CITY OF REDLANDS REPEALS SEX OFFENDER ORDINANCE

On April 1, 2014, The City of Redlands, California, repealed a 2011 ordinance prohibiting persons required to register pursuant to Penal Code section 290 from entering city parks without prior written permission by the City of Redlands Police Department.

The City rescinded Chapter 9.14 of the Redlands Municipal Code in its entirety by way of 4-1 vote of its five-member city council.

The ordinance was repealed as a result of a California Court of Appeals decision on January 10, 2014 in People v. Nguyen 222 Cal. App. 4th 1168 (2014). The court held that an ordinance enacted by the City of Irvine making it a misdemeanor for a Penal Code section 290 registrant to enter a city park without prior written authorization by the Sheriff of Orange County is preempted by state law.

“[W]e conclude the state statutory scheme imposing restrictions on a sex offender’s daily life fully occupies the field and therefore preempts the city’s efforts to restrict sex offenders from visiting city parks and recreational facilities” the court had said in its decision.

On April 8, 2014, California Reform Sex Offender Laws sent a letter to Mayor Pete Aguilar of Redlands, reminding him of cities currently facing litigation which had failed to respond to the organization’s requests to repeal or stop enforcement in letters sent to 71 municipalities across the state.

“Cities that have not agreed to repeal or stop enforcement of their sex offender [laws] have been sued in federal district court,” the letter explains. “Additional lawsuits can be expected.”

To date, the Law Offices of Janice M. Bellucci has filed suit against Pomona (U.S. Central District), South Lake Tahoe (U.S. Eastern District), National City (U.S. Southern District), and the City of Carson (U.S. Central District). 

However, by the time Mayor Aguilar had received the most recent warning from Attorney Bellucci, the city had already taken the necessary action to avoid a lawsuit.

As a result of Redlands decision to repeal its ordinance, registered citizens may now lawfully enter and enjoy Redland’s city parks free from fear of arrest and conviction, provided that they are not otherwise restricted as a condition of probation or parole.

For the full text of the repeal of Redland’s ordinance, please see below:

###

ORDINANCE NO. 2806

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF REDLANDS REPEALING CHAPTER 9.14 OF THE REDLANDS MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO CITY PARKS AND CHILD SAFETY ZONES

            WHEREAS, on December 20, 2011, the City Council of the City of Redlands adopted Ordinance No. 2766 to add Chapter 9.14 (City Parks and Child Safety Zones) to the Redlands Municipal Code to prohibit registered sex offenders, pursuant to Section 290 of the California Penal Code, from entering certain designated City parks; and

            WHEREAS, on January 10, 2014, the Fourth Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal, in People v. Nguyen, 222 Cal. App. 4th 1168 (2014), held that a local ordinance making it a misdemeanor for registered sex offenders to enter a park where children regularly gather without permission from law enforcement is preempted by state law; and

            WHEREAS, Chapter 9.14 of the Redlands Municipal Code, which prohibits registered sex offenders from entering parks within the City of Redlands without permission from the City’s Police Department, is now most likely preempted by state law;

            THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDLANDS DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

            Section 1.  Chapter 9.14 of the Redlands Municipal Code, entitled “CityParks and Child Safety Zones,” is hereby deleted in its entirety.

            Section 2.  If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase or word of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction or preempted by state legislation, such decision or legislation shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council of the City of Redlands hereby declares that it would have passed this ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase or word not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to any such decision or preemptive legislation.

            Section 3.  The Mayor shall sign this ordinance and the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and cause it, or a summary of it, to be published once in the Redlands Daily Facts, a newspaper of general circulation within the City, and thereafter, this ordinance shall take effect in accordance with law.

                                               

________________________

                                                                                    Pete Aguilar, Mayor

ATTEST:

_________________________

Sam Irwin, City Clerk

I, Sam Irwin, City Clerk of the City of Redlands, hereby certify that the foregoing ordinance was duly adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 1st day of April, 2014 by the following vote:

AYES:         Councilmembers Harrison, Foster, Gardner, Gilbreath; Mayor Aguilar

NOES:         None

ABSTAIN:  None

ABSENT:    None

                                                                                    _________________________

                                                                                    Sam Irwin, City Clerk

Related posts

Subscribe
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.  
 

7 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

The City of Redlands was wise in its decision to repeal its sex offender ordinance which violated both the state and federal constitutions. Due to its wise decision, the City will not be sued. We continue to hope that other cities will also make wise decisions.

Great job Janice. Keep the nice work up….

Janice and all: thank you again for being guardians of liberty for ALL!

Thank’s again Janice. I see you’ve made it to San Bernardino County where I live. This good progress.

Good job!
Here’s a letter from redlands city attorney asking to change their law because of the lawsuit.

http://ci.redlands.ca.us/clerk/2014staffreports/140318L10-attA.pdf

Thank you Janice. Job well done and know that you are truly a powerful voice for equality for all people.