A sex offender ordinance adopted by National City, a city in San Diego County, is the subject of a lawsuit filed on April 4 in federal district court on behalf of a registered sex offender (“registered citizen”). This is the third lawsuit challenging a city’s presence restrictions. The first lawsuit was filed on March 24 against the City of Pomona and the second lawsuit on March 31 against the City of South Lake Tahoe.

The National City ordinance includes restrictions regarding where more than 105,000 individuals can reside or be present. Specifically, the ordinance prohibits registered citizens from residing or being present within 300 feet of a wide range of locations including schools, parks, playgrounds, arcades and amusement centers. A registered citizen who violates the ordinance is subject to incarceration for a period of up to one year and/or a fine of up to $1,000 for each day of violation.

“The sex offender ordinance adopted by National City violates both the federal and state constitutions,” stated CA RSOL President and attorney Janice Bellucci.

The National City ordinance is based upon two myths: (1) that registered citizens have a high rate of re-offense and (2) that strangers commit most sexual assaults. The true rates of re-offense, according to state and federal government reports, are 1.8 percent for registrants on parole and 5.3 percent for registrants overall. More than 90 percent of sexual assaults upon children are committed not by strangers but by family members and others known by the children such as teachers, coaches, and clergy.

“The presence restrictions within the National City ordinance are inconsistent with recent decisions of the California Court of Appeal which invalidated two ordinances – one in the City of Irvine and the other in Orange County – as being preempted by state law,” stated CA RSOL board member and attorney Chance Oberstein. “The court held that the state statutory scheme imposing restrictions on a sex offender’s daily life fully occupied the field.”

California RSOL sent a letter to National City and more than 70 additional cities within California on January 20 notifying them of the recent Court of Appeal decisions and that the sex offender ordinances the cities had adopted were inconsistent with those decisions. California RSOL requested in those letters that the cities repeal their ordinances within 60 days or face a legal challenge.
Subsequent to issuance of the California RSOL letter, the cities of Costa Mesa and El Centro repealed their sex offender ordinances. Several additional cities, including Anaheim, Grand Terrace, and South Pasadena have agreed in writing not enforce their sex offender ordinances pending a decision from the California Supreme Court whether to grant review of the California Court of Appeal decisions.

“Future legal challenges by registered sex offenders can be expected of cities that have failed to either repeal their sex offender ordinances or agree in writing to stay enforcement of those ordinances,” stated Bellucci.

Related posts

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 and a**
  4. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Use person-first language.
  5. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  6. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  7. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  8. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  9. 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.
  10. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  11. Please do not post in all Caps.
  12. 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.
  13. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  14. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  15. 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.
  16. Please do not solicit funds
  17. 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 please expand it for new people to better understand.
  18. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  19. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  20. 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.
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

Once again, thank you, Janice and all who are involved!

I’ve passed through this city several times. Didn’t know that if I stopped at a park to go to the bathroom, I could be arrested. Thank you for challenging their indecent law.

Many thanks to Frank Lindsay who agreed to serve as plaintiff in these cases! Frank showed up, stood up and spoke up in a very public manner. Without him, these cases could not be filed. We all owe him a large debt of gratitude.

This kind of blatant disregard for constitutional law will only be changed with consistency and repetition. I am glad to see so many challenges to these issues. You have my thanks.

Frank Lindsay – respect & thanks!

Hopefully, in years to come, this will be known as “The Bellucci Strategem.” Brilliant idea to have simultaneous cases in all four California jurisdictions!

I can’t wait until the Northern District gets the case for one of its lucky cities in its jurisdiction to complete the parlay.

Any other cities getting nervous about getting the lawsuits paperwork?

Although Lake County was a previous violator of constitutional laws, they are now very afraid to do anything that may get them sued. Our Sheriff is on the “Brady List” (the only Sheriff in the U.S. to be placed on the Brady list and not resign). Our poor County spends a large part of the budget on constant litigation (mostly caused by the Sheriff since he can’t be fired and refuses to quit).

Thank you Frank and Janice. I can’t begin to tell you how much that means to everyone affected by this.

San Diego Union-Tribune chimes in. They have comments as well!

More favorable Union-Tribune editorial.

Relatively favorable editorial in the Union Tribune regarding the National City lawsuit.