LOS ANGELES COUNTY SEX OFFENDER ORDINANCE CHALLENGED IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT

A sex offender ordinance adopted by Los Angeles County is the subject of a lawsuit filed today in federal district court on behalf of a registered sex offender (“registered citizen”). This is the 25th in a series of lawsuits challenging sex offender ordinances adopted by local governments.
“The California Court of Appeal ruled in January 2014 that city and county ordinances that restrict the presence of registered citizens are unlawful,” stated attorney Janice Bellucci. “Despite notice of more than eight months, Los Angeles County has failed to repeal or revise its unlawful ordinance.”

The Los Angeles County ordinance significantly restricts where registered citizens may be present. Specifically, the ordinance prohibits registered citizens from being present or within 300 feet of a wide range of public and private locations including parks, swimming pools, libraries, bus stops and commercial establishments that provide a child’s playground. An individual who violates the ordinance is subject to incarceration for up to six months and/or a fine of up to $1,000 for each day of violation.

“The presence restrictions within the Los Angeles County ordinance are inconsistent with recent decisions of the California Court of Appeal which invalidated two ordinances – one in the City of Irvine and the other in Orange County – as being preempted by state law,” stated CA RSOL board member and attorney Chance Oberstein. “The California Supreme Court denied review of these cases on April 23 and therefore it is established that the state statutory scheme imposing restrictions on a sex offender’s daily life fully occupies the field.”

In addition to the lawsuit filed today against Los Angeles County, similar lawsuits have been filed against

  1. the City of Pomona (March 24),
  2. the City of South Lake Tahoe (March 31),
  3. National City (April 8),
  4. the City of Carson (April 11),
  5. the City of Lompoc (April 21),
  6. Sacramento County (April 30),
  7. Santa Ana (May 7),
  8. Wasco (May 15),
  9. Ontario (May 21),
  10. Stockton (May 27),
  11. Taft (May 29),
  12. Orange (June 17),
  13. Beaumont (June 24),
  14. Adelanto (July 21),
  15. Hesperia (July 24),
  16. Victorville (August 14),
  17. Westminster (August 29),
  18. South Pasadena (September 9),
  19. Canyon Lake (September 24),
  20. Commerce (October 2),
  21. Murrieta (October 9),
  22. San Bernardino County (October 15),
  23. Pico Rivera (October 22) and
  24. El Monte (October 24).

Of those lawsuits, 15 have been settled after the local government organization repealed or significantly revised its ordinance.

In addition to the cities listed above, 48 cities have repealed or revised their sex offender ordinances without being sued. The cities include Anaheim, Claremont, Elk Grove, Menifee and Twenty-nine Palms.

“Future legal challenges by sex offenders can be expected of local governments that have failed to repeal their sex offender ordinances which are unlawful,” stated Bellucci.

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.  
 

15 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Bravo, Janice, Chance, et al. Thank you for all of your continued work at fixing these injustices!

Are you serious? After all this time being on this site I honestly had no idea LA County had this law. I thought LA passed on all these ridiculous ordinances. I’ve been to the park may times and I’m sure all the other places mentioned.

Go, Janice, go!!!!!

I had no idea this law existed!

My associate at SOSEN has started The Ordinance Project, where he and some volunteers are going to research every jurisidiction in the country – state, county, and city/municipality – to consolidate and categorize every law that has sprung since Smith v. Doe. It will take months, but hopefully it will help such efforts at turning back the laws nationwide.

C,
I just had to comment on your comment, “which we avoid like the plague, because of, well,the plague” It made me laugh (out loud), which is sometimes hard to do when reading comments on this site. Thanks 🙂

When our son came down for a visit, we took our granddaughter to the park. She just stood there, and acted like she had never seen a park before. When we came home I told my son, “c—- acted as if she had never seen a park before”. And his reply was, “Mom she hasn’t. We don’t go to parks because I never know for sure what the law might be at any given place”. Sad, sad, sad.