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)
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!!!