ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings: Jan 16 Recording Uplaoded Details / Recordings

Emotional Support Group Meetings

ACSOLAction ItemsCalifornia

CA Supreme Court to Hear Two Residency Restrictions Cases

The California Supreme Court has scheduled oral argument on two residency restriction cases on December 2 starting at 2 p.m.. The oral arguments are open to the public and will be held at the Ronald Reagan State Office Building, 300 South Spring Street, Third Floor, North Tower, Los Angeles.

“The issue of where a registered citizen may live is of great importance to more than 105,000 families within the state of California,” stated California RSOL President Janice Bellucci. “This issue is also important to the protection of the state and federal constitutions.”

The first of the two cases is People v. Mosley, for which the Court granted review more than four years ago. An important element of that case is whether residency restrictions apply only to registered citizens on parole or to all registered citizens. The source of the residency restrictions at issue is Jessica’s Law which prohibits registered citizens from living within 2,000 feet of a school or a park. That law, when codified, was placed in a section of the Penal Code that applies only to parolees.

The second of the two cases is In re Taylor for which the Court granted review more than two years ago. The focus of this case is whether the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) can prohibit all registered citizens on parole from living within 2,000 feet of a school or a park. The California Court of Appeal stated in its September 2012 decision that residency restrictions adversely affect three constitutional rights – the right to travel, the right to privacy and the right to establish a home. The Court ruled that blanket residency restrictions exceed the scope of its stated objective — the protection of children — because it eliminates nearly all existing affordable housing in San Diego for registered citizens and in essence banishes them from living within most if not all of San Diego County and because it treats all paroles the same regardless of whether his or her crime involved the victimization of children or adults.

“Registered citizens, family members and those who support registered citizens are encouraged to attend the Court’s oral arguments on December 2,” stated California RSOL Vice President Chance Oberstein.

California RSOL will conduct a press conference near the site immediately following the oral arguments.

Join the discussion

  1. Anonymous Nobody

    I sure hope residency restrictions are struck down. I am very doubtful about these arguments, although. Inn the first case, Mosley, that is the very argument presented about 20 years ago to assert that of course registration is punishment, it is in the Penal Code, the punishment code. The state high court said: No, its not punishment, it is simply regulatory. We have different jurists on he court now, but I haven’t seen them come down with any better rulings that all the terrible ones over the past 20 years related to registration, so I don’t see that they won’t simply pint out that case from 20 years ago as precedent and rule the same way.

    The second, Taylor, I hope is more promising. But I am doubtful — because, at least as written here, those points on which the appeal court ruled need to be stated stronger, more succinct, and perhaps most importantly, without any giving of the inch by which the high court will take the mile. Unfortunately, that last point is all over that, as it is explained here. As for the other points, I would have led to see them better explained — for instance, where is the a clause in the Constitution (and are we talking of the US Constitution of the California Constitution?) that gives a right to “establish a home?” Where is that language used anywhere in the Constitution? Stretched interpretations can have the end result of getting you a strong negative ruling that will be precedent against even a solid, direct argument later.

    For many years, I have thought in California there is a strong privacy argument concerning registration, at minimum to any public notice, but to registration itself. The California Constitution has much stronger protection of privacy than does the US Constitution. But I don’t see anything written here that suggests the full comprehension of that is realized. I also think it a stretch that limitations on where you can live are a matter of privacy. I would see that more as a violation of the Constitutional right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, not of privacy — but maybe not for a parolee, again, a reason why this argument would have been stronger for someone no longer in custody (parole and probation are considered to be a form of custody, and so are punishment accordingly). (Why have I never seen a case arguing on the basis of the right to happiness?)

    What is so unfortunate is that if Taylor were to be upheld, it necessarily also would have to extend to registrants no longer on parole or probation, so significantly reduce the number of people the current restrictions would apply to. As such, I think tagging this argument to a parole case was a big mistake.

    But I sure hope the arguments prevail.

    • Janice Bellucci

      The information in this “article” is very basic and does not include details or nuances of the cases. The cases are available online or if you can’t find them, let us know and we will provide you with either a copy of the case or a link to the case. The Court of Appeal’s decision in the Taylor case is worth reading as it also discusses the issue of banishment. According to the court, a residency restriction “is not a full banishment in the historical sense as practiced by the colonialists as a form of punishment in which an offender was ‘expelled…from the community.’ The residency restriction does not prevent registered sex offender parolees from living in every community in San Diego, nor from visiting communities in which they are allowed to live. Nonetheless, the residency restriction prevents petitioners from living in large areas of San Diego County.” In its decision, the Court found that sex offender parolees were prohibited from living in about 97 percent of existing multifamily rental properties the type of housing in which most registered citizens reside. The Court also found that as a result many registered sex offenders were not able to live with their families, including spouses, children and/or parents.

      • Anonymous Nobody

        Thank you for that additional, Janice. And, just in case there is any misperception, I was not complaining about the original post, I was referring to it simply to qualify my comments as based only on that much information.

  2. Nicholas Maietta

    I may have lucked out. The home i recently acquired is 2,350+ feet away from the nearest school. However, i feel this law is unconstitutional in nature.

    Year after year they pass laws on sex offenders, hoping to reduce sex crimes. Year after year they don’t see a reduction in sex crimes from those on the registry. The very definition of insanity is repeating the action over and over but expecting a different result. Gambling is an addiction that is a real problem and there are now hotlines and support groups for gamblers living with the sickness. Maybe it’s time we open groups and hotlines for those law makers who push for bad laws, who expect different results each time they apply the same garbage repeatedly. To me, those people are sick and are in desperate need of professional help. After all, they are a danger to society.

    • Nicholas Maietta

      I should be clear though, that the number of people who commit sex crimes while already on the registry, are few. The majority of new offenses come from those not on the registry.

      Anyone who thinks i’m protecting my fellow registrants and not caring about children can chew on this for a moment: Last Saturday i called parole, police and reported a 290 registrant on parole making contact with kids inside the park. I could have simply ignored it. One, he had no business being in the park, or making contact with kids that were not his own. He also has rules, blanket rules that apply to all 290 paroles in California. I knew what the rules were. For weeks he’d been a problem. It took my calling it in before anything got done. Because the cops realized that if a 290 turned in another 290, there must be some credence to the report. They did verify with GPS bracelet as well of his presence within a restricted area. If he would have committed a crime against a child in our park, everyone would have come out with pitchforks and a rope tied into noose for me and any others who also happen to be on the registry from mistakes made in the past. His actions could bring harm to every other law abiding citizen.

      But the reality is that that situation is extremely unlike, but fully expected in my world thanks to how terrible my luck has been over the last few years. This is not a typical situation. The reality is that this kind of thing almost never happens by anyone on the registry.

      • Eric Knight


        What if the registrant were the father or other relative of the children, and they were there in an entirely appropriate manner? Obviously, there are nuances to everything, and there ARE obvious “tells” that would indicate a groomer vs. normal family / teacher / coach association. However, from your story there wasn’t enough information, and to be frank, I have YET to see an innappropriate contact of a child by an adult in a park in real life (barring catcalls of teen girls by adults which occur but are not of the level of outright solicitation of contact).

        I don’t doubt that the potential contact may have been illicit, but I don’t agree with the initial premise without more details.

        • Nicholas Maietta

          I have a quick update about what i mentioned about the guy who got into trouble breaking his parole conditions: He’s back out and back home and as of this evening he’s already at it again.

          So i’m thinking it’s okay to break the rules of parole. Because if you do, you get right back out.

      • Anonymous Nobody

        I appreciate your logic that if that guy had done something nefarious with the children, all hell would come down on ALL registrants. None of us would want that. However, Eric Knight makes a very good point.

        I add: Weren’t the kids with their parents or some other adult supervision? Gee, parents won’t even let their kids walk home from school with friends any more, they pick them up — are you saying after they get home with the kids, they let them go roam the neighborhood and local parks alone? And, I am presuming we are talking of kids closer to age 8 or 10 than, say, 16. That doesn’t address your logic, but perhaps the kids were monitored and you hadn’t noticed because those people were a little distance away — and got this guy in trouble for doing no harm and where the children were not subject to trouble because of the nearby monitors — maybe not. I’m not trying to accuse, only trying to give some food for thought.

        I guess I’m just concerned that maybe this could have been handled without bringing in the police. Did you ever go talk with him and politely explain your concerns — perhaps that might have worked and kept the police out of it. I also don’t know what you might have learned in such a talk top change your mind, but maybe you would have learned some such thing.

        I ask: How did you even know he was a registrant? Have you been tracking him or something, or tracking down all registrants in the area (I’m not accusing, just asking)?

        • Nicholas Maietta

          In answer to your questions:

          He was the only adult around. His actions were known by me to be prohibited by law or by conditions of parole, likely with good reason(s).

          I did my due diligence before contacting law enforcement, which included confronting the man directly, which normally isn’t advised because i could be considered an instigator.

          Anyone who feels i should have minded my own business and not do anything, please speak up.

        • td777

          You have yet to say if you know for sure whether this parolee was related to children in the park or not. You also are not a parole agent and don’t know this individual’s conditions of parole. For all we know, he may have specific permission from his agent to be in the park with his own child(ren), which I’m guessing is the case since he was out so quickly and back there again.

  3. California cool RSO

    I just hope those lawyers have their ducks in the row. RSO can’t afford another strike again.

  4. Jeffrey McBride

    The California Supreme Court has already decided that residency restrictions pursuant to Jessica’s Law (Penal Code section 3003.5(b)) apply only to parolees as a condition of their parole (In re E.J. 47 Cal. 4th (2010)). Residency restrictions do not apply to anyone else in California. Ever.

    Even if residency restrictions pursuant to penal code 3003.5(b) were applicable to anyone other than parolees, the authors of the law failed to include a penalty for breaking the law. It is neither an infraction, nor a misdemeanor, nor a felony to violate this statute. Accordingly, the law, as written is unenforceable as a criminal violation.

    No one will ever be prosecuted nor convicted for violating the 2000 foot rule as it is currently written. It simply is not a law that can be prosecuted. It is only enforceable as a condition of state parole. The Taylor case may change this, best case scenario. Worst case scenario: the 2000 foot rule remains valid as a condition of parole.

    Jeffrey McBride

    • Nicholas Maietta

      Actually, that is not entirely the case. There are people that have been forced to move who were not even on parole or face arrest. I know of two that have been arrested. What they were charged with? Failure to register. That’s because the detective refused to let people register where they wanted citing that they couldn’t live there according to Jessica’s Law.

      I myself was told by a registering detective (recently demoted) that i couldn’t register that i was living at a place i told him i would be. So i was forced to find another place. Even though my parole officer said it was okay for the arrangement in question.

      I found out later he was pulling all kinds of threats like this for a while with multiple people, not just me. What can a person do when they are illegally jailed or bullied by cops? Nothing if you are on parole and don’t have a good lawyer to represent you. Nothing.

      I move the first chance i could. I personally know for a fact that in some places, they do as they wish because they don’t fear getting caught or suffering the repercussions.

      • td777

        In 2007, while on probation, not parole, I was forced to move because we were too close to schools. The probation department in Orange County was forcing all registrants on probation to follow the 2000 ft restriction even though it was meant to only include parolees.

        • Nicholas Maietta

          When i lived in Del Norte County while on parole at that time (in 2007), i kept hearing about how San Diego and Orange counties were among the worst places relating to city ordinances and registrants.

  5. http404

    I am a little worried that they are taking up the Mosley case at all. My understanding is when a law is ambiguous or contradictory, they must look at the intent of the law. If I remember correctly, George Runner, the key “mouthpiece” behind Prop 83, had publicly stated that the residency restrictions were meant to be applicable for people on parole, and Kamela Harris has echoed that publicly. But it also gave municipalities the latitude to pass their own ordinances which could be more stringent – but not less stringent – than the state law and I think it remains a key question whether these local ordinances must also fall in line with the intent of the law and therefore only applicable to parolees. The bigger win would obviously be for the court to deem the residency restrictions to constitute residency restrictions an unlawful banishment since there are many communities that leave no eligible areas to reside, and there is nothing to stop the next town from expanding the restriction zone to drive current registrants out of town. Then there’s Los Angeles’ dirty little trick… “pocket parks.”

    • Anonymous Nobody

      It also seems to me that Runner actually WROTE in the ballot measure, at the very beginning, that it was punishment — and if so, it cannot be applied retroactively. The statute drops that language in the ballot measure. His comment is not particularly important, because his singular intent is not the intent the courts seek. If the ballot measure said something about intent of this issue, that would establish intent; if the legislature, in adopting the measure, had debate from which intent could be determined, that would matter.

      • http404

        Yeah… I seem to remember they used the words “punishment” and “control.”

  6. Ira Ellman

    I wish Jeffrey were correct, but he is not. In re EJ explicitly declined to decide whether Jessica’s Law established the residency restrictions as a criminal prohibition, or were instead only a parole condition, which would mean they applied only to people currently on parole from a state of California conviction. As the court pointed out, all the defendants before them in EJ were in fact currently on parole and therefore subject to the law no matter how it was read, so the question of whether the restrictions applied to people not currently on parole was not before them.

    The court has said it will decide this question in Mosley, which will be argued in December, along with Taylor. Both cases are very important. It is also important to know that in Mosley, the Attorney General argues that the residency restrictions apply only to those on parole; it is the defendant who is arguing that they apply to everyone. This is counter-intuitive, but it is true–for technical legal reasons I will not explain here. Taylor raises a broader question, whether the impact of the residency restrictions, as they are applied in San Diego county to parolees, is so harsh that they violate the constitutional rights of parolees. That issue was initially brought to the court in the EJ case, but they declined to decide it then because, they said, they did not have enough facts about the impact of the residency restrictions on parolees. So they sent the case back to a trial court to determine those facts. The trial court found the facts and concluded the impact was indeed horrendous, and enjoined enforcement of the residency restrictions. The court will decide in Taylor whether to affirm the trial court’s order. An affirmance would cast considerable doubt on the constitutionally of enforcing the residency restrictions in any urban county in California, since the impact would likely be similar to San Diego.

    • Anonymous Nobody

      Thank you. Excellent explanation. That is what I needed to know.

      And in reading through this thread, and looking up the statute, it seems it all turns on the definition of “person” AS IT IS USED IN THIS SECTION — whether “person” is clause (b) means any “person on parole” as more specifically stated in clause (a) and since parole is the only thing that could enforce it since, as Jeffrey points out, there is no sanction provided for violating it. (Although in theory, a registrant could be taken to court and the court issue them an order to comply, and if that order were violated, it would be contempt of court.)

      Unfortunately, back to my comments above, there is flexibility in this argument, so the high court can use that flexibility whatever way it wants — and to date, it has ALWAYS used any flexibility against registrants,. even too many times outright lying in order to create flexibility that was not there (some readers might recall my frequent comments about the courts ruling that red is blue).

      I see more merit in this argument now, but I have just as much doubt about it prevailing anyway.

    • Nicholas Maietta

      My rights were violated so many times during parole that i am now considering various legal channels for damages. If it is decided that parole couldn’t legally restrict where i can live, then i may be able to due something because i was forced out of the home i was buying and forced to move so far away, it caused the GPS bracelet i was also forced to wear under Jessica’s Law to fail repeatedly (because there was no cell service where i was at), which again forced me to move back closer to town, but by then, i didn’t have any options and was forced to live in my car and scale back the number of hours in my work, which in turn caused me to lose about everything. Jessica’s Law made a terrible impact on my life the entire 5 years i did parole. Not only that, but i was only to be on parole 3 years, but they stuck me on 5 illegally. That’s another issue altogether.

      I am anxious to hear the outcome of these two cases.

  7. USA

    I think people can go back and forth with this. ALthough, the bottom line is this. THe Judges reviewing this matter have both an ethical and moral obligation to uphold the statutes of the Constitution. As of today, the Sex Offender Laws of California are a mess! As of today, I truly couldn’t travel throughout California without breaking the law! I’m extremely educated, MBA, very computer literate and these laws are very, very confusing. I mean, if a police officer wants to arrest you, they can. As of today, we are banned from certain libraries, parks and bus stations/I think. Also, there are still residency restrictions? Is it 2000 feet? 22300? A straight line? How do they measure it? Now, what if I comply with the restrictions and there is a lake located behind me and a one way road that requires me to ride directly in front of a bus station where children are present? Does the law prohibit me from any bus stop? A school bus stop? What if I attend a field trip with my son to the zoo and we take the school bus? Now, does the law just impact those convicted of child related offenses? Hmm. Furthermore, the thought of 97% of Sex Offenders in San Diego being affected by this is disturbing! What if I’m visiting San Diego and have to take a bus to Marine Land? What if children are present? Now, in all fairness, I can understand someone on parole or probation having certain requirements, but the bottom line is this. These laws will not stand. You can’t paint every sex offender with the same brush and how about those convicted 20/30 years back with no further issues or expungements? Its now time that California wakes up!

    • Nicholas Maietta

      While on parole, i learned basically it wasn’t “all places” where children congregate. The list really only seem to include schools and public parks. (Not beaches, lakes, etc which are also considered recreational or seasonal parks.) (Private schools, churches, day cares, group homes, foster care, private businesses catering to kids, etc were not included.) They key was “tax payer funded” places where children congregate.

      Here’s basically how it works according to parole (in my experience):

      Get the address of the property. Find the direction to the nearest restricted area, such as a public school or public park. Move to the edge of the property closest to that restricted area. Get GPS coordinates for this point A as lat/long.

      Then go to restricted area’s closest border to coordinate’s A position. Get GPS coordinates called B.

      Some GPS tools can give you shortest line of site distance between two points. If you don’t have something like that.. you would visit a website like this and place in your coordinantes:

      If you are allowed to use the computer (many cannot), then you can use Google Maps, which most people don’t know has a built-in distance tool.

      For Google Maps, you should enable Satellite/Birds Eye view. This way, it’s much easier to see the edge of property lines or boundaries. It’s not perfect, but it’s a good reference and is really close to accurate:

      The copcept goes like this: You should know both locations, add them to the map by simply right-clicking and “add destination”. Now you will have a marker for each destination. If you are zommed in enough, you will now have access to the “Measure tool”. Right click either of your markers and select measure tool. By default if you are in America, it will show in “Feet” if under 1 mile distance. You can now manipulate the map and distance ruler. Go from the two closest edges of the properties.

      If you live in a mobile home park like I do, then you would get the property boundary of the space you are renting, not the whole park. If you are told you cannot live in a park because the parks’ boundaries are too close to a restricted area, fight back because you don’t rent the whole park, you only rent one space.

      Parole agents are the ones doing this for the most part. They may used different tools, but for the rest of us out there, we gotta use what we have access to.

      • Timmr

        Hah. How funny. Educated people drawing magic boundary lines to keep in the boogeyman. Boogeyman step one foot over the line, children not safe. He stay in the line, children safe.

  8. Clark

    Whether in re or bobby lee or golly gee… the very use of the term ‘restrictions’, by the code number section tells you its within parole control punishment …………the attorney general already knows they can’t out people back into conditions of double jeopardy but should have opened eyes to cruel unusual punishment.

    • Clark

      Why am I seeing this as already played out in principle like the presence restrictions that couldn’t hold up to the Constitution ..(state/federal Constitutions)….in principle and argument and ruling really can be the same….a HOME RUN for the Constitution. …….and why am I asking Clark..?..:)

  9. Tired of hiding

    Perhaps these a-holes in robes should have a constitutional refresher course!

    There is a little thing in America (used to be anyway) called:The Eighth Amendment

    “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”

    They should talk to anyone who had to live under the conditions and restrictions as sex offenders who have even served their time and ask them if it is cruel and MOST unusual and MOST CERTAINLY IS Punishment!

    • Kevin

      Speaking of cruel and unusual punishment, I often wonder why minimum sentences (in some states 5+ years) for failure to register have never been challenged as cruel and unusual. Think about it, what is the action that is performed in failure to register cases? Not giving the government your address, car info, etc. How many Americans across the country forget to re-register their vehicles everyday? I would assume it’s many, many more than sex offenders failing to register. Why aren’t those people arrested for failing to register their vehicles? It’s the exact same action as a failure to register. Are there any instances anywhere where one action for one group of citizens is relatively unpunished, but for another group of citizens it is punished to the extreme. There is no doubt that there can be serious repercussions for not registering your vehicle with the DMV, but shouldn’t they be the same repercussions for failure to register since the “illegal” action is the same?

  10. California cool RSO

    at 1st whenever there is a lawsuit like this. i USED to get excited thinking that that Judge who promised to obey the constitution of the USA would be on the RSO said..
    However, in the last couple lawsuits the Judge didn’t even rule in our favor.

    The Judge aren’t the only one to be blame for failing to overturn the RSO laws.
    it also the LAWYERS who don’t do their HOMEWORK.

    I just hope the lawyers for TAYLOR and MOSELY DID their homework..

  11. SkeletonLander

    It all starts with the legislature.

  12. Michael

    I wonder if this (the report from the IG, not the article) will be offered to the court as supportive evidence:

    • Janice Bellucci

      We certainly hope so as it contains facts that should be viewed as both truthful and unbiased. The fact that they support our position is a bonus.

    • mike

      I didn’t see anything in this report discussing the constitutionality of these issues, only the efficacy. It does cast a dark cloud over the efficacy which is a good thing and hopefully will be addressed by the legislative branch who have the power to adjust Jessica’s law. I believe we can expect to see the tide turning in the next few years as more reports and empirical data come forward which will crush these feel good measures. After all, what’s the point of spending millions of dollars on enforcing laws that have no chance at accomplishing their intended goal. By the same token, we really need some study that will dispel the belief that registrants are largely responsible for human trafficking abroad. That’s completely absurd!

  13. USA

    In conclusion, just remember this. You don’t get anywhere being angry. Furthermore, its not a good idea to call a judge names. Furthermore, think out of the box. The judges making the rulings on these civil matters are probably all elected! Elected. Federal Judges have been appointed and they can make both clear and concise judgements based upon the laws and not having to worry about getting re-elected.

  14. Anonymous Nobody

    Oh, gee, ethical and moral obligation. See my comment immediately above about the court repeatedly lying if it needed to in order to rule against registrants. You forget, the high court is the final arbiter of any ethical or moral violations — there is no one to enforce such against them, so they do as they please. If there is any body in this state or country that is above the law, much less above ethical standards, it is the high court.

    This is the court that, even as it, among other things in that ruling, overturned a state Supreme Court ruling from 20 years earlier that held that registration (and in a very, very lesser form than now exists) not only was punishment but so extreme as to rise to the level of unconstitutional cruel and unusual punishment as applied at least to lewd conduct, and later extended it to at least some offenses of indecent exposure — and after this court vacated that prior decision said that registration had NEVER been considered to be punishment! Never?! Hey, it was more than mere punishment for 20 years since that decision the court had just overturned, much less was it punishment ever since it was started in the 1940s.

  15. MK

    I just wish they would strike down the residency restrictions for everyone who is 290.
    Not just in San Diego county. Its not the only area in the state with parks EVERYWHERE.
    my hub cannot live in our house (and he still has 2 more yrs of parole, when he was told it was only 3 in court at sentencing)
    Everyone in his group (that he just graduated from) tells him he will be able to come home in 2 yrs and be registered here.
    No one will rent to him and he’s been sleeping in the car at night. Between these insane *rules* (the 2 hr rule for transient 290’s on parole) Residency restrictions and everything else……….I cant really see how this helps anyone. Including the public.

    • Janice Bellucci

      If you are willing to speak publicly about your ordeal, please join us on Dec. 2 for the press conference to be held after the Court hears the oral arguments. It is challenges such as those your family are facing that need to be heard by the public. If you are not willing, please contact me by E-mail at to provide more details so that I can speak about your family and its challenges.

      • mk

        I wont be able to attend, but will be emailing some of our experiences. I’d be happy for folks to hear what its like for families of 290’s. Im one of the lucky ones. Our children are all majors, not minors. (which would have been even worse!!)

      • sixcrowes

        Janice I plan to attend. However, I am afraid to speak publicly for fear of harm to my children. However, I am more then happy to provide you with an anonymous statement. I’ll email you.

  16. USA

    Well anonymous, I’m certainly not attempting to put you down/ect . Just remember, nobody should be blamed for your current situation other than yourself. Like yourself, I’ve woken up both angry and upset! There truly isn’t a day that goes by where I don’t regret my actions (20 years later). Since then, my case was expunged and I somehow received Summary Probation? Yet, I’m still treated like America’s Most Wanted and I can’t imagine how I might feel if my photo and personal information was listed on the Megans website or if I had been on parole/ probation. Having a negative attitude or being angry will get you no where ! We need positive people to lead this movement and focus upon all of the positive aspects of our successes! Just think about where we would be at if a Janice didn’t exist? We can’t win everything . Although , as I still recall, the race isn’t always won by the swiftest or fastest, but by those who keep running ! Don’t stop !

    • Janice Bellucci

      And remember, we are running a marathon, not a 100-yard dash!

      • Timmr

        I can see your point, but not the path. All the legalize is making my head spin and I can’t see straight. I don’t know what to do, or if I should do something, maybe stay out of what I don’t understand. One thing, though, you clarify a lot of things in a common language in your posts and at the meetings, and I appreciate that.

  17. MM

    Crazy … I had typed a really long reply to this post and all of a sudden the iPad went blank. I typed many details about our experience, I’m thinking (since I share too much! always) it was God telling me toooooo much! So, I will leave it at that nudging.

    I pray these cases are decided with the guidance of God and that the people (Judges, they are people) that they will see past all the muck that is being put in front of them.

    Amen. MM


  18. Steve Turner

    Hi Janice. I have an interesting case that could become a test case for California with regard to sex offender registration. On Jan. 6, 2014, I was discharged from parole. A few days later I de-registered from Fremont, California and planned to relocate to Nevada. But my plans subsequently changed and I elected to remain in California. Since Jan. 2014, I have literally been perpetually traveling throughout the State of California. I live in my van and make sure that I do not spend 2 or more consecutive nights in the same city. I travel from city to city, living all the while in my van. A few months ago, I was in Southern California for a couple of months. I thus have NO residence at all. I’m not even transient, but rather I am a perpetual traveler. Today, I was stopped by the Fremont police. They told me that I was not in compliance with the sex offender registration law. I told them that I have no residence. I asked them in which city should I register. They told me that I had to pick a place to register. I told the police officers that I would use my ex-wife’s address in Newark, CA. I am planning to register this Monday in Newark, CA. The officers were nice enough not to arrest me. But this begs the question – where in the sex offender statute does it require a perpetual traveler to register and in which city or cities must they register? I believe this is a loophole in the statute, and technically I do not have to register at all. What is your take on this? Thank you Janice.
    PC 290.011 (g) For purposes of the act, “transient” means a person who has no
    residence. “Residence” means one or more addresses at which a person
    regularly resides, regardless of the number of days or nights spent
    there, such as a shelter or structure that can be located by a street
    address, including, but not limited to, houses, apartment buildings,
    motels, hotels, homeless shelters, and recreational and other
    The sex offender act should have 3 categories:(1)Resident; (2) Transient; and (3) Traveler.

    • Janice Bellucci

      I respectfully disagree with your interpretation. I believe a traveler is a transient and therefore is required to register at the same location every 30 days. I wish you luck in persuading CDCR that you are not a transient.

    • michaelrs

      Transient vs. “traveler”? Well, I too wish you luck with that one. However, if that were MY situation, I would read the law CLEARLY as calling me a “transient”.

      And, paraphrased since I don’t have it in front of me, the registration law says, as I’m sure you well know, that if one is transient, you have to update your registration (at least) every 30 days with the law enforcement agency have jurisdiction over the area you are in when you register.

      And you are right, you do not have to do it sooner if you are spending less than 4 or 5 days, whatever it says, in any one city. But you MUST register, SOMEWHERE, at least ever 30 days.

      So, wherever you have traveled to and are by day 30, you need to register.
      And that is 30 days or less. So you can not make plans to arrive some place, say on a weekend, when they are not doing registration at that particular place, and call kings X.

      Of course you can try the traveler thing as an excuse. But I really think you will be spending a lot of time in custody, for failure to register, as it winds it’s way through the courts.

      That is why the registration forms have gotten longer in the last few years. And why you have to initial a couple of pages of the breakdown of the registration requirements. Which are laid out in elementary school fashion to avoid ANY misunderstanding.

      So, if you have escaped being scooped up for failure to register up to this point, count it as a blessing and start popping in somewhere to register every 30 days are less.

      And really, at this point, if you have not done so, be prepared to be arrested for it when you do go to register and they want to know where and when you last registered and you tell them your story.

      Also, depending on how busy the department is, I would not use a false address you really do not live at., for they are liable to check it out.., more than once. And that will get you, and whomever is living there and vouching for you, in more trouble.

      And go by a lottery ticket. Because you are a lucky guy in that Fremont did not scoop you up.

    • Bluewall

      If you’re traveling in state you are a transite.. the 3 day rule I believe is if you are traveling through a state… So if you travel Eastbound and travel thru a different state every 3 days you are safe…

    • Timmr

      Forget any dreams of retiring (if one had the financial means), buying an RV and living life on the road, going from one National Park to another as free people can. Call it regulation or punishment or saving one child, you are in custody of the State and pay the price for breaking that custody.

    • VSPSVS

      Steve Turner, you better get it straight or the next time you may get arrested and if you trying to something for yourself, remember another charge will not help you down the line.

  19. A

    I’m one of the parolees that this residency restriction directly effects. (re: Taylor).
    I thought I was fortunate when I paroled to L.A. County (Antelope Valley) in 2011. As I was almost instantly relieved from the 2000 foot rule, thanks to the lawsuit and temporary stay filed here. But, after about a year of living in the house I was renting, I was attacked by a local skinhead and was forced to move into a motor home outside of the incorporated city. The responding Sheriff’s deputy informed me that the assailant would face nothing more than a citation. With his 2 striped superior standing right next to him, nodding in agreement.
    I’ve been living in exile now for over 2 years, waiting, to go home. I have no family here, they are all up north in the Sacramento area, My family all live within 1000 feet of the local high school. My 76 yr old dad has to drive down here every 5 or six months, just to see me. My family are an amazing support system and have done all they can to help me thus far. I am banished. No social interaction is tolerated. I am fortunate that I have an understanding agent, but his boss is of the mindset that all 290’s will harm another victim. Resulting in mud in the face media coverage. There is very little concern about the human registrant re-integrating back into society, only fear that with each violation, will result in bad media. I will never justify my crimes, I did wrong, and with everything as it currently stands, will pay for this even after my expiration date. Any friends and or family that helps or helped me, will be scrutinized as traitors to public safety.
    The low percentage of re-offense for registered citizens is meaningless, as the image of a single child victim is splashed on the media outlets for both, sensational, and political gain.
    Media and the folks that run it are our true Presidents. Not those “elected”.

    thank you for letting me rant here.

    • Janice Bellucci

      Thank you for your reading and commenting on this website! Your circumstances are compelling and clearly demonstrate that current sex offender laws constitute punishment and as such cannot lawfully be applied retroactively. We hope that you will speak out again on this website and elsewhere. We will conduct a press conference on Dec. 2 following the oral arguments. Please let us know if you are willing and able to join us.

      • A

        Janice, I humbly thank you for everything you are doing. Before learning of this site, I had extremely little hope. At least here, even if the news is not good, it’s a forum that appears to be closest to the truth. I am unable to attend any public assemblies, as I will be denied due to the possibilities of minors being present. I was almost denied attending my swearing in ceremony for the union because the mandatory meeting invited friends and family of those being sworn. That was just last week. I was able to attend the ceremony, but that concern was brought up before the supervisor would sign off on the pass. I’m attempting to attend college courses again this spring. I am unable to attend study groups or do homework with other students as the powers that be will not let my current situation be anonymous. Full disclosure is required. That’s a possible death sentence if the word got out to the one wrong person. I do live in fear. Whomever was responsible for making my registry a public shaming… they got their money’s worth.

    • MM

      A … I am so sorry for what you are going through. I’m sorry you don’t get to see your family as you should be able to, for support. It’s very unfair. I wish “they” would understand. However, the restriction doesn’t only apply to parolees – my husband has been a registrant for more than 25 years with no other charges, hasn’t been on parole for quite some time … yet, he can’t choose where he lives either.

      Our house is roughly 1,000 feet from the closest school. I’ve lived there for just over 25 years, raise both my children there. My husband moved in four years ago, we sued the City at the beginning of 2013 and were able to remain, until of course a final decision (in re: Taylor) is made on residency restrictions – AND THAT TIME IS NOW HERE.

      We pray for God’s hand in matter, for strong Oral Arguments on December 2nd and for wisdom to the judges to see that banishing registrants from their homes will not, has not done anything to provide a safer world. PRAY.

    • Anonymous

      A, does your family actually live in Sacramento county? Sacramento county is not enforcing Jessica’s law at this time. They are giving out writs to all the sex offenders so that Jessica’s law doesn’t apply to them.

      If you could get a transfer to Sac county, you would need to stay in a place that is 2000 feet away from parks/schools for about 1-2 months until your writ is approved by a judge. Once you get the writ, then you could stay with your family.

      • A

        Anonymous. I am in a conundrum on that suggestion. Parole will not allow me to transfer counties without having an address which I have to live with a family member for at least 30 days. I have submitted two requests over the past 2 years and they were both denied. The county I was attempting to transfer to is El Dorado County. (just east of Sacramento). I was categorically denied both transfers due to residency restrictions. Prior to that, the county was not open to transfers. I contacted the public defenders office in that county, and they mentioned nothing of a stay of execution for residency. The sad part is, El Dorado County is where Jaycee Dugard was kidnapped from. Or thereabouts.

        • Jo

          Hang in there buddy, it will pass and life will return to some semblance of normalcy.

        • mk

          yeah, Jaycee Dugard. See how well those residency restrictions helped her out. Compliant home, but still.
          It really gets me angry.
          I hope you are able to move. chin up

  20. MM

    Hi Janice … I thought I would ask here in case other folks were wondering the same question. I plan on attending the December 2nd hearing in Los Angeles. Being that it’s a ‘work day’ I was going to ask for 1/2 day off and leave the Long Beach area around 12:00 noon (I would guess arrival to be around 1:00 pm). In your experience do you think that’s enough time or do you suggest BEING AT the court house much earlier, say around 11:00/12:00?? I don’t know how these things go?? Thank you. See you on the 2nd.

    • Janice Bellucci

      Unfortunately, I can’t predict traffic in or near L.A. Nor do I know the location of the nearest parking garage. Having said that, the oral arguments won’t begin at 2 p.m. because there is another, unrelated case that will be heard starting at that time. My best guess and it is a guess that oral arguments in our first case will begin at 3 p.m. If possible, please stick around for the CA RSOL press conference that will begin shortly after the oral arguments have finished. The press conference will be held on the steps of the building if possible and if not at a park close by.

    • Eric Knight

      I would take the Blue Line from Long Beach right into downtown. The Federal Building is only a few blocks from the downtown transportation hub, and this will save you aggravation from the rush hour traffic, downtown one-way-street maze, and ~$20 parking. You can catch the Blue Line at many points along Long Beach Bl., or if you want, you can drive to the Blue Line stops to park your car (for free) at the 223rd, Del Amo, or Artesia stations. I’d get a $5 all-day pass (you may have to pay an extra dollar for the actual transport card).

      This goes for anyone in the LA area around a light-rail line, such as the Orange Line in the Pasadena area, the Red Line in the North Hollywood area, or the Green Line in the Norwalk to Redondo Beach area (roughly the 105 freeway, then points south from LAX).

  21. vahall

    Parking near 300 S. Spring St., DTLA: the CHEAPEST is Pershing Square Garage @ 530 South Olive Street. Underground lot, $16 for all day or $10 if you get in by 11 a.m. (as of 4 months ago, YMMV). CLOSEST is Broadway Spring Center, 333 S. Spring St. and there’s another across the street @ 340 S. Spring…

  22. vahall

    I am driving up to LA from the Deep South (CA) and can accommodate 4 kid-free, smoke-free, reasonably entertaining passengers.

  23. mike

    Hello I just wanted to post a link to the briefs filed in the upcoming court case involving residency restrictions and who they apply to. It is very encouraging that the AG is argueing that residency restrictions only apply to parolees not to all rso’s. I thought it might be something people might want to read themselves here’s the link then just scroll down to people vs mosley. There are links to all the briefs there.

  24. mike

    What bothers me about mosley is that they don’t argue the fact that registration at its core has become excessively punitive in its effect and serves no legitimate purpose such as reducing crime or protecting the public that it is now unconstitutional. I think if the issue was brought forth today with all the current data apnd facts that it could be proven that registration today does in fact have an enormous punitive effect on a certain class of citizens and serves no legitimate legislative purpose as there is no measurable effect on reducing crime or increasing public saftey. I fear that when the court decides this case it will claim there is no punitive effect of registration without any issues or facts and current data to the contrary.

  25. Praying Mom

    I just wanted to say. Many prayers have been lifted up for tomorrow’s outcome. I am a mother of a son that is a register sex offender. This residency law will affect my son. I must admit I have much concern and I see a lot of unfairness and careless laws within the California State. I cannot understand how the law works but I see cruelty, unfairness and how the State of California make it hard for any accomplishments to better their life. .

    My son is doing well inspite of his limitations we are working around it. He is working and has family support and has a temporary stay to live with my parents. If this not granted it will not be good for him. Wouldn’t be fair because he wouldn’t have any where to go. He can’t even visit me which sadness me. But if this residency law isn’t granted it will affect him in a negative way and many others to. Limitations of where they can live is unfair. There are schools and parks everywhere.

    I lift up Janice and everyone that is in support of this in prayer. Please speak for me as well unfornately I cannot make it there tomorrow.
    God bless
    Praying mom

  26. sixcrowes

    FIGHT THE GOOD FIGHT!!! MANY POSITIVE VIBES & PRAYERS TODAY FOR THE ATTORNEYS ARGUING RESIDENCY TODAY! Remember you are not only arguing for the Registrants but their families as well!!! Good luck.

  27. MM

    Well, it’s just after 9:00 am on Tuesday, 12/2 … I plan on leaving work at 12:00 noon today and driving to LA (and of course today it is raining!) maybe the rain can be viewed as a good sign!? The washing away of old thoughts and ways of doing things, a fresh/clean beginning for so many that deserve this. Prayers lifted for the attorneys today that their words reach the hearts of those with the power to make a change.

  28. mike

    I’m realy concerned that the court will affirm the lower court decision and conclude that residency restrictions apply to all rso’s. It will be next to impossible to reverse such a decision and will have devastating effects on thousands of people. I know I did parole and believe me it was hell. Not to be negative but if they decide it applies to all rso and they try to enforce or implement the lifetime gps monitoring that’s also in the law I don’t know what I would do. There’s no way I could go through the rest of my life with a gps on my ankle.I know that isn’t mentioned in the case but it is in the law let’s all hope the court rules Jessica’s law doesn’t apply to all rso and that its an unfair condition of parole in the Taylor case as well because I know how hard it was to get through parole with the gps and residency restrictio. It was hell on earth.

    • td777

      I completely agree and have the same concerns.

      However, that said, I do see one tiny ray of light if they do reach such a sad decision. The next step would be to try to get this into federal court. Should this reach federal court, it could(hopefully) eventually lead the US Supreme Court to revisit their decision that registration is not punishment. I don’t think there is any justifiable way, with all the current restrictions and adverse consequences of registration, they could again say that registration is equivalent to filling out a census form.

  29. Marie

    My thoughts, prayers and good vibes are with ya’all! Knock ’em dead!

  30. mike

    That’s all I can do is hope that people with the means and resources continue to fight for us that are being devastated by these laws. It will take people like frank and Janice who are both heroes and show tremendous courage.

  31. Julie Loera

    Does anyone know how it went today? Been praying…

    Praying Mom

    • MM

      Hi Julie … I was there. I’m not a praying mom (I am, but for different reasons … ) but, I am a praying wife in this issue. As much as I want to share what I experienced I think it’s best to wait and see what Janice & TEAM post. How’s this? I felt good when I left. The reason I chose to respond is because I know as a mom (praying) you want to know SOMETHING .. so, keep praying … God hears us … Whether it is this issue or another. FAITH.

  32. David

    I attended the Supreme Court’s oral arguments today and it appeared from the Justices’ questions that they are concerned about the effectiveness of residency restrictions for community safety as well as a broader concern about where to draw the line between what is considered simple regulatory procedure (i.e., 290 registration) vs. what is – in fact & in implementation – a punishment.

  33. Doug

    I was at the Supreme Court hearings , yesterday. I was more than impressed , The Justices were very concerned , all most compassionate about the harm that is being done to the people on the registory. . Especialy by Jesicas Law.and the residency restrictions. Several times The judges openly called Jesicas Law a ” STUPID LAW ” .. Over all their tone was very good, The laws are now too harsh. Generaly causing much more damage than good. I have a hearing problem. So I missed a lot of what was said. and I’m not a lawyer. How ever I was nearly brought to tears while listing to the ‘ Governments repersenative present their side of the argument . This was a young lawyer that I heard was from the Department of Corrections. He got his ass kicked, throughly , by all of the judges. It was heart warming. Then there was Our speaker. She was a young lady who was very well informed , very well prepaired and A very good speaker I think She made the the judges shed a tear , describing the harm that the system is doing to every one . I’m sure the court belives both the residence restrictions , and the regerstation system is efectivly punishment. Not what the department of corrections called colladeral damage. I came away thinking the Supreme Court thinks the pendulem has swung too far ! I’m not sure what the court will , or can do about it. But they are going to try!
    It was a very good Day ! Merry Christmas to all !

    PS Find out who the young lady who spoke for us is , send her a box of chocolates . If you can find the other guy from the Department of Corrections , Tell him I’ll buy him a drink , he needs it!

  34. Someone who cares

    Does anyone have any more updates on these two cases? It can’t possibly be ruled for all registered citizens. That would not only punish those who have completed their sentences and parole/ probation terms, but also all the family members involved. That would definitely call for some sort of lawsuit.

  35. Someone who cares

    Still hoping to see an update here about the case. If anyone has any news, please share.

  36. Praying Mom

    To MM

    Thank you! I really like your response. I will keep you and your husband in my prayers. Thank you again.
    God bless

  37. David

    New CA Supreme Courices have just been confirmed this week!
    The Court is likely to shift to being more liberal /progressive.
    Hopefully, these new justices will be more realistic and reasonable – hopefully, in our favor.
    Maybe we can – in time – get the Registry in its entirety overturned.
    *fingers crossed*

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 *