CA RSOL Opposes AB 321

The California Reform Sex Offender Laws organization and the 102,000 families it represents oppose Assembly Bill (AB) 321 as currently written because it would further reduce the locations at which a “sex offender” can reside.  That is, the bill would preclude “sex offenders” from living near a day care center or a foster home.  Current state law precludes “sex offenders” on parole from living within 2,000 feet of a school or a park.  That law significantly limits where a “sex offender” and his/her family can live.  In fact, it completely eliminates residency in some major cities such as San Francisco and most locations within cities such as Los Angeles and San Diego.  

Laws like AB 321 are based upon misinformation.  The facts are (1) most children are sexually assaulted not by a “sex offender” but by a family member, teacher, coach or clergy and (2) less than 2 percent of “sex offenders” commit a second sex-related offense.  These statistics come from the CA Sex Offender Management Board report of September 2011 and CDCR report of October 2012.  

Please send letters to the bill’s author, Tim Donnelly, at P.O. Box 942849, Room 2002, Sacramento, CA 94249-0033 or call him at (916) 319-2033.  You can also communicate with Assemblyman Donnelly by E-mail by going to www.assembly.ca.gov.  Donnelly is a Republican who represents Victorville and adjacent cities.

Bill Info

Related posts

Subscribe
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
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. 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.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. 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.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email 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.  
 

19 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

What does this mean? Are they really trying to apply this to all RSOs even those who have completed parole/probation? It sounds like it, yet the supreme court already ruled on the law about the parks that it could only be applied to parolees, so what gives?

I am truly sick to death of all these changes in the laws being applied retroactively.
None of them are based on facts and so it is clearly *punishment* not ‘protecting the general public welfare’ which means this is blatant persecution.

So this is in addition to SB 386 by Senator Correa? WTheck?!!!!

My letter is in the mail. Thanks to a registrant who alerted me to this bill (he recieved an email) before it was posted on this website.

Wow, California sounds like its totally out of control with sex offenders laws and potential laws? Its truly surreal. The only thing we can watch on TV now is either shows with sex or violence, but yet people wonder how or why people break laws or get the ideas to break the laws? Furthermore, statistics in California are clearly showing that there is almost no recidivism in California, but yet politicians and city leaders continue to push for more stringent laws/policies? Its clearly evident that they must have a lot of time on their hands. Furthermore, the imploding of new or implied future laws should send a clear message to law makers in Sacramento that a tier system needs to move forward sooner than later. Not all sex offenders are serious or high risk? Furthermore, people need to be able to eventually fall off the registry after a certain amount of years. California, wake up!

Its the “Throw Everything on the wall and see what sticks” method… They’ll keep throwing and throwing over and over again

C’mon man..shake your head dummily ..your eyes are stuck..it doesn’t matter what
your name is..what matters is this…you’re wasting time and money
Again…this restriction can only apply to within probation/parole
..c’mon man..stop it …the stats and percentages are the people
who are forced to be on listing are at least 98 percent NOT
repeaters…just the facts dum ..stop lying and using fear…use the
truth and facts …people have proven you are WRONG…they are
NOT repeaters…they have proven you are massively WRONG.

Correct me if I’m wrong here but in reading that bill it seems like it says they want to make sure no rso’s are living IN a foster home or daycare center. I didn’t read anything about someone living near one?

Proposed bill is vague ..already been before court’s decision and
based on false accusations ..based on fear……….President Kennedy
said freedom rules by diversity …communists rule by coercion.

Please be careful in how this bill is challenged. There appears to be a lot of misinformation here.

For instance, there is NO mention of a residency restriction exclusion zone mentioned in AB 321. Let me post the verbatim text here:

From AB 321: )

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Section 290.48 is added to the Penal Code, to read:
290.48. (a) An employee of a law enforcement agency who receives
the registration of a sex offender or the update to a registration
pursuant to this chapter shall check the address given by the sex
offender and shall ensure that the address is not that of a place
where the sex offender is prohibited from staying or a place that
serves the needs of children, including, but not limited to, a day
care center or a foster home.
(b) If the address is one where the person is not permitted to
live, the employee of the law enforcement agency shall inform the
person registering.
(c) After receipt of notice required by subdivision (b) the person
shall have 60 days to find a new residence and to register that
address with the appropriate law enforcement agency.
SEC. 2. If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this
act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local
agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant
to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of
the Government Code.

I only see that the restriction is geared toward residency addresses that are the same as those holding child-centric businesses. In fact, if a registrant used an address that was next door, or in the next apartment, in which a separate street address is given, then the registrant has not violated AB 321.

Now, the law may be worthy of challenge. Just ensure that the letters sent to the particular lawmakers are targeted specifically with the intent of the bill.

Eric, you’re right. Does it mean that a registrant can’t live NEAR a place/home that services children or CAN’T LIVE at a place/home that services children? Hopefully someone will clarify.

Eric, your clarification wasn’t posted at the time I posted my reply.

Okay, so I assume that they wrote the bill so that it would require law enforcement to make sure the registrant’s address isn’t a home that services children ie: foster home or day care.

However, the bill does state “a place where prohibited” OR a place that serves children. It’s the “where prohibited” that might cause confusion and concern.

To me, it sounds like since the residential restrictions might not effect some registrants,(and might be found unconstitutional) they felt they needed this law to ensure that a registrant is not living in a home that may be a foster home, daycare or any home that provides services to children.

These days, I would suggest that no man lives in a home that provides outside children services, since it seems that all it would take is some unfounded accusation.

Perhaps they became aware of some registrant living in a home whereas a wife/girlfriend/family member was also running a daycare.

Are you certain? It may not have a listed punishment for the crime, but if they consider it (yet another) piece of tacked-on detail of ‘registration’ they could then say you’ve violated your registration? Which could land you in jail/prison for a short time, but then you’re stuck with years of probation/parole for years, gps, not allowed to live where you once did… I don’t know if this is the case, but it wouldn’t surprise me.

I suspect most of these ridiculous detail laws are just to trap RSOs into violating registration so they can boost the numbers to show recidivism, which will increase the stats to show they are a danger, and increase their power by ‘fighting it’.