Parolee Limited by GPS and Residency Can Sue California

California must face claims that it violated the civil rights of a convicted sex offender by conditioning parole on a residency restriction and GPS monitoring, the 9th Circuit ruled.

____ ____ faced these parole restrictions even though his convictions in California were not sex-related. ____ was convicted of California in 2006 for buying or receiving stolen property, and later for robbery. Both times the Golden State imposed residency and GPS monitoring restrictions as conditions of ____ ‘s parole release from prison because of ____ ‘s 1987 guilty plea in Tennessee to sexual battery. Full Article and Decision

Related posts

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.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Looks like this court has a potential equal protection problem on its hands.

My life was a living hell because of GPS and residency restrictions. 5 years of that is finally over.

Interesting. Also would seem this decision would have to turn on this being punishment.

I don’t want to go read the unbelievably voluminous statutes of 290, but if the previous sexual battery conviction would come under the Calif. residency restrictions, I believe he would be subject to residency restrictions whether they were stated as parole conditions or not. If his sexual battery conviction would not get him that restriction, then I don’t see how the state could even consider adding it as a parole condition.

But regardless, this decision could very possibly have to address the punishment aspect of residency restrictions — and that would apply to all kinds of other cases, including applying it retroactively. Still, any finality on this will be a long time coming, as this case is simply remanding it back to the district court. After that, it can be appealed up the ranks, even all the way to SCOTUS.

In 2012, a California appeals court prohibited “blanket enforcement” of the residency restriction, but it found that the state’s Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation could impose the condition on a parolee after considering his individual circumstance
I often misinterpret things. Am I understanding correctly? This seems to say that parole can choose to impose living restrictions on a case by case basis. Does this mean parole can choose not to impose living restrictions and an offender can live where he pleases?

Thanks for clearing that up (:

@ Anonymous

You said that you were on Parole originally for 3 years, then 2 years were added to your term. Did your agent give you a valid reason why? When did they tell you that you were required to do 2 more? You said you had “no legal justification”. THAT IS INAPPROPRIATE AND UNFAIR! When I was released from women’s prison, my paperwork said and STILL says 3 years. I’m terrified that they will add 2 years to an already grueling 3 years.

Does anyone know or have a similar situation?

I’ve been sober for almost 20 months, I have a job, a home and family that loves me. I will officially have been on parole for 1 year as of the 13th of September. WOOHOO! May 2013 was the last time I heard from my extremely compassionate agent. I know I am low on his priorities list and am living one day at time sober AND on parole.

We are not bad people, we are sick. I needed AA, which saved my life. I am NOT the same person I was when I committed my crime. No matter what happens, I know I will be ok, but to see some light through the trees regarding the length of my parole will be helpful and hopeful. 🙂

God Bless!

@ JB

Thank you for all the kind words and your own personal inspiration. It’s because of tools like the website and people like you, that make me feel not alone in the lifetime problem. It is hard, but you are SO right. If I focus on the solution and less on the problem, I see how life is so much easier.

I actually like and LOVE myself too! I am very grateful to you. Thank you!

I agree 1,000,000.00% with both of you. I would type in my stories of the last 6 months that I have been wearing this crap, but its pretty much the same. Can either of you help me with legal help or a lawyer with monthly pay. I have court issues, (again) I was detained at the slurpee machine at 7/11. (still do not know why) Anyway my gps friend on my ankle gave permission to LAPD to search my house that is 4 blocks away. Well in a roomates bedroom LAPD found a meth pipe. So I got arrested and currently out on bail. Going to trial and pleading not guilty. If I am found guilty I face 32 months back to prison for a meth pipe that is not mine. What rally is f***ed up is I requested to be drug screened. I did get that request fulfilled, 3 weeks later. Like that would really help me out three weeks later.