[UPDATE 2 with Hearing Date] Court of Appeals to Review Orange County Ordinance

UPDATE 2: This case is now calendared for Thursday, 9-26-13 at 1:00 p.m.


UPDATE: This case will be heard on Monday, July 22, 2013 at 1:00 pm in the 4th District Court of Appeal, Division 3, Santa Ana, California.

4th District Div 3, 601 W. Santa Ana Blvd., Santa Ana, California 92701, Clerk’s Office (714) 571-2600

The California Court of Appeals has decided to review the ordinance passed by Orange County which prohibits all registrants from entering county parks, beaches, harbors and other recreational areas.  The opening brief from the Office of the Public Defender is due January 17, 2013.   There is no date yet established for the court’s decision.

The Orange County ordinance was declared void and unenforceable because it is preempted by state law by a three-judge panel of the Superior Court on November 15.  Subsequent to the Superior Court decision, the Orange County Sheriff announced that the Sheriff’s Office would not enforce the county ordinance.

“If justice is to be served, the Court of Appeals will uphold the decision made by the three-judge panel of the Orange County Superior Court because the ordinance on its face violates both the state and federal constitutions,” stated Janice Bellucci, President, California RSOL.  “The ordinance also does not increase public safety because more than 90 percent of the individuals who sexually assault children are family members, teachers, coaches, and clergy, not registered sex offenders.”

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation reported in October 2012 that the recidivism rate for registered sex offenders is 1.9 percent.  That is, only 1.9 percent of those on the registry committed a second sex-related offense.

The Orange County ordinance was adopted by the Board of Supervisors in April 2011 after lobbying by District Attorney (DA) Tony Rackauckas.  The DA and county supervisor Supervisor Shawn Nelson have been credited with promoting the ordinance which took effect in May 2011.

After extensive lobbying by the DA and deputy DA Susan Schroeder, 16 cities passed similar ordinances that prohibit registrants from visiting public parks and other recreational areas.  One of those cities, Lake Forest, repealed its ordinance on December 18.

The City of Seal Beach and other cities in the county are reported to be considering whether to repeal the ordinances they have passed.  California RSOL sent letters on December 14, 2012, to mayors in the cities which have adopted similar ordinances.

Hugo Godinez, who is the first registrant arrested for violating the ordinance, is the defendant in the case under review by the Court of Appeals, District 4, Division 3.  Godinez entered a county park on May 5, 2011, in order to celebrate Cinco de Mayo with the company for which he worked.




Related posts

Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...


  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  4. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Use person-first language.
  5. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  6. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  7. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  8. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  9. 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 that are not personally identifiable.
  10. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  11. Please do not post in all Caps.
  12. 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. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  13. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  14. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  15. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  16. Please do not solicit funds
  17. No discussions about weapons
  18. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  19. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  20. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  21. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
  22. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
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.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

1.9% is the percentage of second offences by sex offenders and the second offence was a sex offense. RSOs with a second sexual offences as a percentage of all RSO’s is 1.3%. The 1.9% is only looking at the population of RSOs (within the study period) that had a second offense. The 1.3% includes all of the RSOs (within the study period), that never reoffended.

I have questions as it regards to this appeals court situation. I doubt the appears court will go against the three judge panel but if somehow the DA manages to pull a rabbit out of the hat on this one what happens next in the process?

Forgive my doubts, but anything centered around a registrant and RIGHTS seem to be the acception rather than the RULE… I pray to be wrong in this regard.

Well, I’m sure this law won’t (ordinance) won’t prevail. I’m just wondering why civil attorneys aren’t contacting sex offenders and filing civil suits in the city they reside? In summary, it’s a no brainier that these ordinances are unconstitutional and I would not drop the case until I received a pay out? Thereafter, I would donate the proceeds to RSOL and obtain a Certificate of Rehab or Pardon with the rest!

If all of these facilities and services are going to be denied RSOs then the state, county, or city imposing such restrictions should reimburse the affected RSOs for the percentage of any taxes collected from them for the purpose of building or maintaining such facilities. How can you charge someone a tax for building and maintaining a park then tell them they can’t use it? Give me my money back!

@USA and @TF – been wondering the same things…. how come no one, other than Godinez and the John Doe who challenged the four OC cities last fall (with Lake Forest repealing), has sued over this type of ordinance? Demanded to have their tax contribution refunded? Anyone? What is stopping you, @USA? You seem to have a plan. Afraid to get rich?

If not you, who? If not now, when?

Is there any way to find out what the cost of these court cases is to the taxpayer? Perhaps, if that information were available and widely published, public sentiment may sway slightly in favor of RSO’s. The times are changing ever so slowly, but steadily.
Thank you Janice and CARSOL for helping make those changes.

@ Robert Curtis…if the DA pulls a rabbit out, doubt it’s coming from his hat!

Is this normal to be so many delays for a law to become not a law? or is this because it is dealing with sex offenders?

Is it safe to assume that this will be appealed either way, and will take several months more to even be decided at this stage?

This has already dragged on forever, all the while denying citizens their rights of using public spaces funded by their tax dollars. And when the fat lady sings, the remaining OC Cities will just say, oooops, and strike the law. No harm no foul. Does that sound right?

Why is no one else suing other OC cities? Looks like the chances are as good as they are going to get. I certainly could be tempted to click that Paypal button for a specific law suit. But no plaintiff, no suit. Anyone?

Meanwhile, without this law in effect, hundreds or maybe even thousands of people have been assaulted in area parks by registered citizens….oh the humanity!!!! [SARCASM]

Well it is a day after that hearing. What happened?

10/01/2013 Order filed. The court invites the parties to submit supplemental briefing addressing each of the following issues: (1) Whether Codified Ordinances of the County of Orange section 3-18-3 (Section 3-18-3) includes a de facto or implicit registration requirement because it requires registered sex offenders to apply to the Orange County Sheriff for written permission to enter an Orange County Park? (2) If Section 3-18-3 includes a de facto or implicit registration requirement is the ordinance preempted by state law regulating sex offender registration? Appellant may file and serve an opening supplemental brief not later than October 11 2013. Respondent may file and serve a responding supplemental brief not later than October 23, 2013. No supplemental brief shall exceed 5, 000 words, including footnotes. The matter will be submitted on October 23, 2013, or the next court day following respondent’s submission of its supplemental brief, whichever is earlier.
10/02/2013 Request filed to: by aplt. for eot to file spb
10/03/2013 Request filed to: by The People for a ext of time to file letter brief, requesting time to be granted to 11/12/13

Tulare country have this law and RSO are REQUIRED to put a sign on their Front yard


Exactly @moderator…there is NO sign required there tulare…..as such would be struct down anyways … they can’t put people back into double jeopardy or further restrictions of fundamental rights ………no lame wannabe stalin ordinace will ever….Ever end the Constitution .

If you ask me these cities and their politicians are just grandstanding and they know that they are not really prepared to knock on law abiding citizens door and tell them where they can and can’t go with their families. It only works when they can place you on parole or probation then the correction professionals will enforce any law that the so call tough on crime crusaders can place on the books. I will always be of this mind set. After 21 years on and off parole I can tell you it is like night and day. Even the police understand the difference.

@uas……please update today the information you have on this.


I’ve been following the updates. I was supposed to get this emailed to me on the 14th. However, here are the updates from Nov 14:

Nov 14th: “Note: no letter brief filed by The AG’s Office was due 11/12/13.”

Nov 14th: “Submission order filed.”


Looks like Kammie dearest is throwing in the towel on this one and the judges are getting ready to make a decision soon. Hopefully, we’ll have a Christmas present with a bow on top soon!