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

ACSOLAction ItemsCalifornia

California State Senate Bill Would Allow Cities, Counties to Enact Park Bans [UPDATED with Reasons to Oppose]

[See UPDATE below]

State senator Lou Correa of Orange County introduced a bill on February 20 that would allow cities and counties to enact laws that ban registrants from public places such as parks, museums and libraries.  The bill, SB 386, was initially sent to the Senate Rules Committee and is expected to be referred to the Senate Public Safety Committee next week.
“The bill, if passed, could allow ordinances, such as the Orange County park ban, to continue,” stated Janice Bellucci, President of California Reform Sex Offender Laws.  “It must be stopped.”
There are currently more than 300 sex offender laws passed by cities and counties.  The laws are inconsistent and pose significant challenges to law-abiding registrants who wish to avoid penalties including fines up to $1,000 and jail up to six months or both.  For example, a registrant may lawfully visit a pier in one city, but not in another.
“Passage of this law would result in total chaos within the state of California,” stated Bellucci.  “Existing state law is sufficient to ensure public safety.”
Many of the existing city and county laws are based upon misinformation such as an alleged high recidivism rate.  The fact is that only 1.9 percent of registrants commit a second sex-related offense, according to a report from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation issued in October 2012.
“These laws also ignore the fact that most sexual assaults upon children are committed not by a registrant but by a person they already know such as a family member, teacher, coach or member of the clergy,” stated Bellucci.  
California RSOL recommends that registrants, family members and supporters call or write letters to their state senators stating their opposition to SB 386.  California RSOL will meet with state senators in Sacramento on March 12 to discuss the proposed bill.  Contact information regarding state senators is available online at

Bill Information (Language / History)

Update (3/10/2013)


  • Bill would allow cities and counties to pass presence restrictions that prohibit registered sex offenders from going to public parks, beaches, museums and libraries
    • Presence restrictions do not increase public safety
    • Presence restrictions violate the state and federal constitutions
    • Existing presence restrictions in cities and counties have created chaos
    • Current state law adequately safeguards public safety
  • Presence restrictions do not increase public safety
    • Children are sexually assaulted by family members, teachers, coaches and clergy in more than 90 percent of such assaults
    • Registered sex offenders commit a subsequent sex-related offense at a rate of only 1.9 percent
    • Many registered sex offenders have never harmed a child
    • Only 3 percent of sexual assaults occur in public places like parks; most occur in private places like homes, schools and churches
  • Presence restrictions violate state and federal constitutions
    • Denied access to public libraries violates 1st Amendment
    • Denied access to public parks, beaches, etc. violates 14th Amendment
    • Taxation without representation
    • Local law adopted after conviction constitutes ex post facto law
  • Presence restrictions already passed by cities and counties are inconsistent and do not provide registered sex offenders to be law abiding citizens
    • One city allows registrants to use dog park while another city does not
    • One county allows hiking on public trails while another county does not
  • Existing state law provides adequate safeguards against those who present current danger to society
    • CA Penal Code 3053.8 prohibits some registered sex offenders on parole from entering public parks
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

Wow! The old one sentence addition, an author.

all I can say is WTF..

I see the debate in the capitol already. You vote for our park ban, well vote for your tiered registry.

I guess Senator Correa does NOT RECOGNIZE that 290 registrants are TAXPAYERS AS WELL! Perhaps SUIING HIM would get his attention on the unconstitutionality of his proposed law!

You are correct. As tax paying American citizens with full constitutional rights we have every legal right to utilize public tax funded and run areas and facilities. Until we are stripped of our American citizenship laws like this are illegal.

Each one of us should sue each and every city that discriminates against RSO using their public tax funded resources.


Has anyone tried suing for monetary damages yet?

Chaos is an understatement. When web disclosure was first introduced, local jurisdictions were creating their own versions and that was reigned in by state law except in cases of offenders out of compliance or other high risk scenarios. At some point Parra introduced legislation that would allow apartment owners to evict registrants, even those that were supporting their own children. That was thankfully overridden. She apparently had not stopped to think that a registrant might by coming and going to work to support his children.
Now, again another piece of senseless legislation that was undoubtedly spurred on by the Crow-range county officials who see a desperate way out of the constitutional violations they have created already and a local representative unable to stand up to them and take time to explain his oath to uphold the constitution. I guess the message that hasn’t reached Correa’s reasoning center is that the innocent children of offenders will now have to shoulder yet another burden for his and others’ tyrannical political and ideological agendas. Correa needs to feel the total destruction these laws have wreaked on the innocent children and families of offenders -and take appropriate sensitivity training – but again chooses to stay at arms length from these vulnerable constituents while siding with the fear and hate mongers. Existing statutes are already designed to respond to the needs of victims and safeguards are already built into existing law, sentencing guidelines and post incarceration parole, probation, therapy and rehabilitative protocols and practices. Much work has been done by the legislature to create a workable framework – and that it should not be undone – has to be the underlying argument in addition to the enormous amount of time, money, confusion and court challenges an already financially beleaguered state faces as it already has realized that 83 is practically unmanageable both from financial and logistical perspectives. Add to that the question of whether these rogue jurisdictions and their statutes can trigger parole violations and/or third strikes when triggered and enforced. Lots to think of and pointing truth in the direction of level headed and constitutionally minded lawmakers is a good starting point with the underlying mantra of the destructive results these ordinances have on the children of offenders who have absolutely zero culpability and control over these ex-post-facto denials of many constitutional rights.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t this essentially the same thing that has been getting the local ordinances overturned as being unconstitutional?

Anon, the ordinances in OC (county’s model) were voided by an appellate panel’s decision because they are pre-empted by state law which only prohibits sex offender parolees from parks, so it is an issue with the state constitution. Separate from this, four cities in OC were sued in federal court on U.S. constitutional issues. If the plaintiffs are successful in winning their case, then even if this bill were to pass it would become void.

BUT… it is better to stop a bad law before it becomes law than to try and fight it in court after it has been codified… because often you lose in court. So please, tell all of your friends and family what Correa is trying to do and urge them to contact their state senator. This early on in the process, it is a good idea to look at which senators serve on the committee that is hearing the bill and if you have friends in that senator’s district, ask them to write, call and visit to express their opposition.

The legislature doesn’t even follow the recommendations of it’s own board of experts. Here is the California Sex Offender Management board’s response in 2010 to another “victim” inspired law, AB 1844:

Bottom line, California RSOL should align more closely with casomb to provide a unified voice of reason and fiscal responsibility.

I have an idea that would make most of this moot. We petition for and get passed a law that states that all language in law be validated as fact by proof of statistical evidence and unless provided, all subsequent laws based on unproven texts be stricken from the books.

For example, in penal code section 290.03 it reads:

290.03. (a) The Legislature finds and declares that a comprehensive
system of risk assessment, supervision, monitoring and containment
for registered sex offenders residing in California communities is
necessary to enhance public safety and reduce the risk of recidivism
posed by these offenders. The Legislature further affirms and
incorporates the following findings and declarations, previously
reflected in its enactment of “Megan’s Law”:
(1) Sex offenders pose a potentially high risk of committing
further sex offenses after release from incarceration or commitment,
and the protection of the public from reoffending by these offenders
is a paramount public interest.

So this new law would require the legislature to provide proof that statements like: “Sex offenders pose a potentially high risk of committing
further sex offenses after release from incarceration or commitment” be backed up with statistical proof.

From what I understand, there is proof to the converse provided by the very state agency changed with our “containment”; that only 1.9% of registered sex offenders reoffend. That does not sound like “potentially high risk”.

What do you think?

Would it be ok for us to use bits and pieces (many of them, lol!) in our own letters?

Most of the laws passed via local ordinance have failed in the courts. How is it that politicians think passing a law that is clearly in violation of the state and US Constitution will hold up? To me it’s just a grand standing move that will cost a great deal of money to defend. Excuse me but isn’t our state in a financial bind?

As I recall, the local laws were NOT overruled on Constitutional basis, but on the basis that state law preempted them. Now they are making it so state law does not preempt them.

When a local law is declared preempted by state law, the reason is it violates Article XI, Section 7 of the California constitution which has been interpreted in court to mean that “If otherwise valid local legislation conflicts with state law, it is preempted by such law and is void. A void law is unenforceable.

Thank you, Jeff! You have provided very practical advice for those ready to show up, stand up and speak up. It’s time to be heard everyone. We must stop SB 386!!

I doubt that they are hoping very hard that it will hold up to scrutiny. What they are hoping for is to (yet again) pass another badly conceived, prejudicial law that panders to the public’s irrational fear, and hope that it won’t be challenged, or that, once it is challenged and overturned (hopefully causing the people it abuses a great deal of money in the process), they’ll have reaped the reward of public adoration and can move on to the next bad law they wish to pass.

Until we change our legal system to force laws to pass an examination prior to enactment to determine if they are: constitutional, effective, and needed, instead of waiting until they are passed and forcing people to pay with their time, money and possible personal incarceration to challenge these laws in court, we will continue to see laws crafted as bigoted irrational attacks.

Yes…use information here that is common sense to you and
puts forth possibly your position on the issues or somehow
reflects your thought too…….this site to be able to read and
somehow understand the issues is through an angel and
her staff…thank you for helping give a voice to INJUSTICE.

Methinks thou misseth the point.
It matters not that the Constitution says thus-and-such.
The Constitution exists only to prove that laws are to be written and not spoken, I give you the Second Amendment as an example. Tom and Richard and Harold think the Second Amendment enfranchises private ownership and totage of firearms; the right to “keep and bear arms”…but it doesn’t. The Second Amendment exists to prove that firearms fall under the control of the see, there is something called the “Second Amendment” and vague as it is, if the Founding Fathers hadn’t wanted to control guns they wouldn’t have included a ‘Second Amendment’ in the first place.

So what does this have to do with those amongst us who are Registered Sex Offenders?
Realize that the U.S.A. is a battlefield. The country is awash with conflicting interests, each convinced that their respective agendas are deserving of the full faith and credit of the Government, and its unlimited access to money. Is the light dawning yet?
Megan’s Law was presented as a glaring extortion of States’ Rights; either the Legislatures pass something like Megan’s Law, or they lose substantial amounts of Federal law enforcement funding. Put a pistol to the head of your neighbor and he will willingly (not ‘gladly’) share with you his wife, daughter and the village butter as well. Extortion. Treason….

(But we must protect the children.)

So lets get into lockstep here and somehow divine the intent of the Sex Offender battle-front. All you guys and gals that are registered; LEAVE THE COUNTRY. It’s easy..simply move to Mexico where they are preoccupied with drug cartels and don’t have laws about folks like you. But God Help You if you touch a kid down there. They will extradite you back into Hell without a trial.
Better yet, kill yourself.
That’s what they really want.

Mass suicides like Jim Jones arranged. Jump off the Bridge. Eat hemlock. Suck on a pistol. Hang yourself in the closet. Wave a cap-pistol at a cop.

Massive suicides is what they need to vindicate themselves. Then the children will be safe and we can leave them at home with their uncles and priests while we go to work to pay our taxes that support our wise, benevolent legislators who only have our best interests at heart.

Thank you, Jeff, for preparing a sample letter that others can follow. We encourage everyone to send a letter to the state senator that represents them as elected officials listen most closely to their constituents. Why? Because constituents can vote for or against them. Let your voices be heard. We must defeat this bill!

Read the LA Times this morning, a coordinated attack? Remember the OCDA said all it takes is “one sentence” at the Lake Forrest meeting. The article is being used to sway misinformed people whipping up hysteria. The article is good as I would be watching for the mentioned people as well “AS” the considered good people with violent fantasies dropping off their comments. A lot of dangerous people out their (read the comments), that would fantasize violence against a non registrant also solely for being misinformed on another matter, you know stupid people needing something to distract for their own misgivings.

I already sent into the Times to complain about that story. What a horror that is! How unprofessional. Just FYI, here is what I sent in:

I’m writing to complain about the hyped up story run at the very top of Page 1 of today’s (Sunday) edition: “PAROLEES DITCHING THEIR GPS.” And all capital letters!

This is just a hyped up, twisted terrorization piece.

Not only is this way over played, it is mixing apples and oranges, and it is lacking details to justify the twisted analysis.

The headline screams SEX OFFENDERS disarming their GPS tracking devices. And the first words of the story are geared to terrify, saying, “Thousands of child molesters, rapists” are getting away with this. Gee, how dishonest a report — especially since later on you document only 122, and those might not even be linked to the GPS devices! You suggest they’re coming out of the woodwork to get us!

And it says they have little to lose, for parole violators now go to jail rather than prison — how is that little to lose?! And it says many jails are not holding them long because of overcrowding — nice and vague about that, especially considering deep down you mention San Bernardino keeps them their full term. And no comparison to other felons who violate parole, even if more dangerous. Why the singling out of sex offenders, as if to insinuate they singularly have found a loophole? No, they are being treated like other felons, and this report should be talking about all felons, not one specific type of offense as if they are getting special treatment.

Read it through. It keeps quoting statistics on sex offenders (SOs) violating parole, but the rest is merely INSINUATING that this is because they have disarmed their GPS unit. But no, those parole violations can be for ANYTHING, not simply disarming the GPS device. It can be for ANY violation of laws, or violations of terms of parole. Technically, it could be for jaywalking, but might more likely be for shoplifting (after all, if they can’t get a job, aren’t allowed to live anyplace and so are homeless, they won’t have any money, but still must eat). 

They also say in the story that voters in 2006 passed the measure requiring high risk SOs to wear GPS devices for life — as if this is why SOs on parole (which is not for life) have to register. But wait, the story is talking specifically about those on  parole — that 2006 measure applied GPS to ALL registered sex offender (SOR) felons convicted of the specified serious offenses it listed, not simply to those on parolee. In fact, another state law already required GPS monitoring of SOR felons on parolee. This means the writer doesn’t even have a clue what she is talking about! We’re mixing apples and oranges.

The story is giving the impression that a TON (thousands!) of dangerous SORs on parole are cutting off their GPS devices and preying on Californians. But it never says how many have done it, nor does it say how many are on parole!

It lists statistics for merely 7 counties, but lists ALL parole violations even if for shoplifting or maybe because they were a day late in doing their regular sex offender registration, not solely those for disarming a GPS device. Even at that, we are talking of only 122 people. (And I have to wonder if that is really 122 on parole, or 122 of ALL SORs required to wear a GPS device — mixing more apples and oranges.) How many millions of people live in this state, and we are screaming about 122? How many are on parole, as compared to the 122? How many of those 122 violated by disarming their GPS device, rather than, perhaps, shoplifting because they were starving, or being a day late with their registration? The story doesn’t give any idea, doesn’t back up the terror it spouts, it is all insinuation. They note a couple anecdotal bad examples — and insinuate that all of them have been doing what these two did. I doubt that, I’ll bet those are the only two who did such. 

This story is an insult to the readers, and shows how the Times has changed into just another rag. You should be ashamed.

Damn the statistics and facts! Politicians have an agenda they want passed and will do so at great expense to all taxpayers. All they have to say is this law protects the children and chances are it gets passed; never mind that the local municipalities get sued or the state gets sued, they’ve got plenty of taxpayer money to pay for that. After all, what’s the constitution got to do with this?

The problem with a lie is it takes multiple lies and expense to cover it up. Truth is the sex offender registry and everything tied to it is a lie and simply wrong. That being said, the preemption of state law for local municipalities is just one hole in this sinking ship (the sex offender registry). While the OCDA and others are spooning water out with more laws truth keeps poking more and more holes into it by virtue of the light of truth and people beginning to be educated and aware. It’s really not about saving children because in parks, libraries and at beaches children historical have not been in danger but in their homes and with those in their close circles they have been. Fear is the Orange County DA’s weapon of choice not fact. We can and will stand together against such fear.

A Lie Told a Thousand Times Becomes The Truth. That is what we are facing and that is rule number one in the playbook of bottom feeding politicians like Correa.

should you have any doubts in your mind about what is at stake here.

Nobody et al…
Your observations are quite correct and illustrate the reality of the situation, but do not point to a solution. We are all upset and afraid; the trend is more malevolent than encouraging even though current research is revealing that pedophiles may well be as hard-wired as homosexuals in their sexual orientation. (Beware of left-handed priests.)

The American Culture has declared all-out war on Registered (S)Ex Offenders. Get used to it and prepare yourself accordingly. It’s becoming sort of like trying to squeeze a balloon in that the darn thing keeps popping out somewhere else no matter how carefully you place your fingers, and the more hot air gets pumped into it the harder it is to squeeze.

For what it’s worth, IMHO (In My Humble Opinion), the root of this insanity has two branches. One is the sure knowledge that those of us who are over fifty came of age in a culture that celebrated liberal sexuality. Some of us ma well remember our early experiences with libido and having seen nothing particularly wrong with this at the time, carry this wisdom into our advancing age. When you’re twelve, having a six-year-old lover is unheard of. When you’re thirty, having a fifteen-year-old lover is a felony, but when you’re sixty and have a thirty-year-old wife you’re a national hero.

Go figure.

Seriously. If you are likely to be murdered by the system, leave the country. The heat will immediately dissipate and you will have a short time to breathe and regroup. It’s not worth your life to fight them and they have all the power, money, time and moreover The People on their side. We can’t fight them on their own terms. What was once a Federal law became a State law through extortion, but none dare call it that. What was a State law became a local ordinance so no matter what you do to comply you are wrong. Remember..they need someone to hate and you are IT no matter what.

Hang tough as long as you can, but don’t deny your option to simply leave the U.S. It’s only in the United States that this insanity prevails and you don’t have to go along with it, but you can only win by out-living them.

That’s how serious it is.

I can’t argue with your logic.

The problem with leaving the country is finding somewhere to go.
Most of the ‘western world’ will not allow someone to immigrate from the US if they have a felony of any kind, let along a sex offense. It can even be difficult for someone without any criminal past to immigrate to many countries unless they are wealthy or have job training in highly sought-after fields. Most countries that will consider someone with a conviction require a large sum of money as investment.

Perhaps, like the section for international travel, we could all share information we find on which countries look to be encouraging and discouraging possibilities.

I feel so wronged by this country it would not make me sad at all to leave it.

I have spent the last year and a half trying to get my fiancee into the country on a K-1 visa, and they have stalled and appear to be blocking it. I suspect they’d like to use the Adam Walsh Act against us, but are worried to use it, since I do not have any violent crimes, and it specifically states in the language that K-1 & K-2 visas will be denied for sponsors with violent offenses. So I have been discussing with my lawyer about suing the government. Moving to her country isn’t an attractive option, but the more things get worse- such as this proposed CA law, settling in the US isn’t looking very attractive either, so I am not sure that spending the money needed to sue the US government isn’t better spent moving us to another country- if we can find one.

Here’s an interesting though. What if someone tried to defect to another country based on human rights violations? It would be interesting to see how that played out. One country, it might have been England, refused to extradite someone to Minnesota because of the possibility of civil commitment. The court said it would violate their human rights.

I have thought the same thing. Yes it was England.

Yes, I’ve thought of that scenario too: seek political asylum in a country on the grounds of civil rights. I would think being constantly marginalized and subjected to new and frequent laws that are applied retroactively that infringe on civil rights would be good grounds.

The normal reply of ‘ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it’ kind of loses it’s moral high ground when it becomes ‘ignorance of laws that will be passed in the future’.

Laws are supposed to be contracts between a government and its people: don’t do this or this is what happens to you. Retroactively applied laws are a violation of human rights, and no fancy legal footwork of claiming these restrictions are ‘not punishment’ can take that away.

It is all in how you look at it…

Here – a sex criminal not allowed to set foot in a public park and shunned for the rest of his life.

There – very likely Prime Minister, for the umpteenth time.

Who – Il Cavaliere

@R.Curtis…yes their m/o is to spew deception..misrepresent
..spew false information on free…free citizens ….consider the
source orange crow-t y and now a puppet from oc ..that dude
North corea..I mean ..loucorea ..the people in northkorea have
no freedom……north corea ..I mean loucorea also wants people
to have NO freedom ….oc seems to not want to defend or supper
the Constitution for all Californians …therein lies their errors
of judgment ……….Hitlers m/o was the bigger the lie…the more
people will believe it……………….hello orange crow.


Well, the conclusion to all of this is that this bill would never stick. It would clearly be overturned in court, create more chaos then good and simply cost the tax payers money with regards to tying up the courts for both a baseless and truly prejudicial joke! In summary, this is simply a Senator trying to make a name for himself and trying to look good in for the media. Anyone with any intellectual capital would realize it just wouldnt stick. I might recommend for the senator to focus more on gangs, drug offenders and those who repeatedly violate they law as opposed to a class of individuals who have been found to violet or re violate with a 1.3 percent rate! Furthermore, the judges of OC have already spelled it out. These laws almost set up sex offenders to fail when there are a patch work number of laws established with one city and another. Its really sad that these so called law makers continue to focus upon the negative rather than the positive. Maybe they should focus upon getting those released from jail/prison back into the community so they can get jobs/start families or any treatment that they need to in order to be decent law abiding citizens! I would ignore the Senator and move forward. Its a joke of a bill. Lets focus upon getting this Tiered system instituted in Ca so people can start moving on with their lives!

Rather than the humiliation and kow-tow-ing the children and families would have to endure licking the boots of the Public Safety committee while testifying in front of the public, maybe some of these legislators would – without a photo op and press self-indulgence – visit privately and work with the children of ex offenders who have been devastated by these laws. Maybe the legislators could understand what family values are at that point. These children are victims also, ones that the legislature created implicitly by making these laws retroactive after sentences were completed, counseling was finished and supposed “debt to society” was paid in full. How about that for a lesson in family values?

Below is another sample letter regarding SB 386. Please feel free to use language in this letter, which will be mailed today (Feb. 25), in the letter you send to your state senator. Thanks!

Senator Loni Hancock, Chair
Senate Public Safety Committee
State Capitol – Room 2031
Sacramento, CA 95814

Dear Senator Hancock:

The purpose of this letter is to request that you and members of the Senate Public Safety Committee vote in opposition to SB 386, which was introduced by Senator Lou Correa on February 20. Senator Correa’s bill, if adopted, could result in ordinances which violate the state and/or federal constitutions. In addition, the bill would create chaos and make it impossible for more than 100,000 California residents to be law-abiding citizens.

First, the bill could result in ordinances that violate the state and/or federal constitutions. State and federal courts have recently determined that existing sex offender ordinances in Orange County and the City of Simi Valley violated the state and federal constitutions, respectively. Additional sex offender ordinances are currently being challenged in court and similar decisions can be expected.

Second, the bill would create chaos because it would allow every city and county in California to pass ordinances that prohibit all sex offenders from entering public places such as parks, museums and libraries as well as private places such as movie theaters, arcades and bowling alleys. Under the current language of SB 386, these ordinances could be applied to more than 100,000 sex offenders in California, many of whom have been convicted of or pled guilty to non-violent, non-contact offenses that do not involve a child.

Like existing sex offender ordinances in more than 300 cities and counties, future ordinances are likely to lack uniformity in their provisions. For example, one city’s ordinance currently allows sex offenders to walk on the pier in that city, but another city’s ordinance prohibits such activity. And in virtually all cities and counties where sex offender ordinances currently exist, there are no signs to notify sex offenders who may be visitors to those counties and/or cities of the ordinances. Despite this lack of notice, sex offenders can and have been fined up to $1,000 and jailed for up to six months.

Finally, the language in the existing state law (Penal Code Section 290.03), which this bill would amend, is not supported by recent data regarding the rate of re-offense of sex offenders or the actual perpetrators of sexual assaults against children. Sex offenders commit a second sex-related offense at a rate of only 1.9 percent, according to an October 2012 report of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. More than 90 percent of those who commit sexual assaults upon children are family members, teachers, coaches and clergy, according to a September 2011 report of the California Sex Offender Management Board. Excerpts of those reports are enclosed with this letter. If the Public Safety Committee is committed to amending Penal Code Section 290.03, we request that the Public Safety Committee revise that law to reflect this and other current data.

The California Reform Sex Offender Laws organization is a statewide non-profit organization dedicated to protecting the civil rights of sex offenders through education, legislation and litigation. A fact sheet regarding the organization is also enclosed with this letter. Additional information regarding the organization can be found online at

Thank you for your attention to this vital issue. If you or your staff should require additional information regarding this request, please contact me at (805) 896-7854.


Letter sent to both Correa and Hancock today.

When I went to the link you referenced above ( … it stated that any bill that was authored by that individual would be listed. I know Correa introduced it on 2/20/13 … however, it’s not listed on his home page that I could see. The only bill on the 20th is regarding manufacturing in California and below that is something else from the 19th?

Try looking it up at You can search by the bill number (SB 386) or by author. You can also do a keyword search, which I’ve been doing for years every Spring to see what crazy jump-through-the-hoop stuff they’ve dreamed up for former offenders to abide by this year.

If I recall correctly, when the Supreme Court ruled in 2002 about sex offender registries they left it open and said three things would have to happen to make registries UN-constitutional. They never stated what those three things were but I would imagine some of things surely are happening.

One would think so. It started out as being for law enforcement only, and only for the most dangerous offenders. It has morphed into something that anybody with a working brain cell can see as being added punishment. It would definitely be interesting to know what those three things are.

@Steve..the supreme court did draw the line…restrictions …booya!!
I’ve been saying ..I’ve been saying…broken record……..these restrictions
are proof…are proof…registries used for further punishment …
That’s against the law…the Constitution …civil rights …human rights…..their GREED to punish and discriminate
can really downfall the current registry list…they would have to start a new list to new crime from that day forward.

I might recommend using reverse psychology. Contact the senator and inform him your a sex offender and tell him you hope that this bill passes so a huge class action lawsuit can be filed or let him know that this bill will create more focus upon the unconstitutional laws in OC! I’ve personally spoken to the attorney who has filed the initial suit in OC! The laws in a variety of the cities will be overturned and none of the cities will prevail.

Might one suggest that you inform your senator that you are an “American Citizen (Resident), required to register under PC 290”?

Semantics, true. Small change, huge difference.

Correa has a long history of using RSOs for his political gain, so this should be no surprise to anyone. He, like so many other politicians, is simply doing what politicians do…finding an unliked minority and sensationalizing them to create a public hysteria to exploit for his political gain. Unfortunately, the media likes any sensationalization and jumps on board. What we need is to find a way to get the truth out in a way the public would actually pay attention, such as informing the general public of the 1.9 percent recidivism rate. Imagine the outcry when the public realizes they’ve been so utterly duped all these years by those who claimed a 60-70 percent rate to get laws like Jessica’s Law passed.

How about paid public service announcements? I don’t know how much that would cost, but it would be a way to reach a lot of people over television. If there is a website where all of the “true” facts are centralized, a link could be included on the announcement.

Unfortunately people do not want to know nor particularly care about the truth. If they did there would be no one attending church but just look at that. Facts have very little to do with the reality most people live in. Facts only get the way for most people. Why have to think of the complexities of nature and physics when it’s easier to read a book that tells you a big man in the sky made everything.

No, people are stupid tribal animals and most are very happy to be told how to think and what to think by some “leader”. Unfortunately most of the leaders throughout human history are rarely motivated by good intentions.

When 83 was introduced a Democratic legislator said it was “politics at its worst”. It passed by initiative because runner could probably not get the legislative body to do it.

You cited that correa has a history of advancing his “legacy” using these types of tactics. I’d like to know more specifics of this history and hopefully the press would too.

It might be good, though unlikely, if an investigative reporter actually had the stones to unearth the lies, fear mongering and mob rule tactics that has caused the evolution of these laws – especially those in Crow-range county – and most importantly the devastation these have had on the children of offenders.

I would like to see victims relief funds available to children of offenders who have been psychologically harmed as a result of the harassment and shunning at school and in the community. These children, again, are implicit victims of the legislators; especially when they were born after sentences were completed and ex-offenders were cleared to either re-unite with their families or start new ones. is her online
you can contact her there as well’

“When a local law is declared preempted by state law, the reason is it violates Article XI, Section 7 of the California constitution which has been interpreted in court to mean that “If otherwise valid local legislation conflicts with state law, it is preempted by such law and is void. A void law is unenforceable.”

And how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

What we’re facing is a ‘cowboy’ government that allows the Enforcers a free and heavy hand when it comes to the protection of citizens from abuse. The local policewoman will become Crusader Rabbit when assigned responsibility for the sex offender registry in her local jurisdiction and if you dare to question her self-assigned policies, you are hustled off to the pokey first and obliged to defend yourself later.
It’s a long distance from real-life as an RSO to some question of whether-or-not some local policy is constitutionally enfranchised. You see, they do it first under the rubric of “Protecting The Children”, then adjust later should there be consequences.
Meanwhile…”Think about how you destroyed your victim, you vicious felon…
You sure as hell can’t live in *this* community and you sure as hell don’t want to go to prison! We law-abiding compassionate citizens won’t have the likes of you anywhere near our precious little-ones and if you fight us we’ll imprison you where Bubba will have your heart on a stick for lunch.”
There are rules and regulations, but there is no Law anymore.

This just defies all logic. So by making a misdemeanor law it will stop someone from committing a felony? If someone is hell bent on abducting a child, raping and killing them there is not a law that can be written that will stop it. It’s like putting a piece of foam on the tip of a bullet and saying it will stop the bullet! It seems that to a politician the answer to everything is to make a new law. It’s against the law to kill people yet people are still killing people. There are drugs that are illegal yet people still do drugs. It’s all about their political agenda and getting votes.

If this law passes, then could the Cali courts strike it down on the same principles as the decision in New Jersey that struck residency restrictions on the basis of the state’s Megan’s law pre-empting city ordinances?

New Jersey’s state court in GH v Township of Galloway (2009) [56] ruled they “hold that Cherry Hill Township’s and Galloway Township’s ordinances, establishing residency restrictions that formed buffer zones for convicted sex offenders living within their communities, are precluded by the present, stark language of Megan’s Law. It is that language which controls.” In other words, local ordinances were pre-empted by the state’s Megan’s Law, which had no residency law provisions, which upheld the lower court decision of preemption. The lower court had not considered the constitutional issues raised by the trial courts because of their ruling on the preemption clause [57].

Pennsylvania’s decision in Fross et al. v. County of Allegheny (2010) [58] made a similar preemptive clause ruling to the ruling in New Jersey. In striking Allegheny County’s 2500 foot ordinance, the courts stated “the ordinance appears to attempt to ensure public safety, in certain parts of Allegheny County, by isolating all Megan’s Law registrants in localized penal colonies of sorts, without any consideration of the General Assembly’s policies of rehabilitation and reintegration… The County’s legislative effort in this instance undermines the General Assembly’s policies of rehabilitation, reintegration, and diversion from prison of appropriate offenders, and significantly interferes with the operation of the Sentencing and Parole Codes. For these reasons, we agree with the federal district court that the County’s Ordinance stands as an obstacle to accomplishing the full purposes objectives of the General Assembly and is, therefore, preempted.”

Frank Lindsay and I will meet on March 12 with members of the Senate Public Safety Committee and/or their senior staff to discuss SB 386 and why it would not increase public safety as well as violate the state and/or federal constitutions. We thank you in advance for letters sent and phone calls already made and will have a report for you on March 13 regarding those meetings.

how did this turned out ?

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x