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.
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.
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.
I just hope those lawyers have their ducks in the row. RSO can’t afford another strike again.
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
Paralegal
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.”
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.
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!
Whether in re or bobby lee or golly gee…..by 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.
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!
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..
It all starts with the legislature.
I wonder if this (the report from the IG, not the article) will be offered to the court as supportive evidence:
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/sex-641127-offenders-agents.html
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.
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.
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.
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 !
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
PS … JANICE … I WILL BE THERE ON DECEMBER 2nd!!
DOES A TRAVELER HAVE TO REGISTER?
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
vehicles.
The sex offender act should have 3 categories:(1)Resident; (2) Transient; and (3) Traveler.
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.
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.
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… http://en.parkopedia.com/parking/garage/broadway_spring_center_garage/90013/los_angeles/
I am driving up to LA from the Deep South (CA) and can accommodate 4 kid-free, smoke-free, reasonably entertaining passengers.
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 http://www.courts.ca.gov/27977.htm then just scroll down to people vs mosley. There are links to all the briefs there.
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.
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