Adelanto to amend sex offender code

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

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.  
 

3 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

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?”