Sacramento County became the latest governmental entity Wednesday to be sued over an ordinance limiting the movements of registered sex offenders near parks and other public places, but the practical effect of the suit may be negligible. Full Article
Related posts
-
AL: Alabama defends law limiting where sex offenders can go
Source: courthousenews.com 8/1/25 An Alabama law restricting sex offenders’ movements is under legal scrutiny after a... -
WI: Convicted Sex Offender’s Appeal Prompts Ordinance Change
Source: doorcountypulse.com 8/7/25 Following an appeal from a convicted sex offender, the Village of Forestville is... -
LA: Sex offender’s offer of lollipops to children at school bus stop leads to new state law
Source: shreveportbossieradvocate.com 8/7/25 Sex offender’s offer of lollipops to children at school bus stop leads to...
This article says
“the practical effect of the suit is unclear because of earlier court rulings in Southern California that invalidated similar ordinances.”
Well, it’s pretty clear to me. We registrants have been expected to snap our fingers and tap dance as fast and often as they demanded, or face consequences; usually jail or prison. Now that the shoe is on the other foot and it’s they that must now snap their fingers and tap dance to our tune they are confused and complaining. I for one have been taking great pleasure watching Janice compel these fools to obey the law in a court of law. Thanks Janice; This is more music to my ears and You ROCK! ♫
Yes you ROCK!!!!
“With the potential of all or most of these ordinances being rescinded in light of the court’s ruling, the Legislature should pass appropriate laws that will complement Jessica’s Law and the intent of California voters and protect our children from easy access by sex offenders.”
Ummmmmm….the legislature already has…..ummmmm….has Ms. Scully ever heard of Chelsea’s Law????
Is there some sort of low I.Q. requirement to become a District Attorney or something???
This “article” is not journalism, it is pure commentary. In fact it’s outright propoganda. Shame on you, Sacramento Bee, for publishing this tripe.
The DA’s who hold on to these ordinances may be intelligent in the political sense, but more likely they have an overly developed sense organ for determining public opinion and a lack of wisdom. Basing policies on opinion, rather than evidence is like the proverbial building one’s house on sand. The building inspector comes by and tells them to take it down or face a fine. They would rather have the whole house fall down and pay the fine (hey, it’s not out of their pockets) than risk looking incompetent to their clients (also ignorant).