CA - California courts strike down local sex-offender ordinances

Original Article

04/24/2014

By Sam Stanton

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CA - 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.

NJ - State Senate to vote Thursday on Jessica Lunsford Act

DiAnne Gove

Original Article

03/25/2014

By STEVE PRISAMENT

GALLOWAY – A state Senate vote on the Jessica Lunsford Act has been scheduled for Thursday, March 27, according to the District 9 delegation, which has cosponsored the legislation in both state houses.

The vote is the final legislative hurdle for the bill to be sent to Gov. Chris Christie’s desk for approval. It was passed 77-0 Thursday, March 20, by the state Assembly.

That same day it was passed by the Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee, clearing it for this week’s floor vote.

Galloway resident Anna Jezycki said she is hopeful for the act to become law.

“This has been going on for so many years,” Jezycki said. “It would be one of the best things that ever happened for New Jersey.”

For the past dozen or so years, Jezycki has been the leader of CUFFS, Community United for Family Safety, which she started with some neighbors when they learned of a sex offender living near a school bus stop.

“This is long overdue,” Jezycki said. “It’s been a long time coming and will be well accepted by the people.”

She said she expects that if Gov. Christie considers whether to sign the bill, the governor will remember receiving thousands of letters from CUFFS a few years ago during a previous attempt at sex-offender legislation.

The District 9 senator and Assembly members who represent Galloway and Port Republic in Atlantic County and coastal communities to the north have been pushing for the legislation for a while based – in part – on input from Galloway residents.

“For nearly a decade, our delegation has cosponsored and consistently advocated in favor of enacting the Jessica Lunsford Act, here in New Jersey, just as at least 25 other states have done,” Sen. Christopher J. Connors told The Current Monday, March 24. “Mandatory sentencing would serve the interest of public safety, as sexual predators who prey upon children would be incarcerated for longer periods of time as opposed to being released onto the streets.”

The act, which is named after a Florida girl who was sexually assaulted and murdered by a convicted sex offender, requires mandatory terms for persons convicted of aggravated sexual assault against a child under the age of 13. Sentences would range between 25 years and life imprisonment, with 25 years having to be served before parole eligibility.

Assemblyman Brian E. Rumpf said victims’ interests would be better served.

“The courts would be enabled under the law to mandate that sexual predators serve sentences befitting of the heinous nature of their crimes,” Rumpf said. “For these and other compelling reasons, there is tremendous support for the Jessica Lunsford Act among concerned parents, grandparents, community groups and local public officials, including in our legislative district, who remain actively engaged in the effort to strengthen the state’s sexual offender laws.”

Assemblywoman DiAnne C. Gove cited strong support from two major forces.

“It is extremely important to note that this legislation is supported by Mark Lunsford (Video, Child Porn), Jessica’s father, who has worked tireless for Jessica’s Law to be enacted by every state so that a conviction of a sexual assault committed against a child in the first degree carries with it a mandatory minimum prison sentence of 25 years,” Gove said. “Critical to the continued advancement of this legislation is that both the Senate and Assembly versions of the Jessica Lunsford Act have strong bipartisan support from representatives across the state.”

The Assembly Judiciary Committee passed its version of the act, A-892 (PDF), Feb. 24. The Judiciary Committee was the only committee to hear A-892 before it moved to its unanimous Assembly approval March 20.

In the Senate, it required approval from two committees to reach this week’s vote. The Law and Public Safety Committee approved S-215 (PDF) Jan. 30 and the Budget and Appropriations Committee OK’d it March 13.

The 9th District delegation has established an online petition drive in support of the Jessica Lunsford Act as well as other sex offender legislation that residents can sign.

Connors, Rumpf and Gove are also prime sponsors of legislation that would require a sexual offender to be tiered – rated on the risk for re-offense – prior to his release from prison.

Currently, the ability of an offender to obtain housing following release is a determined by his tiering level.

CO - With 2 Different Bills, Colorado Will Get A ‘Jessica’s Law’

Original Article

02/28/2014

DENVER (CBS4) - Colorado lawmakers from both parties are working on different versions of a bill that would lay out mandatory sentences for child sex offenders.

Similar bills have failed before. Last year’s bill, brought by Republicans, died in an end-of-session drama that left Democrats struggling to explain why they opposed a bill that went hard on sex offenders. So this year there are dueling bills — one Democratic one Republican.

The intent of both bills is the same — to make sure anyone who sexually assaults a child spends a long time behind bars.

Both bills are named after Jessica Lunsford, a young girl from Florida who was raped and murdered by a sex offender on parole.

“A lump starts to grow and your heart just stops beating,” Lunsford’s father Mark Lunsford told lawmakers last year.

He testified before lawmakers on a bill that would put anyone convicted of molesting a child behind bars at least 25 years. It failed.

“It just broke my heart,” said Rep. Libby Szabo, R-Arvada.

Szabo brought the bill back this year.

“Because it’s important,” Szabo said.

“For these types of offenders a longer sentence is something that’s necessary,” said Rep. Mike Foote, D-Boulder.

Foote is among those who voted against the Szabo bill, calling it “one size fits all.” But he also promised Mark Lunsford he would try to do something. He’s now introduced his own “Jessica’s Law.” His bill would put child molesters away for 10 to 24 years depending on the seriousness of the crime.

“My bill treats different types of actions differently, but also makes sure to target those who are committing the worst of the worst offenses,” Foote said.

“I feel that if someone is capable of committing lewd molestation on a child that the 25 years fits the crime,” Szabo said.

Both bills go before the same committee Monday. With Democrats in control, Szabo’s bill will fail and Foote’s will pass. But, Colorado will get a Jessica’s Law, and Szabo, who started the conversation, says that is what matters.

Colorado is one of five states without a Jessica’s Law.

See Also:

• Colo. lawmakers to consider law to toughen sentences for sex offenders

NJ - Jessica Lunsford Bill Clears Assembly Judiciary Committee

Original Article

02/25/2014

SPARTA - Assemblywoman Alison McHose announces the Jessica Lunsford Act, which she has co-sponsored with Assembly Republican Deputy Conference Leader Mary Pat Angelini, has cleared the Assembly Judiciary committee.

Named for 9 year-old Florida resident who was abducted, raped and murdered by a registered sex offender nine years ago.

The prime sponsor of the bill is Assemblywoman Nancy Munoz, following the death of her husband Eric Munoz, the bill's original sponsor.

“New Jersey is one of the few remaining states in the nation that has not yet enacted Jessica’s Law,” said McHose, R-Sussex,Warren and Morris. “We must take a stand against sexual crimes against children and against those criminals who specifically target children. Children are among the most vulnerable members of society. The physical and emotional harm done them, as well as the trauma suffered by their families and communities, deserves the strongest possible response by the justice system."

According to McHose's office, "The measure, A-892 (PDF), imposes a mandatory prison term of 25 years to life without possibility of parole for at least 25 years for persons convicted of aggravated sexual assault against a child under the age of 13. Parole ineligibility may be extended beyond the minimum 25 years if the convicted sex offender has been convicted of other crimes. In addition, if a victim is unable to testify, a prosecutor would be permitted to negotiate a plea agreement for a prison term of at least 15 years without parole.”

The Senate Law and Public Safety Committee last month unanimously approved S-215, which is identical to the Assembly version.