Stockton Sex Offender Ordinance Challenged in Federal Court

The City of Stockton’s sex offender ordinance was challenged today in federal district court.  The ordinance prohibits all registered citizens from loitering in or within 300 feet of public parks, libraries, and swimming pools as well as privately owned video arcades and recreational areas.

“This is the tenth ordinance to be challenged in ten weeks,” stated CA RSOL president Janice Bellucci.  “It is our hope that all cities and counties that have similar ordinances will soon choose to repeal their ordinances which violate both the state and federal constitutions.”

The first lawsuit in the series of ten lawsuits filed which challenge city or county ordinances was a challenge against the City of Pomona (March 24).  The next eights lawsuits to be filed challenged ordinances adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe (March 31), National City (April 4), Carson (April 11), Lompoc (April 21), Sacramento County (April 30), Santa Ana (May 7), Wasco (May 16), and Ontario (May 21).

Settlement negotiations, which include repeal of the challenged ordinance and attorneys fees, have begun with three of the ten cities against whom lawsuits have been filed.  In addition, more than 20 cities including Anaheim, Tustin, El Centro, Porterville, and Claremont have repealed or agreed to repeal their sex offender ordinances without being sued.

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. No discussions about weapons
  18. 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.
  19. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  20. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  21. 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.
  22. 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

I can’t believe there are still more cities to sue! Are they THAT stupid as to not back own by now?
I hope Janice et al are able to rack up tons of attorney fees for ALL of their hard work in ths fight! This isn’t about the money, but in the America I support, hard work and diligence = reward!
Thank you Janice and everyone for keeping the fire burning!

Never underestimate the power of stupid. These moronic laws violate the rights of the registrant’s child and their right to have their first line of safety (their parents) with them in parks and other public places. Children often get hurt in parks but rarely to never do registrants act out in parks. Where is the real risk? Oh, but because it’s the registrant’s child put at risk that is somehow okay. Really?

What is the legality of the “Halloween laws” that some citys have for rso’s?

What does Stockton mean by “loitering”? Orange has a similar ordinance, but if you have legitimate business in the parks, even if its just sitting in your car in the shade reading a book, they don’t seem to care.

The loitering law should apply equally to anyone regardless of any previous contact with the criminal justice system if they are to be effective.

These laws are unconstitutional because they presume guilt when a specific crime has not occurred; only the belief that a crime may occur. Similar to what Bobby Kennedy spoke about in one of his trips to the central valley way back when as he suggested to the county sheriff that reading the constitution on the lunch break would be a very worthwhile expenditure of time…

If they claim they do not presume guilt, then they are applying ex post facto punishment.

Either way, they are fundamentally unconstitutional.

San Diego county has a similar loitering law. I don’t know what is its purpose. Another way to scare you away from using public space, I guess. To paraphrase the legal dictionaries it means hanging around a place with the intent to commit a crime. Like the equally vague annoying a child ordinances, its purpose seems to be to make it easier to get the registered citizen into jail without having proof of wrongdoing. Why? Your guess is as good as mine. A criminal with any intent to commit a crime in a public space is not going to stand around obviously looking like they are going to commit a crime. Savvy?

The restrictions within the registry (add on laws) are by design meant to intimidate and to push registrants either to violate thereby being re-incarcerated or forced to hide in obscurity. As a parent it is not humanly possible to be completely (by the letter of the law) compliant at all times and still be an involved parent. So, what is done as a parent? Well as per design we cow-down quietly to every situation in fear that their child might not be singled out because of their status.

Fear and terrorism are alive and well here in the land of the FREE and home of the brave. Laws are forms of pressure: Laws=pressure to keep the herd going in a certain direction. If a cow is outside of the herd laws are used to either incarcerate him, fine him or kill and Bar-BQ him to keep the criminal injustice system fed and growing. The media feeds fear to the people to keep them controlled and uninformed even religious leaders feed into it as does our educational system. Just a few observations to think about.

Sometimes it takes the fish getting out of the water to see that water exist or you can’t see the trees until you are out of the forest. Simon Black is a guy that lives as a world traveler and educator. We would do well to listen to his out of the box views. The sex offender registry is one of several mechanisms of control that has the whole USA tied down. I get his e-letter updates, they are enlightening:

Here’s my vlog in ASL on what’s going on with CA RSOL park lawsuit

if you have other deaf people pass it on