ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459

Monthly Meetings: Nov 21, Dec 19 – Details / Recordings

Emotional Support Group Meetings 2020 (Phone only)

ACSOLCalifornia

CA Supreme Court to Hear Residency Restrictions Case

The California Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on December 2 in Los Angeles on a case in which the constitutionality of residency restrictions have been challenged. Following oral argument, the Court has up to 90 days to render its decision.

“Current residency restrictions violate both the state and federal constitutions,” stated CA RSOL President Janice Bellucci. “As applied, they constitute banishment which has been outlawed in our country for more than 100 years.”

The case to be argued is In re Taylor, S206143, in which the California Court of Appeal determined on September 12, 2012, that the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation cannot apply a blanket restriction prohibiting all sex offender parolees from living within 2,000 feet of a school or a park.

“After the Taylor case was decided, some counties and cities have enforced residency restrictions while others have not. The result has been chaos, that is, registered citizens did not know where they could or could not lawfully reside,” stated Bellucci. “We look forward to a wise decision soon from the California Supreme Court that will end this chaos.”

In a similar case, CA Attorney General Kamala Harris argued that residency restrictions are constitutional, but should only be applied to sex offenders while on parole.

Join the discussion

  1. Pedro

    Janice, can you let me know how this ruling one way or the other will affect us getting rid of this tormenting registry for so many people? Oh now that we are all fenced in the USA never able to leave again!!!thank you for all your efforts

    • Anonymous Nobody

      It doesn’t. It is strictly narrowly focused only on restrictions on where you can live.

  2. Doug

    I never really thought the , out of ballance , unjust , additudes , and laws would ever change .

    I doubt if it would have with out Janice .
    Thank you again !
    Doug

  3. cool rso

    Finally, this is what we waiting for in a long long time!!

  4. MS

    Kamala Harris is an elected official and up for re election.

    • Justice For ALL

      As I predicted, the delay was due in part because of the election. Don’t want to do what’s right until after we get elected. I hate politicians.

  5. G4Change

    I hope Janice or someone equally as qualified and competent is arguing this case on our behalf.

    • Janice Bellucci

      The attorney who will argue the case on behalf of Mr. Taylor is Laura Arnold who formerly worked in the Office of the Public Defender in San Diego. She is now employed in the Office of the Public Defender in Riverside. We have the utmost confidence in Ms. Arnold and her legal abilities, however, we are concerned that the CA Supreme Court may not agree with the position she is advancing in this case. Please remember that this is the same Court that decided in Doe v. Harris that the government can unilaterally change the terms of a plea bargain.

      • MM

        “… however, we are concerned that the CA Supreme Court may not agree …” is never good. I pray that the right decision is made for so many involved. Lives need to be able to move on and truly live. Not live in some ‘pergatory’ with no clear way to go.

        And today is Halloween, another rule, another threat of arrest and/or fine when simply trying to live (not on parole or probabtion, not for years!). Tonight my husband and I are heading out of our city to another to spend with friends (thank goodness!). So unfortunate, a charge from 1987 (at 19 years old) keeps on giving and leaves you to wonder … when will it end?? Ever?

      • G4Change

        Do you think Miss Arnold would be open to input from you, Janice, or anyone else qualified within CA-RSOL?

        Regarding that disgusting decision about changing the plea bargains, is there any chance that can go to SCOTUS?

        Hoping and dreaming here….

  6. VSPSVS

    Thank you Janice and CA RSOL!

    You need to keep in mind that stupidity is very hard to reason with, the AG doesn’t seem to understand that the laws on the books at state level are for people still on probation or parole, at least that is what I understand but then when these laws were enacted it came from stupidity, hard to fight. Really do not know who to vote for on Nov 4, I am a Democrat and through my own stupidity I voted for Democrats currently in office, what a mistake, however if I voted Republican I would still be in the realm of stupidity, excepting those regardless of political color whom have stood on top of that heap of stupidity speaking out reason. Well either side I will still vote for one person running for the Simi Valley city council who dissented for me and all a few years ago. I will try faith although I have a very difficult time feeling faith. What is faith? Faith unfortunately is a gamble.

  7. Eric Knight

    The squeaky wheel gets the grease!

    Or….it takes 25 lawsuits all over the state to get their attention…

  8. mike

    I hope this case is a winner…too often it seems like “Boogeyman vs. State”. We need Sextet or Romeo vs. State so these precedents stop getting upheld across the board! It’s discouraging to see the strategy be trying to hit home runs with a 2,000 foot outfield. We need to get some victories in court and it won’t happen until we start taking winning cases. I hope this is one of them! Good luck!

  9. MM

    From where many of us are … I’m guessing the next four months are going to be torture, pure hell. The not knowing if the house needs to go up for sale … After living here for 25 years! Wait for December 2 …. Then wait another 90 days … I have a feeling I’m nor going to be sleeping well.

    • steve

      “selling the house” is not gonna happen. If i recall people who already lived in their houses before this passed would not be forced to move.

  10. JM

    We can thank the people like the “Runners” and company who authored Prop. 83
    They lied to the people and quoted statistics, a DOJ report, that did not exist!
    They lied, and they should have to pay for those lies. Every single person who endorsed Jessica’s Law should be liable.
    I’ve read the transcripts on the docket for this case and the evidence seems overwhelming in our favor. If these judges are that cold hearted, then the state and our country are lost and our constitution means nothing.

    • B

      The California Republican Party put $6 million into the Yes on 83 campaign. It was put on the ballot to increase Republican turnout at that election.

  11. SnowdenEffect

    I think a couple of things need to be considered here. First, one of the Associate Justices that is hearing this case, Marvin Baxter, is retiring. If elected, Mariano Cuellar will be replacing him. Baxter has routinely been on the side that is aimed at violating civil liberties of sex offenders. All of his legal opinions confirm this. So, will Baxter be part of rendering the decision or will Mariano be coming in? It could affect the outcome.
    Second, if the Taylor and Mosley cases are unfavorable, what does that mean for the thousands of registered sex offenders on probation and parole? will it mean a mass migration to homelessness?
    This Supreme Court is quite conservative. I would not expect the attorneys hearing this case to comment in this matter on a public forum, however, it would be useful to hear other informed opinion on this matter.
    Thanks

    • Janice Bellucci

      We have spoken with the Office of the Clerk of the CA Supreme Court and learned that Justice Baxter will be 1 of 7 justices hearing the Taylor oral arguments on December 2. His replacement will not take office until January 2015. Because Baxter will be in office on December 2, he will vote on the ultimate decision in the Taylor case. The 7th vote in the Taylor case will be cast by an interim justice who has not yet been named. That justice could cast the deciding vote.

      • Anonymous Nobody

        He gets to vote on the case — even after he is no longer a member of the court? To cast his vote before he leaves is one thing; to cast it after — that strikes me as incredibly challengable. Someone is interpreting that he gets to do that. Unfortunately, to challenge it, you would have to take it to the same court you are challenging — well, maybe it could go to the federal courts.

        If they issued a decision before he leaves office, OK — but their track record is that they never issue a decision that fast. Still, once he leaves office, he leaves his power behind. when its over, its over — its over for him the day he leaves. An election will have been held to replace him, that jurist will have been seating — we cannot have an 8th jurist issuing opinions. They should need to vote with only the six remaining justices.

        If this loses by one vote, I sure hope a VERY serious challenge is filed.

  12. Praying Mother

    I will be praying that this is granted for those that will be affected. I am a mother and my son will be affected if this is not granted. He recently got his Stay granted but it is for a Temporary one till the Taylor case is heard. I have great concern. He has a great family support. I believe everyone needs a second chance in life. I am learning more and more how harsh this whole system is against sex offenders and I find it unfair and very harsh. Putting people out in the street how is that right? How does this help with rehabilitation?

    I want to speak out! I want to help if I can. There needs to be a better solution to all of this. These laws that were made make it hard for anyone to live. You paid your debt to society and lets make it better not worse.

    I pray for all people involved that are working hard to make this better. Thank God they are making positive efforts.

    We must stay positive and pray for great outcome in this issues and many more.

    Sincerely,
    Praying Mother!

  13. Avig

    1/31/2015 You may already know this—but I have just today discovered it. If you are now or will in the future be subject to a residence restriction: it is good to know you can go on Google Maps and measure how many feet you are away from some school, or park, or whatever. Obviously this can help you screen either your current residence or some future residence in order to comply with laws. I hope this will not be needed, but if it is, you can do it right on the computer.

Leave a Reply

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  • We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  • 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.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • 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.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues 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.  
 

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

.