased homelessness. So we do not know where they live and cannot follow them,” Roberts says.

Roberts says sex offenders are more of a danger to the public when they’re off the grid versus being monitored. When it comes to complaints about the high concentration of sex offenders placed in Milwaukee, Roberts says the majority are from the city.

The issue will come before the full board on July 22.

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.

AL - Law banning sex offender camp might violate Alabama's constitution

Original Article

07/03/2014

By JAY REEVES

CLANTON - A new law used to shut down a church-affiliated camp for convicted sex offenders in rural Alabama violates a state constitutional amendment designed to protect religious liberty, the American Civil Liberties Union said Thursday.

Randall Marshall, legal director of the ACLU's Alabama office, said the law that went into effect this week is in apparent conflict with the Alabama Religious Freedom Amendment, passed in 1998 to make it tougher for government to infringe on religious rights.

Pastor Ricky Martin says he built a church in rural Chilton County and allowed convicted sex offenders to move to the property because the men had nowhere else to live. He said he was trying to follow biblical instructions to help the outcast.

The camp, which began accepting former inmates in 2010, closed when the new law took effect Tuesday.

Marshall said the amendment "raises serious questions" about the law, which was passed this year and affects Chilton County only. The amendment says laws can restrict religion narrowly only if there is a "compelling governmental interest."

Martin "has sincerely held religious beliefs that he's acting upon, and now you've got government prohibiting him from doing something that he considers part of his religion," Marshall said.

The sponsor of the bill, state Rep. Kurt Wallace, said the law is meant to protect the public from people convicted of rape, child molestation and other crimes.

Most of the more than 50 men who've lived in the camp through the years are from other counties and states, officials said.

"No religion is being disenfranchised," Wallace said. "He can practice any religion he wants, but he can't recruit sex offenders to our community. That's just crazy."

Martin hasn't sued to block the law, but he said he might. Some of the half-dozen men who were living in old campers behind his Triumph Church are now homeless, he said.

"I don't know what they're doing, just walking around trying to find a place to sleep," he said.

The law, which Wallace said was drafted with Martin's refuge in mind, prohibits two convicted sex offenders from living within 300 feet of each other on the same property in Chilton County unless they are married. It includes a provision to allow a state-approved counseling center or halfway house if one opened, Wallace said.

Martin, who serves as a volunteer prison chaplain, said the camp was needed because inmates serving time for sex-related offenses have a hard time finding suitable residences after release.

Like other states, Alabama restricts the areas where sex offenders are required to live, barring anyone convicted of certain crimes to reside within 2,000 feet of a school or day care. Laws are even stricter about where offenders can work or hang out, restricting them from being within 500 feet of parks, athletic fields or businesses where kids gather.

Inmates serving time for sex crimes must tell authorities where they plan to live following their release, and prisons or county jails must continue holding anyone who can't prove they have a legal place to live.

See Also:

• New law forces Chilton. Co. sex offenders to leave pastor’s backyard

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 - 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.

AR - Do sex offender restrictions work?

Original Article

Short answer... NOPE!

04/30/2014

By Craig Rickert

JONESBORO (KAIT) - When we talk about sex offenders emotion tends to take over. Call it a protective instinct. We don't want them living near our children or where our children go to school or play.

The thoughts are terrifying to any parent. But as we found out, those fears, don't match the facts.

"There is no data, according to my knowledge, that sex offender registry restrictions prevent sexual assault," Sheri Flynn told Region 8 News.

Only 5-7% of all sex offenders re-offend.

It's the empirical argument that flies in the face of raw emotion when it comes to where sex offenders are allowed to live in the state of Arkansas.

The law state says level 3 and 4 sex offenders cannot reside within 2000 feet of a school, daycare or public park. Level 1 and 2 offenders do not have any such restrictions.

"We're pushing sex offenders outside that net and occasionally creating pockets of sex offenders because there's only one area in a county that they may be able to live."

Sheri Flynn is with the Arkansas Department of Correction's Sex Offender Screening and Risk Assessment Program. In laymen's terms, her office determines a sex offender's threat level.

"To me, it makes more sense to base where sex offenders can be based on what they do, the crime they commit with whom they commit it with. Those are the people we don't want around our minor children."
- Even if you did that, it still wouldn't prevent a sexual crime if the person is intent on committing a crime!

By forcing sex offenders farther away, because of the residency restrictions, they are less likely to be part of what Flynn and others in her field call "the containment approach". A belief that circling the offender with professionals from the courts, law enforcement, treatment providers and others keeps better tabs on the most dangerous sex offenders, level fours.

"There is a small sub-group. If they have a deviant sexual arousal to forced sexual contact or children, they are more than 50% likely to re-offend and they respond very poorly to treatment."

That's where Flynn sees a weakness in the residency restrictions. Simply put, if they are forced too far out, it becomes that much harder to stay on top of a dangerous predator.

"I want to know where he is, not where he isn't."
- But you can never know 100% of the time where they are or aren't, and again, males are not the only ones who commit sexual crimes!

"We don't know what he's going to do and that net disappears and those things that have been put into place by my office, by my brothers and sisters in law enforcement, we work very closely to keep an eye on these guys. When they drop off the radar we don't know what they're doing or where they are they could be up to anything."
- Yeah just like any other ex-felon, they could be anywhere doing anything!

It's a loaded question. Where should they live? But Sherri Flynn offers this: maybe when we ask legislators, or even law enforcement what to do, we're asking the wrong people.
- They should be able to live anywhere they want just like any other ex-felon!

"Sometimes I think we need to ask survivors "how does this affect you?" If your dad or grandfather got treatment, if he could get a good job would that be better? I don't know the answers to those questions, but I think we need to be asking them and try to figure it out."
- No you do not need to ask them, it's obvious what their reactions will be.  You need to stop trampling on peoples rights by God and the Constitution.

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.

TX - Dublin passes its first sex offender ordinance

Police Chief Shawn Fullagar

Original Article

04/15/2014

By JESSIE HORTON

Residents of Dublin have lived for years without a sex offender ordinance, but not anymore. On Monday the Dublin City Council heard from residents and Police Chief Shawn Fullagar on the issue.

Fullagar said when he discovered the city was without a sex offender ordinance, he began researching other cities with sex offender ordinances and policies in place. Armed with the information, Fullagar drew up an ordinance he and City Administrator Nancy Wooldridge presented to the council.

"When I discovered the city did not have an ordinance involving these situations I set about doing some research and working one up to present because your city administrator and I believed we needed one," Fullagar said. "I looked at ordinances in Coppell, Alpine, Stephenville, Keller and Carrollton. I wanted to make sure we got everything we needed covered, covered, without going too far."

The ordinance is similar to Stephenville's, restricting a sex offender's ability to live or own property within 500 feet of a school, public park, daycare center or other place where children gather.

The ordinance does not require sex offenders already living or owning property within those limitations to sell the property or move. Fullagar said of the nine to 11 sex offenders living within the Dublin city limits, none are currently living within 500 feet of those locations.

The ordinance restricts where sex offenders can be, and who they can communicate with. For example, the ordinance Fullagar recommended prohibits sex offenders from being within 500 feet of any event, meeting, celebration or gathering where minors are present.

"Another component of the ordinance will make it unlawful for a sex offender to approach a minor on the sidewalk, street, in any public area including local businesses and public buildings like the library," he said. "All of these components apply to all children or minors except those minors who are the offender's own children. The goal of this ordinance is to protect the children of Dublin, not to restrict people from being good parents to their children."

One resident, _____, spoke in regards to the ordinance. He admitted that at 19 he made a mistake. _____ said his life is different now and asked the council to consider an ordinance that allows him to continue being a part of his eight-year-old son's life.

"I know I made a mistake and I'm not trying to get around that," _____ told the council. "All I'm asking is that you make sure there is a way I can continue to be a part of my children's lives, that I can continue to support them as they grow and participate in local events."

Fullagar assured council members the ordinance would not limit parents like _____ from attending their children's events. He did say when at those events, any offender there to support their child cannot make contact with other minors.

"The maximum consequence for a city ordinance violation is a citation for $500," he said. "However, if the subject warrants contact from an officer in these situations, it could escalate into something more. But this ordinance would only be a citation."

After the discussion, council member Mac McMullen said he had reservations about voting for an ordinance that was "trying to regulate morality."

"I just have a problem voting in favor of an ordinance that would be, in effect, regulating the morality of others," McMullen said.

Fullagar said he didn't see it that way.

"I see it more like there are people in our community who have committed crimes involving minors," he said. "I see this as keeping those minors in our community away from someone who has committed such a crime."

Following a lengthy discussion, the council passed the measure 4-2 with McMullen and John Johnson voting against it.

CA - Sex offender wants parks proximity (Poll)

National City's Butterfly Park

Original Article

There is also a poll available so please click the link above and take it.

04/10/2014

By Ashly McGlone

Grover Beach resident asserts rights for National City visit

A registered sex offender in San Luis Obispo County is suing cities across the state, claiming he has every right to go near schools and parks — and National City has become his latest target.

_____, 61, of Grover Beach, was convicted in 1979 of lewd and lascivious acts with a child under 14. His attorney, Janice Bellucci, says he has relatives in National City and wants to visit.

She sued the city in federal court last week over its ban on sex offenders being within 300 feet of a school, day care center, arcade, playground, park or amusement center.

Bellucci, president of the California chapter of the nonprofit Reform Sex Offender Laws, has warned more than 70 California cities, including Santee and La Mesa, that they could be sued if they don’t repeal their ordinances.

In response to her warnings, Costa Mesa and El Centro repealed their prohibitions, while Anaheim, Grand Terrace and South Pasadena have agreed to not enforce their rules for now, she said. Earlier this year, Bellucci sued Pomona and South Lake Tahoe as part of the same effort. She argues that the cities have passed sex offender regulations that go beyond what state law allows.

The National City Council passed the restrictions in 2005, and violators are subject to misdemeanor charges punishable by up to a year in jail or up to a $1,000 fine each day of the violation, or both.

In her lawsuit, Bellucci has asked the U.S. District Court to declare National City’s rules void — and to have the city pay her attorney’s fees, costs and expenses.

In two decisions on Jan. 10 involving other lawyers and clients, the 4th District Court of Appeal struck down rules enacted by Irvine and Orange County requiring sex offenders to obtain permission from local government officials before entering a city or county park.

“The state intended to fully occupy the field of regulating registered sex offenders,” therefore the added rules conflict with state law and are void, the three-judge panel wrote in both decisions.

The Orange County District Attorney’s Office is seeking California Supreme Court review of the rulings.

National City Mayor Ron Morrison said city police were told to not enforce the city’s “innovative” ordinance after the Orange County decisions came down, but it would be premature to repeal the law before finding out if the Supreme Court will review the case.

The state regulates whether sex offenders can live near a park or school — or enter one. National City’s law goes further by creating a buffer zone and saying sex offenders cannot even go near such places.

Under California law, sex offenders could “wake up in the morning and walk a quarter of a mile and hang on the chain link fence at a nursery school,” Morrison said. “People expect us to do whatever we can to protect children...This was another tool in the tool box.”

In 2011, San Diego lost a legal challenge to its 2008 Child Protection Act on the same grounds, and removed its 300-foot buffer that was modeled after National City’s ordinance.

The lawsuit filed last week says that National City’s ordinance is overbroad and ends up blocking access to public transit locations and private businesses like grocery stores, restaurants, bars, nightclubs, doctor’s offices or hospitals, even where a sex offender would have “a legitimate purpose to visit, be employed and/or conduct commerce.”

“The ordinance imposes numerous life-long restrictions within the boundaries of National City which significantly restrain the civil liberties of all persons required to register as a sex offender,” the lawsuit states.

Morrison, in his eighth year as mayor and 22nd year on the council, said, “If you are a registered predatory sex offender on children, I am sorry you don’t get all your rights. You don’t get unlimited rights.”

Jessica’s Law — passed by California voters in 2006 — prohibits sex offenders from residing within 2,000 feet of any school or park and requires lifetime satellite monitoring of felony registered sex offenders. It also made it a misdemeanor for a registered sex offender to enter any school building or school grounds without lawful business and written permission from the school’s chief administrator.

Chelsea’s Law passed by state legislators in 2010 prohibited sex offenders who serve jail time for offenses against children under 14 from entering parks without permission from their parole agent. Sex offenders must also follow a number of other rules outlined in the state’s Penal Code.

There are at least 68 registered sex offenders living in National City, according to the Megan’s Law online database.

CO - Colorado law allows sex offenders to remove name from State’s registry

Original Article (Video available)

04/06/2014

By Eric Ross

If you believe a sex offender remains on the State's registry for life, think again.

News 5 learned by simply filing a petition, offenders can ask a judge to have his or her name removed.
- As it should be!

Marilyn Spittler is upset, and angry after learning her ex-husband and convicted sex offender, _____, filed a petition in Douglas County Court to have his offender status wiped away.

"We need to do something about this law," Spittler said.

Spittler is referring to a Colorado law that allows sex offenders to erase their name from the registry. Her ex-husband was accused of assaulting not one, but two of her daughters back in the 1990's. For their protection and at Spittler's request, we are not releasing their names.

The abuse was alleged to have been going on for 8 years. After one of Spittler's daughters came forward, _____ was arrested and charged with a laundry list of sex crimes.

It's important to note _____ was not convicted on all the sex crimes he was originally charged with committing.

_____ was sentenced to seven years in prison.

He served time in prison through the Colorado Department of Corrections from Aug. 27, 1996 until Nov. 12, 1996.

He was not released on parole.

His sentence was converted by a judge to a community corrections sentence.

After being released from prison, _____ registered as a sex offender.

Now, he wants his name removed.

Spittler says as long as she's living, she'll be fighting to make sure he remains on the list for life.

"His victims have permanent memories and permanent damage," she said. "They can't go petition the court to remove those memories. It's permanent in their lives and it should be permanent in his life as well."
- As long as someone sees themselves as damaged goods, then so shall they be!

Since 2006, more than 2,300 hundred convicted sex offenders were able to remove their name from the registry.

Below are statistics provided to News 5 by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation regarding the number of sex offenders across the state who have successfully removed his/her name from the registry:

• 2006: 152
• 2007: 221
• 2008: 261
• 2009: 314
• 2010: 321
• 2011: 469
• 2012: 508
• 2013: 459
• 2014: 102 through March, 14, 2014

"The overall theory of our criminal justice system is that you do your time, you should be able to move on with life," attorney Christopher Braddock said.

Braddock has helped a handful of sex offenders win their case.

"I think you have to look at if they (the offender) has done their time, you have to consider how much time is enough," Braddock said.

Susan Walker, executive director for Coalition For Sexual Offense Restoration, an advocacy group for sex offenders, says the public doesn't understand the life-long harmful effects this list creates.

"People are kept from housing and jobs," she said. "They are sometimes persecuted."

The registry removal law was created as a second chance opportunity, rewarding those who have served their time and haven't re-offended.

Laws like this are fairly common.

Oklahoma, Texas, and Missouri are just a few states that allow offenders to get off the registry.

However, Spittler refuses to be sympathetic with offenders, especially ones who prey on children.

While _____ hasn't been in trouble with the law since serving his time, Spittler believes he is still a risk.

"This particular offender works in an industry where he needs access to buildings," she said. "If you remove him from the list, there's nothing stopping him from applying for computer and technology installation contracts at schools, civic centers or daycares."

Sex offenders convicted of molesting children can no longer petition the courts to have his or her name removed. In _____'s case, he's eligible to appeal his registry requirement since his conviction took place two years before that law was changed.

There was legislation drafted last year to make it harder for offenders to remove their names. That ultimately failed due to a discrepancy. It was not reintroduced this legislative session.

_____'s case will be reviewed on April 10.

A judge will likely decide at that time whether to allow _____'s name to be removed.

Calls placed to _____ for comment were not returned.

Let's talk about (sex offenders)

Original Article

Nazi Germany had registries as well!

04/05/2014

By Marc Allen

First, let’s put some things on the table. There is wide consensus that sexual assault is under reported. There is some disagreement about just how under reported sexual assault among adults is (and some controversy about how it is defined and measured), but there are good estimates that only about a tenth of sexual abuse against children is ever reported. Abuse against children is especially heinous because of the lifelong harm it can inflict on the survivors and the subsequent costs it imposes on society.

Now, let’s talk about one hugely counterproductive way to deal with sexual assault: public sex offender registries.*

Public registries started appearing in the early 1990s and became ubiquitous, with the help of federal legislation, by the early 2000s. Since then, both the feds and the states themselves have slowly been expanding their registries and adding restrictions to registrants.

There have been a number of good pieces in the last few years critical of public registries. Here. Here. And here. But public registries remain popular. Some states have expanded their registries in the last decade and/or added additional restrictions to registrants.

You can imagine why this ratcheting upwards keeps happening. Being pro sex offender isn't a terribly popular political stance. Take geographic bans for example. Once registrants are banned from living or loitering within 500 feet of a school, it’s easy and good politics to to expand 500 feet to 1000 feet (or even 2500 feet). After that, it’s easy to add daycare's, parks, churches, and Chuck E Cheese’s to the list of protected places.

The end result of these geographic bans is that large portions of cities become off-limits. Densely populated areas are especially bad. Here’s a map of the city of Grand Rapids, blue areas are within 1000 feet of a school, red areas are within 1000 feet of a day care:

Read the rest of the article

NH - Sex offender housing restrictions do more harm than good

Original Article

03/31/2014

Of all the constituents that politicians want to help out, sex offenders probably rank at the very bottom of the list. But the New Hampshire Senate should summon the courage to do just that. By helping sex offenders, as strange as it sounds, the Senate will end up making life safer for everyone else.

At issue is legislation that would ban cities and towns from placing broad restrictions on where sex offenders may live. Several communities have attempted such restrictions, and lower-court judges have already struck down two as unconstitutional: one in Franklin and one in Dover. In both cities, local officials wanted to keep convicted sex offenders from living too close to places where children regularly gather: schools, day care centers and playgrounds. Several other communities still have such ordinances on the books, among them Tilton, Sanbornton, Northfield and Boscawen.

The impulse to keep sex offenders away from kids via zoning is completely understandable. But there is strong reason to resist. And there is strong reason to set such policy at the state level, rather than leaving it to individual communities.

A growing body of evidence – gathered not just by civil liberties lawyers, but from law enforcement officers, public officials and child advocacy groups – suggests that residency restrictions are placebo pills at best and counterproductive at worst. Such ordinances give communities a false sense of security while driving sex offenders underground or into rural areas where they can’t access the services that give them the best chance at rehabilitation.

An Iowa study, for instance, showed that sexual-abuse convictions had remained steady since statewide residency restrictions went into effect five years earlier but that the number of sex offenders failing to register their addresses with local police departments, as the law required, had more than doubled.

And a study in the journal Federal Probation draws a clear link between housing instability – an obvious consequence of residency ordinances – and criminal recidivism. Instead, it suggests a strategy of identifying and carefully monitoring the highest risk offenders and creating stable lives for the rest through treatment and access to housing, jobs and services.

In New Hampshire, where most towns are small and housing options that aren’t close to playgrounds and schools are sometimes scarce, such ordinances also have the effect of pushing sex offenders out of one community and into the next in a desperate search for decent housing – hardly fair to them or to those communities.

That’s why state-level legislation makes sense.

The legislation banning communities from enacting or enforcing such residency restrictions has passed the House, but Senate Majority Leader Jeb Bradley of Wolfeboro expressed skepticism in an Associated Press interview that it would get through the Senate. “The Senate is going to want to protect kids and other people sexual predators could attack,” Bradley said. “I think getting rid of any kind of residency restrictions – like in proximity of schools and day-care centers – will be a very hard sell for senators, even in the face of a couple of court rulings.”

But the court rulings, which so far do not include the state Supreme Court, are not the best argument to counter Bradley’s fear. More persuasive is that senators who truly want to protect kids and others from attacks from New Hampshire’s 2,500 registered sex offenders, are actually heading in the wrong direction with such restrictions.

When a sex offender has served his sentence, it is in everyone’s interest that he succeed on the outside. Passing this bill would help.

NH - Bill would ban limits on sex offender residency - Court rules them unconstitutional, but politicians don't want to look "soft" on crime!

Original Article

03/29/2014

By LYNNE TUOHY

CONCORD (AP) - New Hampshire lawmakers are considering whether to bar municipalities from restricting where the state's more than 2,500 registered sex offenders can live in light of court rulings that found the restrictions are unconstitutional.

The House passed the proposed ban by a vote of 231-97 in February. The bill now moves to the Republican-controlled Senate, where it faces an uphill battle.

The New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union successfully challenged sex offender residency restrictions first in Dover, then in Franklin.

In the most recent ruling in 2012, a Merrimack County Superior Court judge said Franklin officials failed to show that barring sex offenders from living within 2,500 feet of a school, day care or playground protects children. A judge in 2009 struck down Dover's ordinance on similar grounds.

"Many individuals in law enforcement have said the restrictions have the opposite effect," said Devon Chaffee, executive director of the New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union. "They discourage sex offenders from registering and make it more difficult for law enforcement to keep track of them. It drives them underground."

Tilton, Sanbornton, Northfield and Boscawen still have residency restrictions, Chaffee said.

"That's why this is really a state issue," Chaffee said. "When one town adopts these restrictions, it can push these individuals out of that city or town."

There were 2,566 registered sex offenders living in New Hampshire in December 2013, according to data compiled by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. State law requires sex offenders to register with the police department of the town in which they reside but puts no restrictions on where they can live, leaving that to local governments.

_____, 32, of Nashua, was convicted in 2010 of felonious sexual assault for having sex with a 15-year-old girl when he was 25. He maintains the sex was consensual. Since his conviction, he has found it difficult to find housing.

"I had that one mistake," _____ said Friday. "It's not like I'm stalking little 3-year-olds. Trying to survive afterward has become harder than the original charge."

His sister offered to let him live in her home in Hudson, then discovered police had hand-delivered letters to her neighbors detailing _____' criminal conviction. His sister told him he could no longer live there because she feared her children would be bullied, he said.
- Even the public knows the online registry and notifications put lives in danger!

Hudson police say they have no residency restrictions but confirm their practice is to deliver notices to residents when a sex offender moves into a neighborhood.

"Each city has its own strict rules," _____ said. "It's like they set you up to fail."

Half the states have laws restricting where sex offenders can live. California's statute was recently found unconstitutional by an appeals court, and a higher court is likely to decide the question. In some places, tight regulations have made it nearly impossible for sex offenders to find a place to live. In 2007 in Miami, more than 100 sex offenders created a camp under a bridge because of strict limits on where they could live.

In the New Hampshire town of Franklin, Town Manager Elizabeth Dragon said its ordinance was amended to remove the residency restrictions after the court ruling. But she opposes a state law, saying other municipalities should have the opportunity to pursue a state Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of the restrictions. Franklin withdrew its appeal of the lower court ruling.

"Something that works for one community may not work for another," she said.

Dragon also stressed that the court rulings could change if research links residency restrictions to public safety.

Tilton Police Chief Robert Cormier said his department is not actively enforcing the town's residency restrictions in light of the court rulings.

"The main focus here is really stringent registration and monitoring," Cormier said. "That's the biggest piece for us."

Senate Majority Leader Jeb Bradley, a Wolfeboro Republican, predicts the bill won't pass the Senate.
- Yeah, they don't want to look "soft" on criminals, especially "sex offenders!"

"The Senate is going to want to protect kids and other people sexual predators could attack," Bradley said. "I think getting rid of any kind of residency restrictions — like in proximity of schools and day care centers — will be a very hard sell for senators, even in the face of a couple of court rulings."

Rep. Carol McGuire, a Merrimack Republican, said she co-sponsored the bill because she doesn't think residency restrictions are effective.

"Since other towns were trying to do the same thing, it seemed the sensible thing to do, to head them off at the pass," McGuire said.

Democratic Gov. Maggie Hassan hasn't decided whether to sign the bill if it passes the Senate. Most Republicans in the House voted against the ban.

"The governor will listen to the views of law enforcement, local communities, advocates, victims and all stakeholders as the measure is considered by the Senate," Hassan spokesman Marc Goldberg said.

MA - Limiting where sex offenders live in Mansfield

Ronald Sellon

Original Article

03/27/2014

By Susan Parkou Weinstein

Police Chief Ronald Sellon has submitted a Town Meeting article that would restrict where the more serious sex offenders could live in Mansfield.
- We are willing to bet he will be running for congress or similar office soon.

Sellon said the sex offender registration and residential safety zone would bar Level 2 and 3 sex offenders from living within a 1,000-foot buffer of places such as schools, daycare centers and playgrounds and better protect children, developmentally disabled adults and other vulnerable members of the local population.

"This is an effort to further safeguard people in the community," he told selectmen Wednesday night.

There are three Level 3 and 25 Level 2 sex offenders living or working in town who have registered with police as required by law. They must register every year and the information is public. But there are no restrictions barring them from living close to a school and similar locations unless there is a provision in their probation or parole, Sellon said.

Police have been checking the compliance status of the local registered Level 2 and 3 offenders and found one Level 2 not in compliance this week. That number may change in the coming weeks, Sellon said.

According to the state sex offender registry board, Level 1 sex offenders are the least likely to reoffend and do not pose enough danger to be named publicly.

Level 2 and Level 3 offenders are considered at moderate risk and high risk to reoffend, respectively.

A dozen cities and towns in the state have adopted the stricter laws.

Sellon said he was also looking into joining a regional team to locate sex offenders and take more aggressive steps to document their whereabouts.

Selectmen said they would support the article.

"This sounds like a great idea to me," Selectman Doug Annino said.

CA - Federal lawsuit calls for repeal of Pomona’s sex offender ordinance

Original Article

03/27/2014

By Monica Rodriguez

POMONA - A Santa Maria lawyer filed a federal lawsuit against Pomona this week calling for the repeal of a 2008 ordinance regulating the presence of sex offenders in the city.

According to the lawsuit, the city’s ordinance goes beyond what is contained in the ordinances of other cities by prohibiting sex offenders from being on private property, such as arcades or movie theaters.

Pomona’s ordinance is “one of the worst ordinances in our state,” said Janice Bellucci, who filed the lawsuit on behalf of _____ of Grover Beach in San Luis Obispo County.

Bellucci said her client has not lived in Pomona but could be interested in visiting the city at some point.

Pomona’s ordinance is such that “we believe it violates the federal and state constitutions,” Bellucci said.

Deputy City Manager Mark Gluba said the City Council will be briefed on the lawsuit during the closed portion of a future meeting, and council members will give city staff direction on how to proceed.

The 2008 ordinance made it difficult for registered sex offenders to move into the city.

The ordinance was modeled after one adopted the same year in Long Beach and took advantage of wording in the voter-approved Proposition 83 (PDF), referred to as Jessica’s Law, which allowed cities to adopt ordinances containing residency restrictions that went beyond those set in state regulations.

Jessica’s Law prohibits sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of schools and parks where children gather. Pomona’s ordinance barred registered sex offenders from living within 2,640 feet from sensitive uses such as child-care centers, community centers, museums, sports centers, tutoring and learning centers, youth centers, along with rail stations or bus stops.

Also included in the list of sensitive uses are arcades, children’s retail stores, cyber cafes and movie theaters.

“Most ordinances don’t include privately owned property,” said Bellucci, who is also president of California Reform Sex Offender Laws.

The organization’s website says sexual abuse is never acceptable and that sex offense laws and policies should be based on “sound research and common sense, not fear, panic or paranoia.”

Public sex offender registry and laws setting residency restrictions “do not protect children but instead ostracize and dehumanize individuals and their families,” the website said.

Pomona’s restrictions are such that every part of the city is within a residential exclusion zone, according to the lawsuit.

“The sex offender ordinance adopted by the City of Pomona violates both the federal and state constitutions,” said Bellucci in a statement.

Pomona’s ordinance is based on what Bellucci said are two myths.

One is that registrants have high rates for committing offences again, yet state and federal government reports indicate 1.8 percent of those on parole and 5.3 percent of registered sex offenders overall re-offend, the statement said.

The other myth is that strangers commit sexual assaults. In reality more than 90 percent of sexual assaults involving children are committed by family members and other people who the victims are familiar with such as teachers, coaches and clergy members, the statement said.

More than 70 cities across the state have restrictive ordinances and in January California Reform Sex Offender Laws notified them of a recent California Court of Appeal decision invalidating two ordinances, one of those being Irvine’s.

Costa Mesa and El Centro repealed their ordinances and other cities including Anaheim, Grand Terrace and South Pasadena have agreed in writing not to enforce their ordinances while they wait for the state Supreme Court to decide if it will review the Court of Appeal decision, Bellucci said in the statement.

Pomona is the first city to be sued but plans call for filing a lawsuit against another city as early as Monday, she said.

Assistant City Attorney Andrew Jared said the city does not comment on litigation.

Jared said for a period of about a year the ordinance was successful in keeping new registered sex offenders from moving into the city but after that time it was not enforced.

“The ordinance has not been actively enforced due to staffing issues,” Jared said.

The city registers those that are required to do so, he added.

When the ordinance was being enforced the city took several people who had violated the local law to court, Jared said.

A combination of factors including court rulings “caused us to evaluate the enforcement and at that time budget constraints that caused it to be de-prioritized,” he said.

Currently, conditions in the city and the state are different from what they were in the years prior to the ordinance’s approval including the state’s prison population realignment.

Realignment has resulted in different approaches in how the state Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation handles registered sex offenders, he said.

Changes in state policies have meant state authorities are “not stockpiling recently” paroled individuals the way they had been in Pomona at one time, Jared said. “That practice has subsided.”

Bellucci said her client is seeking “the repeal of the ordinance and attorney fees (but) no monetary damages.”

The restrictive ordinances have a direct impact on more than 105,000 people around the state and indirectly affect about 400,000 which includes the family members of registered sex offenders, Bellucci said.

OH - 'Let me live my life': Registered sex offender shares his side of story

Original Article

03/22/2014

By Hannah Sparling

NEWARK - _____ is a registered sex offender.

He’ll admit to that, no problem.

He is not, however, a pedophile. He is not a child molester, and he has no interest messing with anyone’s kids, he said.

“A lot of people don’t know the story,” said _____, 44, from his West Main Street home. “They figure, because someone’s a sex offender, ‘Oh, he likes little kids.’ But that’s not always the case.”

“Before you go judge someone, do your homework.”

_____ is one of three sex offenders who were registered as living within 1,000 feet of Par Excellence Academy, a local elementary school. By law, registered adult sex offenders in Ohio are not allowed to live within 1,000 feet of a school, preschool or day care facility, but that restriction applies only to people convicted after July 1, 2003.

_____ says his offense was in late 2002 and his conviction in early 2003. Newark Law Director Doug Sassen said officials are still working to determine _____’s exact conviction date — it was out of state, which makes tracking down records more difficult — but if _____’s story holds up, he can stay put.

Par Excellence officials said they want _____ and the other two offenders to move, but _____ doesn't think he should have to. Moving is expensive, he’s happy where he is now, and he’s not causing any trouble, he said.

This past week, _____ sat down with The Advocate to share his side of the story.

Trying to move on

It started back in 2002. _____ was 31 at the time, living in New York, and he met a girl from Connecticut online. The girl told him she was 18, and one day, _____ and a friend picked her up to hang out, he said.

_____ said he spent one day with the girl. He kissed her, but they never had sex, he said. He put her on a train to go home, and that was that, he said.

Then _____ found out the girl was only 17. The girl’s grandmother pushed the issue, and authorities responded and arrested _____, he said.

Ultimately, _____ was charged with sexual abuse in the third degree, a class B misdemeanor in New York. He spent 45 days in jail, and he pleaded guilty to that charge only to avoid a legal battle that might have taken more time and cost him his job, he said.

_____ accepts some blame — “It was my fault because I should have checked the ID,” he said — but at the same time, he doesn't feel his offense is one that should haunt him for life. The girl willingly went with him to New York, he was under the impression the entire time she was an adult, and the two only kissed, he said.

“I’m still shocked why I gotta report for life (as a sex offender) when I only did 45 days (in jail),” he said. “It’s a misdemeanor.”

_____ is considering going back to New York to try to get his conviction overturned, but for now, he’s happily living on West Main Street with his soon-to-be wife, _____.

_____ was skeptical of _____ when they first met — she told him she was fact-checking everything he told her — but his story checked out, and now she trusts him and is sticking by him no matter what, she said.

Facing difficulty

The sex offense makes life difficult sometimes — it’s hard for _____ to find work, for example, and anytime the couple moves, everyone in the new neighborhood gets notified about _____’s sex-offender status — but _____ knows what kind of man _____ truly is, she said.

For _____’s part, he tries not to let his status get to him.

“It doesn't really bother me because I know what happened that day,” he said. “I’m not bothered by it. I’m still going to continue to live my life.”

_____ moved into his house about two years ago, and he checked with officials at the time to make sure the location was OK, he said. He thinks he’s within his rights, but if people still try to make him move, he’ll do his best to fight, he said. The way he sees it, he pleaded guilty, he did his time and now he should get to start fresh.

“I’m not moving. I’m fighting,” he said. “I already know I got the charge. Just leave me alone already. Let me live my life.”

“Everyone makes mistakes. I did my time for it. I’m not gonna keep doing time.”

CA - Grover Beach expands zones barring child molesters

Original Article

03/21/2014

By Mike Hodgson

Despite a threatened lawsuit, a resident’s plea and a councilman’s misgivings, Grover Beach effectively blocked any additional child molesters from living in the city.

The City Council voted 4-1, with Councilman Bill Nicolls dissenting, to approve the second reading of an ordinance expanding so-called “protected zones” to 2,000 feet around schools, preschools, day care centers and parks.

Previously, the distance was 1,000 feet.

Individuals convicted of sex crimes against children — younger than 18 — who are required to register as sex offenders are barred from moving into temporary or permanent residences within those zones.

Sex offenders who were already living in the city when they were convicted of crimes against children are “grandfathered in.”

However, it’s not clear in the ordinance whether they would be barred from moving into another protected zone within the city.

The ordinance also requires child sex offenders to obtain written permission before entering a school.

Thirteen schools, preschools, parks and day care centers listed inside Grover Beach result in overlapping protected zones that cover almost the entire city.

Only three small pockets at the far southwestern, northeastern and northwestern ends are not covered by a zone.

One pocket consists of mostly agricultural and industrial land east of South Fourth Street and south of Highland Way to the city limits.

Another pocket is made up of mostly vacant land south of El Camino Real, north of Atlantic City Avenue and east from the Laguna Court dead end across North Oak Park Boulevard to the city limits.

The third and smallest pocket is a triangular residential area near Estuary Way and North Second Street.

While state law already bars child molesters from living within 2,000 feet of schools, preschools, day care centers and parks, Police Chief Jim Copsey said it has no enforcement provisions.

The Grover Beach ordinance provides for a fine of $1,000 and/or imprisonment for up to one year for violations.

Resident Frank Lindsay, a board member of the nonprofit California Reform Sex Offender Laws, asked the council to reconsider expanding the protected zones.

“These folks have an incredibly difficult task in front of them in recovery,” he said of registered sex offenders. “We should not make it more complicated.”

He pointed out calling the zones “protected areas” gives community members a false sense of security, believing it makes them safe from sexual predators.

“When in fact we know that those that have offended in the past ... their likelihood of reoffense is 1.9 percent,” he said, citing statistics from the California Department of Corrections, adding the FBI puts the rate at almost 5 percent.

He said that is far less than the “hysteria” created by television claims that 100 percent of offenders will reoffend.

He noted the highest rate of new sexual offenses is among family members or those within a “family circle” who are not known as child molesters to law enforcement.

Lawyer Janice Bellucci, also a member of California Reform Sex Offender Laws, said Grover Beach’s revised ordinance may be unconstitutional because it would effectively banish sex offenders from the city.

She said she has sued several cities — including Cypress twice — over similar laws and won, and the cities had to pay her attorney fees.

“I strongly support some of the comments that were made,” Copsey responded, but he added he disagreed with others.

He said the expanded zones had been requested by and have strong support from city residents.
- Just because it's supported by residents doesn't mean it's right and constitutional!

“Some of it may be driven by fear,” Copsey said. “I don’t dispute that. Some of it is driven by, you know, the fact that they don’t want sex offenders living in their backyard or next-door to them.”
- So what if we don't want a politician living next to us, can we pass a law to prevent that as well?  Ex-felons live everywhere, what about those who are also dangerous to adults and children?

“But the fact still remains that there are some cases where offenders do reoffend in their neighborhoods, and that’s what we would like to prevent,” he continued.
- Putting up some magical buffer zone won't prevent anything!  It's just exploitation by politicians looking to better their careers in our opinion.

“And if we can prevent that 1.9 percent, that 5 percent or whatever percent it actually is, then we should do that.”

Still, Nicolls was concerned about the threat of a lawsuit.

“One of the things that concerns me, if anybody is opening themselves to litigation, by looking at the map, I think Grover Beach is doing so,” Nicolls said.

“If you’ll look at the map that was provided with the report, there is virtually no place in Grover Beach that (a child molester) can move or live. ...”

“I think we’re looking for trouble under those circumstances,” he added. “That bothers me.”

But Martin Koczanowicz, the city attorney, disagreed.

“It doesn't preclude residence in Grover Beach,” he said of the ordinance.

Other council members said they could appreciate Nicolls’ position.

But they pointed out the 2,000 feet is in keeping with state law, and there are a few places in the city not within a protected zone.

“It’s something residents want,” Councilman Glenn Marshall said.
- Hell residents want public hangings as well!  Are you going to give them that as well?

NH - Bill prohibiting sex offender living restrictions raises worry

Original Article

03/08/2014

By Kimberley Haas

CONCORD - A bill prohibiting residency restrictions for registered sex offenders and offenders against children which was passed by the House of Representatives earlier this month is causing concern among some legislators, who say the bill would strip communities of their ability to protect children.

HB 1237 (PDF) is based upon two court decisions where judges found local ordinances restricting residency for offenders to be unconstitutional.

One of the cases cited came out of Dover District Court. In August of 2009, Dover's ordinance that prohibited registered sex offenders from living within 2,500 feet of a school or day care center was deemed unconstitutional by Judge Mark Weaver after a challenge by the New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union. Weaver found the city did not show a substantial relationship between the ordinance and the protection of children.

Judge Larry Smukler cited the same reason when he overturned Franklin's ordinance in 2012 at Merrimack County Superior Court. New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union also challenged that ordinance.

Rep. Jim Webb, R-Derry, contacted Foster's Daily Democrat to voice his concerns this week. He said the bill would force the 11 cities and towns with residency restrictions to allow sex offenders and offenders against children to live wherever they want, even if it is in an apartment above a day care. Webb said this strips local governments of their ability to protect children as they see fit.

Derry does not have residency restrictions for offenders.

Rep. Laura Jones, R-Rochester, said she also believes in local control.

“Because I support local control, I decided to vote against HB 1237,” Jones said.

Jones has a friend that lives in a town where there is such an ordinance and she said her friend reports it is effective and has protected children.

The Rochester representative said she performed her own research on court rulings in this area and found decisions made by judges are mixed.

Rep. Steve Beaudoin, R-Rochester, echoed Webb's concerns about the proximity of sex offenders to children and loss of local control.

“Though the courts have ruled that no town or city can restrict where a sex offender lives, I believe that if a city or town wants to challenge that they should be able to. As I see it, this law will prohibit that challenge,” Beaudoin said.

Supporters of the bill say that residency restrictions deprive registrants of their fundamental property rights and drive them underground.

“The research explains why banning offenders from most areas of a town forces them into homelessness, destabilizes them and concentrates them in the outskirts of town, far away from buses, services, jobs and mediators,” the bill's sponsor, Timothy Robertson, D-Keene, wrote on behalf of the Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee for representatives to review when preparing to vote.

In an interview Wednesday, Robertson said that every molester is not the same.

“There are lots of cases where a 21-year-old didn't know the other person was 15,” Robertson said. “They simply came upon each other and got what they wanted.”

When asked if the bill would, in effect, allow an offender against children to rent an apartment above a day care center, Robertson said he doubts very much that a person with a day care center on their property would rent to anyone without checking the free public sex offender list which is posted online.

Robertson cited cases of people who are legitimate and successful business owners who are considered sex offenders and others who, even 30 years after the crime, have a hard time finding a job due to the discrimination they face.

Robertson pointed out that judges do have the discretion in individual cases to limit where a sex offender or offender against children can live.

HB 1237 will now go to the Senate, where a similar bill was tabled in 2010.