CYPRESS ORDINANCE CHALLENGED IN FEDERAL COURT

A registrant and his fiancée filed a lawsuit today in federal district court challenging the ordinance passed by the City of Cypress that prohibits most registrants from residing in the city as well as visiting public places such as parks, libraries and senior centers.  The ordinance was passed unanimously by the City Council on March 12, 2012.

“The ordinance passed by the City of Cypress is egregious in that it prevents the owners of single-family homes, apartment buildings and hotels from renting to most registrants even on a temporary basis,” stated Janice Bellucci, President of California Reform Sex Offender Laws.  “Violations of the ordinance can result in imprisonment of up to six months and a fine up to $1,000 for each day of violation.”

Since passage of the ordinance, the number of registrants residing in the City of Cypress whose profiles are posted on the state Megan’s Law website has decreased from about 40 to 16.  According to the plaintiffs, the decreased number of registrants is directly related to passage of the ordinance.

“The Cypress ordinance, similar to the ordinance passed by Orange County, is preempted by state law and cannot lawfully be enforced,” stated Bellucci.  She urged the City of Cypress to follow the example set by the City of Lake Forest which voluntarily repealed its ordinance after being sued.

A three-judge panel of the Orange County Superior Court decided in November 2012 that the Orange County ordinance violates the state constitution.  That decision has been appealed and a final decision is expected no later than June 2013.

Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of

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

 

  1. Submissions must be in English
  2. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  3. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  4. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  5. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Always use person-first language.
  6. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  7. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  8. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  9. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  10. 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.
  11. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  12. Please do not post in all Caps.
  13. 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.
  14. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  15. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  16. 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.
  17. Please do not solicit funds
  18. No discussions about weapons
  19. 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.
  20. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  21. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  22. 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.
  23. 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.  
 

15 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I thought there was a law that protected rso’s from being discriminated against in issues involving Housing, credit, employment and a few other areas.

Excellent …excellent …that city is soooooo far wrong…they can’t
see straight…city personnel are making wrong decisions that are
gonna cost plenty to taxpayers …….keep up the bad work cypress…
millions of dollars…millions is dollars.

All local media has been contacted, including TV channels 2 (shares with 9), 4, 5, 7, and 11 (shares with 13). In addition, talked to the OC Register reporter who handles the Cypress beat, as well as several different news/talk radio stations (KFI, KABC, KNX, KFWB).

I actually saw or recall reading about when Cypress instituted this law! Very disturbing. Cypress is very ignorant and its pretty obvious that instituting a ban on where people can live or visit is highly disturbing. Its time to send Cypress a clear message.

If any of you had read the Cypress ordinance, then you surely know that the reduction of 40 registrants to 16 speaks to the ordinance’s true intent… make the regulations so draconian that no one would want to live under those conditions so folks will move on and become someone else’s problem.

I concur with your comments. Here is the question I have. A Federal Lawsuit has been filed. Now, I have no doubt it will prevail with the city eventually changing the law/removing it. ALthough, here is my questions. I believe this law also entails civil litigation? In essence, even if they remove the law, the city can still be held liable? If so, I have no idea what they are thinking? Furthermore, can you sue a city (I live in a city right next to a city where I can no longer take my children to day camp because of this ordinance/or participate in sports due to the fact that my children partake in sports at the parks in this city)? If so, Please contact me Janice. Los Alamitos will be next!

Jeff – There are laws, but lets face it… it doesn’t help.. I remember when I went to college I got discriminated. called child molester to my face, rumors spreading everywhere… lets just say I wasn’t popular… then got my degree move to a profession.. then same stuff happened… then the layoffs… then job looking.. you got a crime under you belt, go ahead and tell us… tell them.. not hired…

Nine days later, the press finally reports this issue.

http://www.ocregister.com/news/city-409034-law-sex.html

I have a question about a possible civil rights violation.
I discovered that I have an alias on my registration page that I have never gone by.
No one has ever called me this name to my face and I would have had no knowledge of it if I were not an RSO. I contacted law enforcement here in SC
they informed me that they got this from the FBI so I called them.
They informed me that it came from GA back in 1988 when I was arrested on a possesion charge. Law officials had put this alias down on my arrest papers even though I had never went by that nickname or handle or what ever you want to call it.
This alias is Satan. I suspect that this was something the authorities were calling me behind my back. I did not think law enforcement could put a derogatory slur on someone like they did to me. This reminds me of a story I heard about on tv about a black man in colorado who was mistreated by the whites in that town and they called reffered to him as N****r Roy, They even called him that in the 911 transcript when he had called about an assault against him by a neigbor. Perhaps you can tell me if this is a civil rights violation please.

When an elected official votes for a law that he or she has been told is unconstitutional, and that official votes for it anyway, and the city is sued, and loses, and pays money, it seems that that official is wasting city (taxpayer) money. When an official wastes taxpayer money, and comes up for re-election, someone or some organization should pass that information to the official’s opponent to use against that official in the campaign. Perhaps it could also be brought to the attention of the voters as well. If this were done methodically, and officials were not re-electe, perhaps they would be more inclined to listen when they are told it is illegal to pass an ordinance, and waste money.

Well, lets see. Cypress is banning Sex Offenders from living in certain areas of the City, but yet The City of Cypress has more brothels/Massage Parlors offering sex than just about any other City in Orange County? Hmmm:
1) Natural Healing on Valley View 714) 397 1707 Sex
2) Smooth Day Spa on Valley View 714) 826 2650
3) Melody Spa on Ball blvd 714) 226 0388 (Total Brothel)
4) Cypress Spa Massage on Lincoln 714) 868 3114
5) Cypress Spa on Cerritos 714) 844 3909
6) Trinity Spa on Lincoln 714) 827 2303
Go onto a web site called backpage and search Cypress under massage or sensual massage? Or, go onto mpreviews and search Cypress! These are all well known brothels and ? So, lets see. They City wants all sex offenders banned form the city, but yet allows sex to be sold in their City?

Is there a way that court dates can be posted so we can attend proceedings? I’d be extremely interested in watching them, particularly the cases that involve the cities trying to defend their outrageous RSO restriction laws. Thanks!