A California Superior Court judge has ruled that residency restrictions may only be applied to registrants while they are on parole. This ruling, issued in Norwalk Superior Court yesterday, is consistent with a ruling made by a federal judge in late 2017.
“These court decisions are important because they clarify that cities may not impose residency restrictions against registrants who are not on parole,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci. “In addition to limiting the application of residency restrictions to parolees, we are also claiming that the restrictions violate the state and federal constitutions.”
A total of 31 lawsuits have been filed in state and federal court challenging residency restrictions in the same number of cities. As a result of the challenges, most cities have completely eliminated the restrictions. The remaining cities have significantly revised their restrictions.
“It is unfortunate that some cities in California continue to enforce residency restrictions which often break up families,” stated ACSOL President Chance Oberstein.
The issue of residency restrictions, as applied both in and outside California, will be discussed during the ACSOL conference to be held on June 15 and June 16 in a panel led by ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci. The panel discussion will include a handout listing all 31 lawsuits filed in California as well as residency restrictions in other states.
I didn’t even know this issue was being decided. Why is this the first we’re hearing about it?
This is great news for registrants! 🤗
Janice great work, you are a great lawyer protecting the rights of all people. thank you.
This is great news for California registrants! 😊
Congratulations!
What is the practical Impact? I assume it’s getting appealed? Yay for Janice and Chance et al.
Way to go, and thank you so much for your hard work, Janice, Chance and anyone else involved. What a blessing you are to so many of us and our families!
The big question still remains, What about presence restrictions??? Many municipalities still have them and no courts have addressed the issue. CA law still allows other municipalities to conjure up any presence restrictions they wish I believe. That “where children congregate” is an issue.
loitering about any school or public place where children
congregate after being asked to leave by a school or law enforcement official (§ 653b,
subd. (b))
Here are two examples of CA loitering laws.
Apple Valley Chapter 11.54.030: “A sex offender is prohibited from loitering on or within five hundred feet (500’) of a public or private school for children, a center or facility that provides day care or children’s services, a video arcade, a playground, park, amusement center, library or museum.” http://www.applevalley.org/government/municipal-code/title-11-peace-morals-and-safety [visited on May 10, 2018].
Bellflower Municipal Code 9.40.020: “A registered sex offender shall be prohibited from loitering in or about any school or public place at or near which children attend or normally congregate. (Ord. 1187 § 1, 1/14/10; Ord. 1282 § 4, 9/8/14)” 9.40.030. “A registered sex offender shall be prohibited from becoming a permanent or temporary resident in any residential exclusion zone. (Ord. 1187 § 1, 1/14/10)” https://qcode.us/codes/bellflower/ [visited on April 13, 2018].
How and why is Fla getting away with this?
While residency restrictions exist for parolees, we were told by our son’s CDCR agent that it did not apply to those whose “victims” were over 18 at the time of the charge, based on the San Diego decision. Otherwise, our son would not be living with us based on our proximity to a park. Is anyone else hearing differently? We want to be prepared if this policy changes.
Now if we could eliminate the public registry so that vigilantes can’t hunt me down and possibly harm my family, I might be able to have a home again!