ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (6/12 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings

Click here to sign up now for ACSOL’s Online EPIC Conference: Empowered People Inspiring Change Sept 17-18
Download a PDF of the schedule


California State Supreme Court to hear Jessica’s Law challenge

Today, more than two years after declining to rule on a law restricting where paroled sex offenders can live, the California Supreme Court agreed to again hear the case.

Passed by voters in November 2006, Jessica’s Law includes a provision that bars parolees who’ve committed a sexual offense from living within 2,000 feet of a school or park. A challenge over the residency restriction’s constitutionality and to whom the Jessica’s Law applies made its way up to the Supreme Court in 2010. The court declined to rule on the residency restriction portion of the law, instead asking local courts to conduct evidentiary hearings. Full Article

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 will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  • 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 do not solicit funds
  • If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  • All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  • Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues 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.  
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I’d say this is great news!!

Perhaps Janice and the other attorney attending the Jan. 19th meeting will be able to give their opinion or updates on this case. I will be praying long and hard that the CA Supreme Court will find that these residence restrictions are unconstitutional.

I know the news media likes to say things like that this applies only to parolees. Actually, that is false — and I’m surprised that falsehood was simply picked up from a news report and repeated here. Actually, that ballot measure applies the restriction to all registered sex offenders. In fact, extending that restriction to more than solely people on parole, which at least is considered a form a custody, was the real issue, not whether it can be applied to paroles. A separate state law already imposed that restriction on certain sex offenders on parole, and that law is not what is being challenged.

The measure was passed and did not contain specific verbiage of who it would apply to, typical of runner’s “shooting fish in a barrel” approach. It was subsequently ruled that it would apply to anyone that was incarcerated or on parole/probation at the time and anyone subsequently convicted or re-incarcerated at the state level providing the initial offense landed them in state prison (not jail), which avoided the double jeopardy clause – at lease in this instance. That is what I understand and I have heard nothing to the contrary.

This law restricted residency for more than just paroled sex offenders. I completed parole(without violations) and have been told by police I still have to abide by these restrictions or face prosecution. I was labeled low risk from the very start, so it’s not because of any high risk issues, I was told point blank by multiple police departments that they would arrest me if I register in a location that is in violation of these residency restrictions.

It is essential that you contact a lawyer or you will continue to be a victim. If you have been a victim of selective police targeting without legal authority sue the police department and the city. You will surely win!

My city told me the same thing.
I moved here right before a local law was enacted that is the same kind of prohibited from living within 2,000 ft of a school, park, etc. Luckily I moved in right before it took effect, but was told that if I decided to move it had to be beyond such distance. Despite that this flies in the face of state law, this town passed it anyway.

Our legal system that allows any jurisdiction or level of government to pass whatever law they want, even when ruled unconstitutional or illegal by a higher level is madness. It forces anyone to spend their time & money and risk prosecution, with all the life altering punishment that goes along with it, until hopefully winning in court (not a sure thing), if they are to have any of their rights.

Some country.

That is why huge punitive damages must be awarded in these cases against the cities. What they are doing is criminal. If a private company were to follow the example of the cities they would be sued for huge amounts of money. If Walmart refused entry to rso’s what do you think would happen. Cities need to be held accountable and responsible for what they are doing. That is why they have city attorneys. The only way to stop these is by huge payouts that hurt the city financially. other wise they will just keep passing these laws that they know are violating the rights of citizens. What if they decide not to collect the rso’s trash or to cut off his water?

What they are doing is criminal and they should be prosecuted and sued!!

You should get that in writing from the pd that told you that you would face prosecution and have them outline the specific points in the statute they would enforce and exactly how it applied in your case. They were probably just trying to intimidate you in order to simplify their jobs by deterring eligible ro’s from being in their jurisdiction.

This case is another opportunity for the California Supreme Court to rule on the constitutionality of residency restrictions. I only hope that they will take it and not delay for years as they have in People v. Moseley which is stalled in that court. There is such confusion in this state regarding enforcement of those restrictions that it is difficult if not impossible for a registrant to be a law-abiding citizen.

Yes, they want you to jump through hoops but they refuse to let you know where they are…furthermore, they keep moving them around changing their locations to make it impossible.

It is a sad time indeed when a legal American citizen has to hire an attorney to determine where they can live in the "land of the free"! Does that sound like the America that used to exist? I say used to simply because it still does (if the constitution was still honored in this country for all citizens but not for a select group.

I really am mad as hell and I am not going to take it anymore!

The CA Supreme Court’s website has a calendar and a list of upcoming cases to be heard. In re Taylor is not on the list yet because they just agreed to rehear it. It will be several months before it is heard (at least) because of the briefing schedule for both sides. It is possible to sign up electronically for updates on the case as it winds it way to hearing.

I was pulled over by a police officer. He asked for my information and I also gave him my registration paper (ur papers please) I FEEL LIKE IM IN Nazi GERMANY :0. My wife was with me in the car, he asked me to step out of the car, grabbed both of my hands and began to frisk me and called for back-up. I asked, am I under arrest he said “no, did you know you are a registered sex offender” I wanted to roll in the street laughing… I gave him my information…it would have been a disaster if I was with a client…what are these people trying to accomplish, it’s utterly pathetic..THIS MUST STOP… Janice you are amazing and I will continue to support our cause… my prayers and God’s blessings to all of you…

Yes, well, it is common knowledge that traffic stops are used as excuses to check for other offences such as outstanding warrants. Your criminal history came up when they ran your license and they questioned you to assure that the address you gave them (or what was on your license)as your current address matched the information on record. They are quite aware that you are aware of your status as a RSO. That was uncalled for but certainly not unexpected since you are dealing with a policeman who has an agenda.

As long as you were not hassled further I would say that was a very typical law enforcement encounter. Just to know, what was the reason you were pulled over?

@Pedro – Sorry to hear you went through this BS. I know it sucks but sometimes we have to put ourselves in the cop’s shoes. Polly Klaas might be alive today if a couple of cops had properly done their jobs when they pulled over that monster Richard Allen Davis. If you have kids you will understand this even more.

In the 18+ years since my release I have been pulled over and ticketed a few times, but thankfully, have not experienced any harassment. However, I am not convinced that my name was flagged when they ran my license or plates and I don’t think I ever got a ticket while on parole. Maybe that’s the link. I am usually so pissed at myself for the impending fine they think I am pissed at them, which I am, too. I am a very cautious driver anyway just for no other reason than I want everyone to make it home in one piece, especially me and my family.
Indeed, I am usually the guy who shouts “Slow Down!” at the a-holes with selfish disregard for others and whip down my street at 35 despite the speed bumps and posted 25 MPH limit.
No, the only time I was “harassed,” if you can even call it that, was coming back from China through customs at LAX. A scan of my passport caused a flag the agent was unfamiliar with so I was asked to stand in a corner while, I presume, they were making sure I wasn’t some wanted international criminal. A supervisor came over to me and said “Ok, the reason we had you wait is because, um, well, you know you have a record, right?”
In my mind I responded in the most sarcastic voice, “I do? Get the F out of here!”
But I just pleasantly nodded, “Mmm, hmm.”
He handed back my passport and thanked me fort my patience.
So, I guess I would not call this harassment at all, but in researching further travel abroad to work (and get the heck out of Amerika if I can) I have read numerous accounts of vicious treatment by the TSA and customs people when ex-pats return home. Doesn’t exactly make me look forward to future travel abroad, so maybe me and the fam will just go native when we find a nice place to live. 🙂

Is there any word on when they will hear the case ? I am watching it very closely and me and my entire family are praying it is found unconstitutional. And it will cause Orange County to realize there is no place for sex offenders to live … It is wrong and should be found unconstitutional because it definitely is !!!

Jessicas’ law was passed on the heels a very preventable tragady. The CDCR and DAPO could have took time to look at the VERI-Tracks of John Gardner and all sex offenders at the advent of Amber DuBois dissappearance and saw that he was not supposed to be in that area at all and began an investigation which would have lead to the disovery of that poor girls’ body and certainly prevented Chelsea Kings’ death by arresting that vicious animal. There are no CDCR or DAPO officals held responsible for their failure to protect the public. So what they did as a result of that preventable tragady was to impose impossible parole conditions on all sex offenders and made even more paroled law abiding sex offenders homeless and subject to arrests just to apease the public. They have equated all people who have been convicted of any sex offence to be another potential John Gardner. It works in their favor by justifying their jobs with a catch phrase of “Protecting the public”. Nothing could be further from the truth and they are throwing red herrings out there for the general public to chase while letting the pressure off the “KNOWN” predators like John Gardner and Philip Gerrado. They could have prevented that girls’ 18 year nightmare had they just once did what they were trained for. The parents were living an 18 year nightmare unnessisarily all because the DAPO sat on their hands violating 290s for the slightest reason.
Go after the CDCR and DAPO if you want any real changes.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x