ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459

Monthly Meetings
Q4: 11/18 Recording Uploaded, 12/9 in Los Angeles [details]

Other Events
Challenging Parole Conditions: postponed [details]
ACSOL Conference: June 15/16, 2018 in Los Angeles [details]

ACSOLCalifornia

CA: Simi Valley links to Megan’s Law site to safeguard kids from sex offenders on Halloween

Simi Valley on Thursday unveiled a new strategy to safeguard trick-or-treating children from the city’s registered sex offenders. It used its Nixle.com account to link to the state’s Megan’s Law website, which lists the names, photos and addresses of 97 of the city’s 165 registered sex offenders. Full Article

Join the discussion

  1. J

    Lol. We’ve all seen this type behavior over and over. The Pot calling the Kettle black. This guy HUBER has a few deep rooted secrets of his own just like Dennis Hastert ( the political figure who fought tiredlessly for stronger sex offender regulations and was found guilty of several accounts of molestation). Nice try Bob Huber, don’t you know your fascination with this is enlighting. I encourage everyone to link on to the ACSOL website and wait for updates on this monster.

  2. AlexO

    Wait, wait, wait… Wouldn’t this be illegal for them to PUSH this information onto people? At the very least one would think this would be completely contrary to the 2003 SCOTUS ruling that “it wasn’t a big deal because one would have to seek out this information”.

    • Matthew

      AlexO, I was about to say the same thing! This should be used in any future litigation. It may be a blessing right now! Man, I had many conversations with you, is there anyway to share emails on here to keep this information….

      The ruling was that people have to search for information by agreeing to certain conditions…

      • Davidh

        Given that it wasn’t being enforced– another solution to a non problem was introduced. People who wouldn’t have had attention drawn to them now will! Pick and chose battles carefully, please

        • AJ

          @Davidh:
          It wasn’t being enforced, yet the RCs were getting visits from LEOs to remind them of it. That alone makes it worth getting off the books. But to me, it is *always* better to have a law off the books versus “not enforced.” Even if that law is illegal but gets enforced, one still gets arrested, one still has to post bond/bail, one still has to fight it in court (perhaps pro se, perhaps paying for an attorney) before it gets resolved. So, it indeed is a solution to a problem. And as far as picking battles, IMO *every* court opinion in our favor is helpful, as it builds case law showing this, that and the other as unconstitutional. So this battle may well win another one down the road in another jurisdiction. All the battles matter.

          • Davidh

            AJ

            Thanks for your opinion I stated mine

            • AJ

              Yeah, that’s why my post had “to me” and “IMO” in it. I was countering your opinion. However, telling people to “pick and chose (sic) battles carefully,” is a directive, not opinion.

    • AJ

      @AlexO:
      I think you’d have a hard time making an argument that providing a hyperlink is a push notification. It would be quite another thing if SV pulled RC data from the ML site and republished it or pushed it to Nixle users. In fact, to get the to ML URL, one must first click on another URL from the SV PD. In short, a user still must actively seek the information, versus having it handed to them.

      • AlexO

        I misunderstood what it meant. I thought they were going to push the individual information of each of the 100 or so RCs in the area. I still don’t like the idea that the government is actively telling people to look.

      • Davidh

        They have every right under the law to disseminate information as they see fit!

        • AJ

          @Davidh:
          Agreed, and I never said SV didn’t. I was refuting AlexO’s push-notification concern. I’m unclear why you posted as a reply to my comment.

          • Davidh

            @ AJ

            Oh hell I dont know some times it’s hard to figure out who you’re replying to. I’m replying to the fact that law enforcement has the right to provide notification in whatever manner they wish–someone believes there’s a lawsuit over that

  3. Tim Moore

    What? Have Halloween in churches, schools and at family gatherings? That is where the sexual abuse happens that is going to happen. What map are you going to use for that? People just really enjoy getting off being scared, that’s all I can see.
    One other thing, checking out the Megan’s law map and avoiding houses is now encouraged by ACSOL? Is that a misprint or what?

    • David Kennerly, Tamper-Proof Package

      “One other thing, checking out the Megan’s law map and avoiding houses is now encouraged by ACSOL?”

      I think that it went a little far and didn’t need to be said. Probably in the spirit of conciliation and to convey reasonableness in the public sphere on the heels of victory. However, we need to keep in mind that the Registry is not reasonable.

      • FRegistryTerrorists

        It is a shame that anyone would ever give any indication in the slightest that the Registries are acceptable. The Registries are an act of war.

    • Davidh

      Tim my thoughts exactly! this was a battle that could only be lost

  4. Not Really

    Simi Valley has a population of about 125,000, and it would be very interesting to know how much of a spike there will be on the DOJ registry website from Simi Valley. My bet is barely a nudge.

  5. mike r

    Court and Criminal records easily accessible my assssss. Are these downright idiots at scrotus??? I am still searching see how easy it s to find court records and what they actually contain, but especially criminal records, are not by any means easily accessible. I am going to pound this issue home as well. Has anyone on here ever tried to get a criminal record of anyone? Well, you can’t unless you pay money and go through a lengthy and full disclosure of all your personal info via your credit card first. I just started thinking about this the other day and finally got around to trying and there is not anyone that will offer you those records without a lengthy process, and all kinds of disclosures, and without your credit card and personal info…..

    • Davidh

      Mike R

      Haha you’re inadvertently on to something; if the State ever wants to have the website pay for itself–charge a fee to whoever wants to access it

  6. SBC

    He’s just grand standing to get his name in the media. Licking his wounds and needing again too harm others for no reason. Must be something inside him he’s trying to punish.

  7. Harry

    It was encouraging that commenters, of the article, were beating a different drum than the fear mongering the city’s leadership and media.

  8. Davidh

    Hey how about equal protection under the law???

    why dont they post the CASOMB video on their nixle.com website! Present all necessary data for a parent to make an informed decision; perhaps that would have been the better response to thinking it appropriate to link to megan law’s website!!

    • AJ

      @Davidh:
      “Hey how about equal protection under the law???”
      —–
      This makes absolutely no sense in this context.

  9. New Person

    Simi Valley Mayor Bob Huber wrote:
    =====================
    Huber said he’s “frustrated by the backlash against the city and the City Council” over the now-rescinded ordinance.

    “I’m the one who originated the Halloween ordinance in the first place to protect our children,” he said. “Most cities didn’t even have such an ordinance.”
    =====================

    From the article:
    ++++
    Even so, attorney Janice Bellucci, who brought the Sept. 18 lawsuit on behalf of a Simi Valley registered sex offender and his mother, brother and daughter, said the ordinance was unnecessary to begin with. There are no reports that a trick-or-treating child has ever been sexually assaulted in California by a registered sex offender, she said.
    ++++

    So this means this law (ordinance) was created out of no scientific reasoning.

    But here is Huber again:
    ==============
    Mayor Bob Huber said the city’s new strategy is “a very proactive way to approach the protection of our children. We’ll be sending the link to the Megan’s Law site for our residents to locate and therefore avoid going to homes of registered sex offenders.”
    ==============

    The mayor is pushing registrant information onto the public by linking the ML website. Please note the Mayor’s intent was to be “proactive”. Adding a link is pushing information. It’s a form of advertisement. An advertisement’s purpose is to push a specific information.

    This is the same as putting people onto a public square for public shaming specifically for Halloween. This is simply retributive. The Mayor created the ordinance. The courts agreed to repeal the ordinance. The Mayor then is trying to redistribute the information proactively. In fact, the article is an accomplice in advertising proactively about ML’s.

    So this repeal of the Halloween ordinance is another piece of legislation that can be factually identified as unconstitutional along with presence and residency restrictions. These are all disabilities. So… 1203.4 is supposed to remove all penalties and disabilities from the conviction, but registrants aren’t allowed to have that immunity. In a case to challenge registering after receiving the 1203.4, the courts didn’t see any disabilities. Now, we can look back and state, “these three laws were deemed unconstitutional” and can be deemed a penalty and disability.

  10. American Detained in America

    It sounds to me like the RC’s in Simi Valley need to get together and sue the city again, this time for blatant harassment, as well as endangering their lives by sending their information out indiscriminately. If someone who received that information from the city doesn’t have children, it was unnecessary even under the city’s claim of protecting children. And, if someone uses that information and does anything at all that would quality as vigilantism, I would think the city becomes culpable since they sent the information unsolicited. I agree with others, this completely goes against the 2003 SCOTUS decision which stated this information had to be intentionally sought by the public, and perhaps could be yet another thing to help bring down the registry as a whole!

    • AJ

      The public must still intentionally seek the info. That the city is posting a link to the home page of CA’s ML site is hardly making it passive for the public. It’s the exact same link that’s provided in the news story itself. So is the newspaper pushing the info to the public, too? Does the public still have to intentionally and actively click on the URL to get to the ML site, or is it popping up on their screens? If you think the paper is pushing the info through publishing the URL, then every CA RC who has read that news story has violated the law. Heck, that would also mean that anytime a CA RC does a Google search that results in the CA ML URL appearing, they have violated the law! Listing the URL of a website does not remove any of the intentional activity needed by the public to access the data at that URL. Good luck with any lawsuit based on that.

      • New Person

        Except we know the intent by having the link as quoted by the Mayor himself.

        • AJ

          Just as no one legislator’s comments necessarily indicate the will of a legislature, a mayor’s comments do not necessarily indicate the will of the city council. Like it or not, that’s how courts view it. We can grouse all we want, but it’s what courts see and rule that matters.

          • New Person

            Yet there is pro-activity for sending out a link. It’s a tiny step for you that seems innocuous, but it is a step in promotion to the public and not that public is coming on their own accord.

            • AJ

              @New Person:
              So with your logic, anytime I do a Google search and one or more of the URL results includes offensive, or even illegal, content, Google has actively pushed that notification to me? Without my conscious, willful act of clicking on a link, the information is withheld from me.

              Using that same logic, libraries are pushing notification to me by having a card catalog! Again, good luck succeeding in the argument with a judge.

Leave a Reply

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum. Feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please send any input regarding moderation to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please answer this question to prove that you are not a robot *