City to alter sex offender restrictions

STOCKTON – Seemingly without a say in the matter, and with a lawsuit filed against Stockton, the City Council appears likely tonight to repeal an ordinance that restricts some movements of registered sex offenders in places frequented by children.

According to a staff report included in tonight’s meeting agenda, the city has no choice because recent court decisions have decreed that state law on the movement of registered sex offenders preempts local legislation. Full Article

Agenda: (p. 52)

July 29: Repeal Motion passes 6-1 (Mayor Anthony Silva opposing)

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

Hmmm…. “Stockton has embarked on an effort to amend the general plan to better reflect the city’s needs in light of the great recession.” I think that’s a great idea. I also think the state has done Stockton and many other cities a favor by ruling state law preempts local law regarding the movement of registered citizens; especially in light of the fact that the police have not issued one single citation in the last 12 months to anyone for violating the Stockton ordinance, which makes it seem like the ordinance restricting the movement of registered citizens is unnecessary and a waste of much needed time and thought better spent elsewhere.

I don’t agree with the statement that Stockton had no say in the matter. This issue could have been entirely avoided had the city counsel researched the facts surrounding registered citizens. Had this been don I don’t think the ordinance would have been approved in the first place. I also think the state needs to get rid of their residency restrictions because the fact’s don’t line up with the logic for having them in the first place. I found some information put out by the California Sex Offender management Board that sums thing up. The first one is the tiering report for 2014 and the second one is titled “Just The Fact’s.”

I think anyone that checks these short papers out might be surprised!

The council voted 6-1 in favor of repealing the ordinance. It didn’t take long for those entrusted with the running of the city government to make a decision essentially void of emotion. They clearly can see the courts ruling and the inability and sheer impracticality of a local government to deal with complex criminal justice issues without making a mockery of the constitution.

Well done Janice!