ADELANTO — The City Council has voted unanimously to approve the first reading of an ordinance that would amend the city’s code to comply with recent court rulings regarding the presence of registered sex offenders at public parks.
“Recent decisions have been issued by the Court of Appeals which call into question the validity of city ordinances that prohibit sex offenders from entering city parks,” a city staff report reads. Full Article
Related posts
-
RI: Cranston YMCA employee fired for letting sex offender on grounds
Source: wpri.com 5/16/24 The YMCA of Greater Providence (GPYMCA) fired an employee earlier this month after... -
CT: New Fairfield proposes ordinance to ban sex offenders from public places frequented by children
Source: newstimes.com 10/16/23 NEW FAIRFIELD — The town is proposing a new ordinance that, if adopted, would... -
FL: Revisions made to Hernando County Sex Offender and Sexual Predator Ordinance
Source: hernandosun.com 8/4/23 Last week, the Hernando Sun ran a story on recent changes to the...
Perhaps it is true, perhaps it is not that the City of Adelanto “had already started the process to amend the ordinance” before it was sued. The facts are the City did not take action until September 4 and the lawsuit was filed on June 21 after a series of letters to the city that their sex offender ordinance was preempted by state law. Plaintiff Frank Lindsay has not agreed to “drop the case”.
While pleased that this city, unlike Carson, has chosen to act consistently with state law, attorneys fees and court costs must be paid before the case is dropped.
This article is full of inaccuracies… as the article only allows for Facebook – which should be avoided like the devil does holy water – comments I am making some remarks here and would be pleased if someone raised these issues on the pertinent web page.
1. It is a criminal offense for a 290 registrant to be be PRESENT within 300 feet of the specified uses – not 30 feet as stated in the article. That makes it a crime to travel about the city like a normal person for all intents and purposes.
2. The City of Adelanto was served with a lawsuit on July 21. On April 23 the California Supreme Court declined to review the decisions regarding Godinez and Nguyen and with that made the fact that these ordinances are unlawful official. Meaning the City of Adelanto had very nearly 3 whole months in which to take the action they took at the last Council Meeting on August 27. During which time it sounds like they received several communications from CA RSOL regarding the issue. Do they not have a calendar???
https://all4consolaws.org/2014/04/california-supreme-court-upholds-ban-on-city-county-ordinances/
https://all4consolaws.org/2014/07/registered-sex-offender-sues-city-of-hesperia-15thlawsuit-filed-in-4-months/
3. Good luck to the City Attorney getting the lawsuit ‘dropped’. Did he mean to say ‘settled’? ‘Dropped’ is like me saying “I ‘won’ something on eBay last night… oh yeah – in exchange for money”.
4. The article does not mention any resolutions regarding residency restrictions. It should be noted that the Adelanto Municipal code prohibits residency 2000 feet from a regular bus (transit) stop. To protect the children, one has to assume. Really, Adelanto?
One can only hope that the plaintiff and his attorney receive a fat settlement, in addition to every sane and Constitution adhering person’s gratitude.
As a prison town Adelanto should have no problem paying up. I guess the city counsel there is every bit as dishonest as all the other city counsels. Or should I use another word instead of dishonest, like “slimy” or “underhanded?”