An ordinance limiting where convicted sex offenders can reside in Riverside County will stay on the books, but local restrictions on where they can hang out will no longer remain in force, following a 5-0 vote this week by the Board of Supervisors. Full Article
Restrictions on Where Sex Offenders Can Reside Countywide Preserved
- ·July 31, 2014
- ·8 Comments
This law is a violation of not just constitutional law but of spiritual law and natural law. Even a mother bear can be with her cups but it’s not allowed for a registrant to be in a park with their child as their child’s first line of protection? Accidents happen all the time in parks. Kids fall from trees, choke on hot-dogs and do things without thinking (they’re kids for Pete sake!). Are you sure it’s wise to disallow any parent the fundamental right of being with their child in public places? REALLY? Who is liable if a registrant’s child… Read more »
Robert, you hit upon a fundamental problem — in common law, a special relationship exists between a parent and a child. If a child is significantly hurt, or commits a tort against another child, for which the parent is ultimately responsible for, it is possible for their parent to be found liable of neglect. Anytime negligence arises, you have to answer the questions of duty and foreseeability — in a special relationship, duty is presumed; so was the harm that resulted from the breach foreseeable? If it was foreseeable that so-and-so child would be harmed as a result of their… Read more »
So…do the residency restrictions apply only to those on parole or probation, or all 290 registrants? Why can’t we get a solid answer on this?
The issue of whether residency restrictions apply to all registered citizens or to only those on parole is currently before the California Supreme Court. California RSOL’s position is that residency restrictions violate the state and federal constitutions for many reasons including they constitute banishment in most locations. California Attorney General Kamala Harris has argued to the Court that residency restrictions are constitutional but only apply to registered citizens while on parole (and not those on probation or beyond parole). It is unlikely that the Court will make a decision on this issue before the November 2014 election because it is… Read more »
Even A.G. Harris is arguing that it is limited to parolees. My question though, is about all of the local ordinances – which Jessica’s Law allowed – to pass even stricter local statutes, and whether, by the Attorney General’s own arguments, those local ordinances would be all registrants or just those on parole. I really hope they toss the whole thing but the fact they are even hearing the case is cause for concern as it implies they felt they might rule differently than lower courts’ opinions. I hope “pocket parks” are presented as evidence of how this law is… Read more »
What is the name of the case that you referenced?
Well; I suppose this is better than nothing. Hopefully they’ll just have to repeal their residency restrictions at a later date. The fact that Attorney General Kamala Harris feels that residency restrictions are only constitutional for parolees is a sign that things are indeed changing; I’ll bet her opinion would have been quite different a few years back. I’m not planning to move to Riverside County anyway, but I do spend allot of time there, so I’m glad to know that I won’t pick up a felony if I get a flat tire near one of the former restricted areas,… Read more »
The JacobWetterling Resource Center (JWRC), founded after the kidnapping of the 11 year old in 1998, states: “Because residency restrictions have been shown to be ineffective at preventing harm to
children, and may indeed actually increase the risks to kids, JWRC does not suppor residency
Colorado Department of Public Safety, 2004
this was posted on
http://www.casomb.org/index.cfm?pid=231
http://www.cce.csus.edu/portal/admin/handouts/Just%20the%20facts%202-26-14.pdf