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.

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 - 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)].

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.

CA - Federal lawsuit challenges South Lake Tahoe ordinance

Original Article

05/31/2014

A sex offender ordinance adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe is the subject of a lawsuit filed today in federal district court on behalf of a registered sex offender (“registered citizen”). This is the second in a series of lawsuits filed in federal court challenging city ordinances that include presence restrictions. The first lawsuit was filed on March 24 challenging a similar ordinance in the City of Pomona.

Both ordinances include restrictions regarding where more than 105,000 individuals can reside or be present. Specifically, the South Lake Tahoe ordinance prohibits registered citizens from residing or being present within 300 feet of a wide range of public and private locations including schools, parks, bus stops, arcades, and swimming pools. A registered citizen who violates the ordinance is subject to incarceration for a period of up to one year and/or a fine of up to $1,000 for each day of violation.

“The sex offender ordinance adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe violates both the federal and state constitutions,” stated CA RSOL President and attorney Janice Bellucci. “The South Lake Tahoe ordinance is based upon two myths: (1) that registered citizens have a high rate of re-offense and (2) that strangers commit most sexual assaults.”

The true rates of re-offense, according to state and federal government reports, are 1.8 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 and others known by the children such as teachers, coaches, and clergy.

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

California RSOL sent a letter to South Lake Tahoe 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 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 to enforce their sex offender ordinances pending a decision from the California Supreme Court whether to grant review of the California Court of Appeal decisions. Prior to issuance of the California RSOL letter, the County of El Dorado repealed its sex offender ordinance.

“Future legal challenges by registered 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 lawsuit filed against South Lake Tahoe today is one in a series of such legal challenges.”

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.

CA - Loma Linda agress not to enforce sex offender ordinance

Click to enlarge

Original Article

03/19/2014

The City of Loma Linda has joined a growing number of cities by agreeing not to enforce its sex offender ordinance that prohibits registered citizens from entering city parks and other recreational areas. The agreement will last until the California Supreme Court makes its decision whether or not to review two recent Court of Appeals decisions that overturned similar ordinances in Orange County and the City of Irvine.

Loma Linda’s decision was conveyed to California RSOL in a letter signed by the City Manager and dated March 17, 2014. The agreement was reached after the city received a letter from California RSOL notifying them of the recent Court of Appeals decisions.

CA - Anaheim, Grand Terrace Suspend Enforcement of Sex Offender Ordinances

Original Article

03/17/2014

The cities of Anaheim and Grand Terrace have agreed to suspend enforcement of sex offender ordinances that prohibit registered citizens from visiting public parks and other recreational areas. The cities reached this agreement with California RSOL after the organization notified them of recent appellate court decisions that such ordinances were preempted by state law and therefore could not be lawfully enforced.

“These agreements are significant victories for registered citizens throughout the state of California,” stated CA RSOL President Janice Bellucci. “They will allow more than 105,000 citizens, their family members and friends to enjoy the recreational opportunities in those cities.”

“City ordinances that restrict the presence of registered citizens are based upon several myths including the myth of stranger danger,” stated CA RSOL board member Charlene Steen. “The facts are that more than 90 percent of sexual assaults upon children are perpetrated by family members, teachers, coaches and members of the clergy.”

California RSOL sent letters to 72 cities on January 20 notifying them of the recent decisions made by the California Court of Appeal which declared void the presence restrictions adopted by both Orange County and the City of Irvine. The letters demanded that the remaining cities with such ordinances repeal them within 60 days or be faced with the possibility of a legal challenge.

Since issuance of the demand letter, more than 10 cities have agreed either to repeal or stay enforcement of their ordinances until the California Supreme Court decided whether to grant review of the Court of Appeal decisions.

“We are prepared to file a lawsuit in federal district court on March 24 challenging the ordinance of one city that has failed to repeal or stayed enforcement of its ordinance,” stated Bellucci. “Additional lawsuits are expected to be filed if cities continue to violate the constitution by enforcing ordinances which prohibit registered citizens from visiting parks, beaches and other recreational areas.”

CA - Assembly Bill Would Increase Sex Offender Rights

Original Article

03/08/2014

The State Assembly is actively considering a bill, AB 1640, that would eliminate the registration requirement for sexual offenses that the California Supreme Court and several Courts of Appeal have ruled violate the equal protection rights of registered citizens. The bill was introduced by Assembly member Jones-Sawyer (Democrat, Los Angeles) and is sponsored by Los Angeles District Attorney Lacey.

“Assembly Bill 1640, if passed, would be an important step toward restoring the civil rights of registered citizens,” stated CA RSOL President Janice Bellucci. “The bill would ensure that courts throughout the state of California consistently enforce recent court decisions.”

Recent court decisions to which the bill refer are based upon the case People v. Hofsheier in which the California Supreme Court ruled that mandatory lifetime sex registration was unconstitutional for those convicted of Penal Code Section 288a(b)(1). Since that case, the Hofsheier ruling has been applied to additional Penal Code Sections including 286(b)(1), 286(b)(2), 288a(b)(2), 288.7, 289(h) and 289(I).

California RSOL supports AB 1640 and will devote resources to its passage. Registered citizens and family members can help to support the bill by contacting their Assembly members by phone, by E-mail and/or by letter. A list of Assembly members and their contact information are available at assembly.ca.gov.

NOTE: This Bill deals with 288a(b)(2) Oral Copulation with a Minor under 16 – NOT 288(b)(2) Lewd or Lascivious act on a Minor under 14 with force or violence