ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Mtgs: May 12: San Diego [details]

2018 ACSOL Conference – Sign Up Now 

California

CA: Vidak authors measure to prevent sex offenders from secretly moving in next door to schools, parks and child care centers

State Senator Andy Vidak (R-Hanford) today announced he is amending his Senate Bill 1143 to prevent sex offenders from secretly moving in next door to schools, parks, and child care centers. Click here (pdf) to view the bill’s amended language. …

“Given the Court’s and Brown administration’s reluctance to keep sex offenders from living near children, we looked into other possible solutions,” said Vidak.  “Our SB 1143 will force these sex offenders to at least, before they attempt to buy or rent near a school, park or child care center, notify the property owner in writing that they are a registered sex offender who was convicted of committing a crime against a child.  The property owner will be allowed to use this information as a reason to decline renting or selling the property to the sex offender.” Full Press Release

SB 1143

http://hanfordsentinel.com/news/local/vidak-authors-measure-to-limit-where-sex-offenders-can-live/article_c58e9eba-1109-57ec-bab9-fa7f74c6c61b.html

Join the discussion

  1. cool CA RC

    How would this work?
    The seller may not care who they are selling to as long as they are getting the MONEY from the house sale.

    Or I can have a friend buy the house and he can sell it to me.

  2. Janice Bellucci

    As soon as a hearing on this bill has been scheduled, we will send out alerts so that members of our community can speak in opposition. Why does an elected official think he can limit where a registrant and his/her family can live? I believe this bill is an acknowledgment that the government knows that adding a registrant’s home address is a danger to the registrant and his/her family.

    • AlexO

      @Janice, reading the bill, there doesn’t seem to be a penalty included if you don’t disclose. Is that the case at the moment?

      Also, can you and others use this to battle the registry as a whole or at least public listing of registrants? The new tiered registry seems like it would actually add more people to the public domain as it revokes many of the current exemptions, primarily 647.6 misdemeanor.

      • Janice Bellucci

        @AlexO – The “penalty” for failure to disclose that you are a registrant to the buyer of your home is that the buyer can lawfully rescind the contract to buy your house. The “penalty” for failure to disclose to your landlord that you are a registrant is that the landlord can lawfully evict you.

        • AlexO

          @Janice, Thank you for the clarification. It seems like this will be a far greater burden on renters than home buyers as the landlord can rescind your lease tomorrow or two years from now based on this information. But for home buyers, if you can close the deal within that usual 30 days, you’re fine once the sales goes through. I mean, the original seller can’t comeback 2 months post sales after you’ve already had multiple-mortgage payments and take your home away from you, correct?

          At least this won’t apply a legal penalty such as being jailed for not disclosing this during the process.

    • cool CA RC

      Why does an elected official think he can limit where a registrant and his/her family can live?
      Because S/he think s/he can WRONG!!!

    • Agamemnon

      Vidak specifically states he wants land owners to deny renting or selling to someone who is a sex offender. Hasn’t that kind of discrimination already been ruled unconstitutional?

    • That David

      How would this interact with the new decision on the federal fair housing act and California’s requirement of provable danger to tenants in order to deny?

      • AlexO

        You’re registered. You’re a danger. It’s why the registry is able to exist (that and because it’s “not a punishment”).

  3. AlexO

    So since actual residency restrictions are no longer allowed per California law, he’s trying to insert a loophole that would once again force RC’s under penalty of prosecution to inform people about our status which they’ll then more than likely deny.

    Regarding the example they used of an RC living near a day care center and the LE not being able to force him to move, did that person actually do something?

    I’ve also just read through this short bill and no actual penalty is listed. Is that because there’s some general penalty for doing something against the 290 status? Or is this one of those things that only exist to scare people into doing something but if you don’t they have nothing to hold over you?

    • Political Prisoner

      I believe this bill violates PC290, because they are using the registry to refuse you housing. It clearly states in PC290 that it cannot be used to refuse it.

  4. Stephen

    perhaps the letter could be mailed on the way to sign the papers. oops another loophole to be filled.

  5. Sunny

    Wouldn’t this also be unconstitutional because it is compelled speech in violation of the 1st Amendment? That is, you are forcing registrants to make statements to private individuals who have no government affiliation.

    • AlexO

      That’s a really good point! How would they rectify this issue?

      I’m thinking because it’s an election season (not idea if he’s up for re-election), maybe he’s putting this in to boost his numbers to make it seems like he’s tough on crime while never actually expecting this to pass? “I tried my best but those darn lawyers that hate children!”

    • That David

      Sadly I think that this would fall squarely in the same category as the “have you ever been convinced of a felony” checkbox. That unfortunately has stood the test of compelled speach until new regulation made it illegal.

    • David Kennerly, The Government-Driven Life

      Yes, clearly it is compelled speech.

    • CR

      Hmmmm. I was told at my last 90-day registration that if I enter the premises of any private school, public school, or daycare center in Texas, during standard operating hours of the school, that I shall immediately notify the administrative of the school of my presence and registration status.

      Is that compelled speech?

      • CR

        BTW, I never go onto any school premises during standard operating hours, except to vote. I asked the officer about voting, and he said I would not need to report if I go to the school after standard operating hours.

        As an aside, it annoys me that, as with all sex offender laws, it’s up to me to know that a registration law I’m bound to adhere to exists at all, to understand it’s application, and to ascertain when it applies to me, no matter where in the country I go, on pain of felony arrest.

      • AJ

        @CR:
        Is that compelled speech?
        —–
        First, I cannot believe I beat @New Person to this… It could well be compelled speech, but it could also be deemed compelled work (i.e. involuntary servitude).

        I sure wish more (read: any besides PASC and 6th Circuit) courts understood that Smith only gave the State the power to compel RCs to “fact check” info, and provide updates on that info, and then publish it. Nowhere did Smith grant the State any power to restrict my behavior. Quite the opposite: “offenders subject to the Act are free to move where they wish and to live and work as other citizens, with no supervision.” How does any court rely on Smith to uphold restrictions on personal liberties?

        • AlexO

          @AJ, isn’t that the billion dollar question? This whole thing seems so easily rectified, yet no one with the power seems willing. Why didn’t SCOTUS take on the PA ruling? They very well knew that by not taking it they very much limited the scope of the ruling. And they surely must know that Smith was ruled on 100% falls information. It’s maddening how horribly handled our justice system is. I literally have no idea how to approach anything.

          It’s like, this is a rock. It’s clearly a rock. I have numerous reports from various experts certifying this is a rock. Here are the lab reports showing it’s composition to be a rock

          I don’t know… looks like a log. We ruled on this 15 years ago based on a meme. Case dismissed.

        • CR

          Ok, that’s what I thought.

          It’ll be instructive to see how SCOTUS decides the first amendment question in NIFLA v. Becerra. Requiring pregnancy centers to inform clients about state-assisted programs that they may oppose (e.g., abortion) is not a precise analog to laws requiring registrants to inform school administrators of their status as a “registered sex offender”. The state’s justification for the former is public health, while the justification for the latter is public safety. The former regulates professional speech, while the latter regulates individual speech. Still, it will likely shed some light on what kinds of speech SCOTUS considers to be compelled.

  6. American Detained in America

    This bill seems to me that it would be a slippery slope for us if passed. By passing a law that blatantly allows discrimination against RCs, the next step could be for businesses to legally use it against us for hiring or even selling products to us. Not punishment? I call bullshit!

    • AlexO

      Unfortunately, discrimination is perfectly legal against unprotected classes, and RC’s are not a protected class.

      To illustrate how loose the protected classes are and that discrimination in general is still legal, SCOTUS recently ruled that it’s okay to directly deny employment over dreadlocks. While it would mostly harm the African-American community who are a protected class because it’s a “race”, the hair style itself can be worn by anyone and technically it’s the hair that’s the issue. Hair isn’t a protected class.

      California though implemented a new law this year that a person’s conviction cannot be asked about or reason to deny employment unless it might directly hinder the job. So working at a bank as an RC technically is fine but not a daycare center. But someone who was convicted of fraud can work at a daycare center but not a bank. I wonder if the same law can be used for housing to defeat this bill? Why can’t an employer deny me a job but someone can deny me housing based on my conviction?

      Also, as Sunny stated above, this would be compelled speech under the First Amendment. However, the fact that some states force driver licenses to carry a designating mark for RC’s as well as some cities even going as far as forcing very specifics signs on the RC’s lawn, and non of this seemingly being struck down, may mean this compelled speech is perfectly fine.

      Isn’t it fun how our inalienable rights aren’t inalienable? And some politicians have the nerve to talk about “loopholes”, ie the Constitution, some people have been able to use to regain their life.

      • Tim Moore

        “Protected class” is a misleading term. No one has absolute protection from any and all discrimination. Conversely even convicted murderers in a prison have some protections. The military even found out that non citizen detainees at Guantanimo have rights to a trial. Its called human rights. Whether that made much of a difference in their situation is debatable. Supposedly, one has some protections for being human in America. That’s called the Bill of Rights. Worldwide, it is called the Declaration of Human Rights.

  7. Joe123

    If anyone will actually follow what this law demands, they will be doing themselves, their families, the country, freedom and humanity a Disservice. Keep that in mind. I would tell this lawmaker to take this law and shove it somewhere. How is this all NOT heading into more of former Nazi Germany? People in other countries would be APPALLED to hear that “Great America”, “Land of the Free”, has politicians that are trying to control citizens like a damn Nazi regime.

    • www

      Nobody believes in a holocaust until after the fact; during one everyone says ‘it can’t happen here’.

  8. Eric

    I would think the senator would know that the federal courts already said they can’t have blanket residency restriction on people with a past sex offense. Once again, they believe they are above the law, and feel tax money for their personal wasteful use in lawsuits that will come.

    • AlexO

      This isn’t a restriction. This is disclosure of information. The state isn’t saying you can’t live there. They’re leaving it completely up to the private party. And there is no legal penalty for not disclosing. You just might not have a place to live. It’s one of those loopholes terrible politicians always like to talk about when its one of us that happens to benefit.

      • Tim Moore

        There doesn’t need to be a penalty. Denied residency by an individual sanctioned by the state is penalty enough. There will be no recourse. This is relieving a penalty on those who wish to harm registrants by denying them basic need for shelter: PC 290.46 gives penalties for denial of services. What’s next, assaulting or killing registrants too close to schools OK? No penalty for breaking the law?

  9. Nondescript

    Updated April 2016
    Office of General Counsel Guidance on
    Application of Fair Housing Act Standards to the Use of Criminal Records by Providers of Housing and Real Estate Related
    Transactions

    [Where a policy or practice that restricts access to housing on the basis of criminal history has a disparate impact on individuals of a particular race, national origin, or other protected class such policy or practice is unlawful under the Fair Housing Act]

    Gender is a protected class. Most registrants are men. This new Bill would be a violation of Federal Law.

    https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/HUD_OGCGUIDAPPFHASTANDCR.PDF

  10. Tim Moore

    Can’t a landlord just check the registry or do a background check already if they want?. If they are so inclined, but why force the information on them? Registry creep to non registrants. This Nazi is trying to force business into complying with his biases. This is fugitive slave laws and Nurember laws all over again. I thought these rural hicks were all for government out of business.

  11. Tim Moore

    It is blatantly against California PC 290.46. This is worse than city ordinances. It allows individuals to enact residency restrictions,

  12. Nondescript

    Furthermore this vermin politician is implying that registrants are using subversion and deception to obtain housing by “SECRETLY moving in next door”. No secrecy necessary. Limiting where a registrant can live and thrive is illegal unless it is a specific condition of parole.

  13. 666 mark

    When is the so called government/states trying to protect Kids. It a joke in my book. The government / states should not EVEN be in this at all. The only reason the states and Government get in to this. Is to make money And to make fake FEEL good laws For victim’s/If they really Or victim;s Half the time so called victim’s made to lie so cop’s can get a not tie on the belt Most people if not all plea out cause they got a home to pay for and other things to pay for. SO now you have the states who make off this Feel good laws! Which the Government send money to the states to fight this so call Evil Feel Good Laws should Be BAN Only PROOF !!!Should Be In the Courts Not FEELINGS

  14. Michael R. Sumners

    Somebody needs to tell Mr Vidak that a teacher at that school is more likely to molest a student than the registrant

  15. Joe

    California Statutory Law is made up of 29 “Codes”, each with many sections (Civil, Commercial, Corporations, Education, Penal, etc).

    In the proposed text of this bill a (new) section of the Civil Code is in direct conflict with / invalidates a section of the Penal Code (290.46). If any new language can alter or invalidate an existing section, within Codes, or God forbid, across Codes without modifying the affected original section, California law will be reduced to an unworkable hot mess.

    Aside from the obvious stupidity and constitutional issues of this bill, it should be DOA due to poor form alone.

  16. RFS

    I buy for purposes of renting out. If I’m denied… let the lawsuits fly!!!
    Since my ability to get a conventional, meaningful job has been taken away, this is my source of income.
    Oh, by the way, I can always change my mind later and move into one of my rentals. 😉

    • steve

      @RFS …

      ‘Oh, by the way, I can always change my mind later and move into one of my rentals. ”

      yeah but you would have to inform yourself of your SO status. 🙂

    • CR

      If one of your rentals was in my town (in Texas), you could move in only with approval from the local police. They would have to certify that your intended residence was not within 1000 feet of a daycare or school. That’s due to a local municipal ordinance.

      If it was within the exclusion zone, you would not be permitted to move in, even if you owned the property free and clear.

      • RFS

        All in SoCal. Cities here are losing that legal battle one after another thanks to Janice. Just curious, what happens if a day care opens or a school is built after the fact?

        • CR

          In my town, if a day care or school opens within the restricted area after you had already established residency, you are grandfathered in. The same if you moved in near a pre-existing school or daycare before the ordinance existed. You’re not forced out.

          This is exactly my current situation. A daycare and a pre-school opened very close to me about a dozen years ago, but I was already living here. If I were to move out and establish residency elsewhere, I would not be allowed to move back in to my current home, even if I still owned it.

  17. CA

    Its been awhile since I’ve posted!
    but guys, seems like the same bull%$#& they try to do to us every damn year!
    ITS OBVIOUS THAT A LAND OWNER OR A LANDLORD, WOULD DENY SELLING OR RENTING, TO A RSO, SO ITS BACK TO THE SAME ISSUE, IF THEY IMPLEMENT THIS STUPID BILL, AGAIN “A RESIDENCY ISSUE”
    and therefore UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

  18. Counting the days

    If the predator is what they are targeting, then fine. I would assume that if a petson has committed such a terrible offense as to be deamed a predator, wouldn’t that person be on a ” shorter leash” than the rest of us that have misdomeanor or low level felonies? If the courts have said through their decisions that we have met the criteria to be released, then shouldn’t that be enough?
    If this asshole jerkoff dipshit wants to change things, he better start groing eyes in the back of his head.

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 refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  • We cannot connect participants privately - 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 *