Hesperia City Council Modifies Existing Sex Offender Ordinance

In a vote of 4 to 1, the Hesperia City Council approved significant modifications to its sex offender ordinance by reducing both presence and residency restrictions. Specifically, the Council voted to end provisions that prohibited registered citizens from loitering within 500 feet of public places and replaced them with restrictions from being present at schools or public places where children gather. The Council also voted to reduce residency restrictions from 4,000 to 2,000 feet from schools and parks. The new law, when in effect, will be consistent with current state law.

The City of Hesperia was sued in federal court in July after the City Council failed to modify its sex offender ordinance despite recommendations from both the City Manager and City Attorney as well as warning letters from California RSOL. Both City staff and the non-profit advised the City of Hesperia of recent state appellate court decisions that determined that city ordinances which restricted the presence of registered citizens are preempted by state law.

In order for the modifications to become effective, the Hesperia City Council must approve them in the next council meeting to be held on August 19. In addition, there will be a subsequent 30-day waiting period before the modifications would take effect.

Related Media

Hesperia council amends sex-offender code (Victorville Daily Press)

 

Related posts

Subscribe
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
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. 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.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. 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.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
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.  
 

12 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

God does have a sense of humor after all! 🙂

“Just before closing the meeting, Smith read a statement about the legal difficulties of his stepson, who was renting a house from him and is accused of possessing narcotics while armed.” That’s dope and guns, in case anyone was wondering. Yup, the mayor has a dope house!~

And by the way; WE WON; again!!! 🙂 🙂 🙂

“The City Council on Tuesday approved amendments to its code regulating the movement and activities of registered sex offenders. The vote was 4-1 to approve the resolution that would bring Hesperia’s code in line with recent court decisions giving superiority to state laws on the matter.”

And now a final word from a disturbed individual.

“It’s my protest against sex offenders,” lone dissenter Blewett said after the meeting. “I think if there are things worth being sued over, it’s (the welfare of) children and women.”

Blewitt blew it again by implicitly protesting against the constitution and Bill of Rights. What kind of society would he foster if he had his way? It is time for removal proceeding against him.

There shouldn’t even be a redundant and parallel body of municipal code period. That also in essence a pointless exercise “for the record”.

Municipalities should stay COMPLETELY out of the business of complex criminal justice matters and focus on civic administration. education, code enforcement and compliance with existing state laws.

I think something worth being sued over is having a person of Blewitt’s ignorance, bigotry and a desire to strip US citizens of their inalienable constitutional rights, representing the city.

The effects of Blewitt’s myopic views seem to corrupt and undermine the effort and effectiveness of the city government at large.

Well, if I understand the stats correctly, if any give one of the women or children of Hesperia were to, in some way, be “molested” (including in which is that wide range from physical assault to flashing etc.)
there is a 90%+ chance that it would be from someone who is NOT an R.S.O.
and in the case of children in particular, there is an 85% chance it would be a family member, a close family friend or a “trusted” member of the community (like a city councilman)

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/kennesaw-councilman-accused-of-child-molestation/ngTXt/

Please correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t an inconsistency still exist?

At the moment (and Janice recently confirmed this in another post elsewhere on this site), residency restrictions only apply to those on parole, and those who are on probation where the restrictions are a condition of their probation.

With the city modifying their residency restrictions from 4,000 feet, to 2,000 feet, does this mean that they can now try and enforce residency restrictions against ANY registered citizen? My unofficial legal opinion is that, unless language is included to specify parolees and probation conditions, then the city is still inconsistent with current legal policy.

Is that correct? I only ask because, unfortunately, this is where I see residency restrictions having the most impact. Unless the Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality of residency restrictions as they are applied to ALL registered citizens, my fear is that cities will adopt the “2,000 foot rule”, and begin vigorous enforcement of it.

Thanks.

I do not understand this , instead of loitering 500 feet, now you just can not be there? What did we gain?

I’m just curious… Does this modification have any bearing on the lawsuit filed last week which named a particular city council member who still refuses to acknowledge that their city has passed an unconstitutional law? In the very least it needs to be publicly noted that this individual is questioning the ethics of the state and federal constitution as well as the appellate courts decision in upholding it. It would be nice to get a public apology for his over-zealous and irrational bigotry against a group of citizens that he is obviously too busy to research any facts about.

Sounds like they replaced a bullsh** law with a horsesh** law!!!