ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings: Nov 21, Dec 19 – Details / Recordings

Emotional Support Group Meetings 2020 (Phone only)

California

Los Alamitos amends sex offender law

LOS ALAMITOS – Looking to address potential legal issues surrounding sex-offender-related laws, the City Council on Monday night amended its code that bans registered sex offenders from public places. The local ordinance now narrows the definition of “sex offender” to those who specifically have been convicted of a sexual offence involving a minor.

“This will ensure that the restriction serves to protect the public from the specific threat of child predators, without unnecessarily burdening the rights of individuals who may not present that threat,” according to a staff report. Full Article

Join the discussion

  1. mike

    I have to wonder if they took into consideration that many offenses against minors are committed by minors. Maybe even high school sweetheart cases that involve nothing more than sexual petting. Last year there were three news articles I read where rapes were committed in parks in the Inland Empire. All three involved Teens. Of the eight arrests made six were minors. None were registrants.

    http://www.pe.com/local-news/riverside-county/moreno-valley/moreno-valley-headlines-index/20130130-moreno-valley-guilty-plea-in-11-year-old-s-rape.ece

    http://www.pe.com/local-news/local-news-headlines/20110511-rape-suspects-knew-it-was-wrong.ece

    http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2012/03/03/volunteer-police-interrupts-sex-assault-in-moreno-valley-park/

  2. Just a Citizen

    I’ll admit that this one has me puzzled… Los Al had suspended their ordinance following the Godinez decision last winter. Now they come back with this. I am not getting it. Last winter, a Superior Court decision found that all these ordinances were not congruent with the California State Constitution as they pre-empted state law, which cannot be. State Law says that PAROLEES, while on PAROLE for convictions against MINORS UNDER 14 may not enter public parks. State Law further allows cities to enact their own ordinances with regards to RESIDENCY, not a word about PRESENCE. This is what SB 386 (on this site – look it up) is all about. SB 386 is NOT YET passed.

    What on earth could have possessed the Los Al City Council to revisit this issue at this time and pass an ordinance that is, at this point in time – as of last December, ruled UNCONSTITUTIONAL? The ordinance, as passed yesterday, violates the California State Constitution.

    As my name indicates, I am not a registrant. I almost wish I were so I could get ahead of the pack and lodge a lawsuit ahead of everyone else. The LA CC just passed an ordinance that they KNOW violates the State Constitution. Ignorance or legal ambiguity not an excuse. While it is not over until the fat lady sings, IF the next round does not reverse the Godinez decision, or SB 386 does not pass, it seems easy pickings to get some fat settlement.

    • Janice Bellucci

      I agree with you completely. The revised ordinance is preempted by state law and violates the federal constitution.

  3. G4Change

    This move by the city of Los Alamitos is laughable at best. Simply not far enough in my opinion.

  4. USA

    I personally live in the general area of Los Alamitos. While not convicted of a child related offense, the ordinance still bothers me. My son plays baseball in Los Alamitos and the city literally upheld/suspended the ordinance days before baseball began? Had this not occurred, I don’t know what would have happened? I would love to sue Los Alamitos! The police department is arrogant, the council members are arrogant and it’s disturbing again to see a city ban sex offenders from parks, but yet they allow (2) massage parlors to openly operate that provide sexual services? Very disturbing!

  5. J

    Here is another misguided group of civic leaders that in their ignorance and practices have shown how small their view of the state’s governance is. Sometimes each city acts as though they are playing their own board game designed by the most influential people and the most influenced politicos. Persons convicted of crimes are processed via the State of California by way of Superior Courts of a respective county. I just had to say that for validation as is is certainly something we are all aware of. Any of these fiefdoms and their cronies can do whatever they want according to their rules but it is ultimately a game that taxpayers pay for and people who have moved beyond the obligations of their convictions should be free of. Again, nothing new to anyone who grasps the constitution and inherent rights afforded all American citizens, but just another inconvenient truth to those small minded people that believe everyone has such a narrow purview as them. The law still violates ex post facto protections in that it places restrictions on people whose crimes have been adjudicated in the proper jurisdictions. Perhaps when they pay some settlements to families of those whom these arcane ordinances impact, will they begin to understand when it is translated into a language they speak – the almighty dollar!

    • Janice Bellucci

      In order to file a lawsuit against the City of Los Alamitos, we need a plaintiff who currently lives there.

      • Joe

        Not an expert and not wanting to argue, but wondering if this is true… the plaintiff who sued the 4 Cities in Orange County cannot possibly be a resident in all four, but sued them all.

        It would seem that this ordinance affects any (CA) RSO with a conviction against a minor under 18 and provide needed grounds for a lawsuit.

        It is also noteworthy that this ordinance includes only 290 registrants (speak California only, and not out-of-state RSOs). The exact language is in the meeting agenda on the city web site. In other words, RSO tourists can enter Los Alamitos parks, but CA residents not.

  6. USA

    J is well spoken. I would literally have no problem suing Los ALamitos if they hadnt altered the law! None. Now, they offer an opportunity to obtain a pass, but that in a sense would substantiate that you respect their law and accept it! Los Alamitos is kind of a joke. Seriously. Its very political and I only see poor/dumpy cars being pulled over whenever Im driving in the area. As mentioned previously, there is current only a 1.3 percent recidivism rate among Sex Offenders? So, why are the cities passing harsher and harsher laws? Truly. We have cities banning people from living in certain areas, banning them from visiting parks, libraries and in certain cases public pools? We have cities banning people from visiting beaches? In essence, this is surreal. We have people who have been convicted of crimes 30 years ago being affected long after paying their debt to society? This is unheard of! We have murderers, drunk drivers who have killed innocent victims, gang members and wife beaters who have more rights! Oh, I almost forgot about drug dealers! So, if you killed someone, sell drugs or drive drunk, you can visit all of these places. Yet, some guy who received a misdemeanor conviction with informal probation (charge since dismissed) cant visit the beach! Its time these laws change and its time California gets with the program! If I were living in ANY other State, I would have been off the registry years ago!

  7. MCH

    Janice; the citizens of Los Alamitos have a greater chance of being accosted/molested by a police officer than by a RSO. Few people believe that police are really that dirty, I’m not one of those few, I know they are.

Leave a Reply

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 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.  
 

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

.