Wasco Ordinance Challenged in Federal District Court [updated with media links]

The City of Wasco was sued today in federal district court challenging its sex offender ordinance. This lawsuit is the eighth in a series of lawsuits filed during an 8-week period.

“Despite a series of letter warnings starting on January 20, the City of Wasco has failed to repeal its sex offender ordinance which violates both the state and federal constitutions,” stated CA RSOL President Janice Bellucci. “The Wasco ordinance denies the constitutionally protected right to public information through its prohibition of visiting the city’s public library. In addition, the ordinance prohibits registered citizens from visiting schools, bus stops and commercial establishments that have playgrounds.”

The first lawsuit in this series was filed on March 24 against the City of Pomona. Subsequent lawsuits have been filed against South Lake Tahoe (March 31), National City (April 8), Lompoc (April 21), Sacramento County (April 30) and Santa Ana (May 7).

“The California Court of Appeal has determined that ordinances which prohibit the presence of registered citizens in public and private places are preempted by state law,” stated CA RSOL Board Member Chance Oberstein. “Those decisions were upheld on April 23 when the California Supreme Court denied review.”



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

Why doesn’t the City of Wasco obey the law? They sure get upset if the average person fails to.

have any of those cities filed a reply to the lawsuit?

I don’t get it; cities through the state decided to pass presence restrictions throughout the state, based on much rhetoric that has been proven to be not honest or reasonable, and probably one or two incidents. If a registrant violated these presence restrictions the consequences were not even handed and usually disproportionate to the infraction. We were expected to follow these restrictions to the letter. Now that these presence restriction ordinances have been ruled illegal by the state supreme court these people in these cities are acting as though the law doesn’t apply to them. What’s wrong with these people? Should they even be in positions of trust? Especially after displaying their total disrespect for the rule of law? I wish I could peer into their malfunctioning little minds to see what’s gone wrong in there.

I know we are the California RSOL but because the laws are unconstitutional at both the State and federal level. How does filing in a federal court have to do with state court’s rulings. About the federal court filings… can’t we since it is in federal court file against a violation that is taking place in another state as violating the federal constitution? I.E. San Antonio TX. with their parks ban.

A sheriff in Florida I believe filed against a citizen of Arizona for sending a signed copy of a book to him in the mail. The guy had to go to Florida to be arrested, tried and convicted. Why can’t these ordinances be filed against across state lines? Janice or Chance. Please help!

Why does it seem that “Elmer Fudd” is the name of the mayor?

“Shhhh! I’m hunting for Wasco-ly Wegistrants!”