Civil rights activist group sues South Pasadena over ‘arbitrary and discriminatory’ sex offender ordinance

SOUTH PASADENA >> A civil rights activist group filed a lawsuit against South Pasadena this week, alleging the city’s sex offender ordinance strips “a socially outcast minority” of their First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

Attorney Janice Bellucci, president of the California Reform Sex Offender Laws organization, called South Pasadena’s Title 20E-1 through 20E-10 municipal code arbitrary and discriminatory. The regulation was passed in 2009. Full Article

Also see:

South Pasadena Ordinance Challenged in Federal Court
South Pasadena agrees not to enforce city’s presence restrictions

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 and a**
  4. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Use person-first language.
  5. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  6. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  7. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  8. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  9. 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 that are not personally identifiable.
  10. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  11. Please do not post in all Caps.
  12. 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. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  13. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  14. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  15. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  16. Please do not solicit funds
  17. No discussions about weapons
  18. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  19. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  20. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  21. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
  22. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
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.  
 

13 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Great article! Written in an informative, comprehensive manner, this is how reporting sex offender issues should be handled. Finally, a bit of “Zen” for our side!

Dear Ms. Highsmith:

Please remember to dot both i’s in your name when you sign the big check that your client is about to write!

I guess integrity with these city counsels shouldn’t be relied upon from here on out. No matter what they say they need to be bound by the legal system; that is to say, not a letter saying they’re not going to do this or they are going to do that, but a legal binding agreement.

Hello, I was wondering, if people who commit crimes of robbery and murder or kidnapping or other such crimes have a chance to pay there debt back to society, ie. jail time, probation or porole, and moneys to the county for court cost and such, but anyone who commits a sex crime or ALLEGED commit they can never be free to prove that this is either not who they are or have changed, but yet they have to go to counceling at $300 a mnth + one on one at another $300 a mnth and get a Certificate Of Reabilitation BUT still have to register for life, you have to know this don’t make sense, my aunt and uncle was murdered and he could walk the streets as though he is no threat! Plus the Government has already ran studys how many would commit again, 1.5 to 3.7 thats ever, WOW I would love to know your thoughts on this.

This is terrible news! What if the guy convicted of touching a masseuse 19 years ago/expunged/summary probation goes to Pasadena and stares at someone while standing at the bus stop? So, does this mean I can potentially visit the bus stop, library, car dealership, pool, homeless shelter, grocery store and drive at night? Will Pasadena still require me to be implanted with a computer chip? Or, do I still have to call the police station every time I leave my home? Personally, I think these laws should remain (I wont have to worry about running into the gang members/recently released murderer/car jackers/or drug dealers at the local bus stop! Plus, I wont get mugged or stabbed at the local park? Did anyone ever think Pasadena might be protecting us from harm? Hmmm, what if I visit the local pool and get hit by lightening? Or, what If I walk to the local library (because I’m going for my second Master’s degree) and get hit by the recently released drunk driver who just spent time in prison for vehicular manslaughter! These laws are a joke and if you laughed at my last comments, thats how I feel about these laws as well. Its a JOKE! Maybe they should use the resources they are using to fight this joke and require Pasadena officers with cameras to insure they are doing their job properly!? Hmm

Here is a new wrinkle…

“The South Pasadena Police Department released Wolf without pressing charges, saying that because he was convicted prior to the ordinance’s passing in 2009, it did not apply to him. ”

What gives?

http://www.losangelesregister.com/articles/sex-604720-offenders-pasadena.html

A massive million dollars settlement to all registered would cause reform very quickly.