Assembly Bill Would Authorize Cities, Counties to Adopt Presence Restrictions

Assemblyman William P. Brough introduced Assembly Bill 201 on January 29 that, if passed, would authorize cities and counties to pass laws that restrict where registered citizens may be present. Brough is a Republican member of the Assembly from Oange County.

“This bill attempts to reverse decisions of the California Court of Appeal and Supreme Court made in 2014,” stated California RSOL President Janice Bellucci. “The bill would also reverse the positive results of lawsuits filed last year in federal district courts.”

During 2014, a total of 26 lawsuits were filed challenging city and county laws that prohibited registered citizens from visiting public places, including libraries, parks and museums, as well as privately owned places, including movie theaters, bowling alleys and fast food restaurants. Of that total, more than 20 lawsuits have been settled and an additional 51 cities and/or cities have voluntarily repealed their ordinances.

In the past, there have been two failed attempts to provide the same authorization to cities and counties.
“We must remain vigilant to keep the victories we have won. California RSOL will fight this bill and all bills that further erode the civil rights of registered citizens and members of their families,” stated California RSOL Vice President Chance Oberstein.

Bill Info

Related posts

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.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

My god these laws are so unfair I can not beleive how inhumane and unfair people are. It’s crazy that so many people who may have made a mistake in their life that caused very lil to no harm at all to anyone have to pay for other peoples crimes. The real monsters that really hurt adults and children get locked up forever but for all of us who just made a bad decision or made a poor judgement call have to pay for the real monsters crimes. Where the hell is the justice in all this bs. I seen this identical bill that was previously stopped though I don’t understand what process stopped it let’s hope it gets stopped again. I would like to know how it was stopped before so that we can repeat that process.

Unbelievable why don’t they just lock us all back up and put us in prison again

Figures…this proposal coming from orange county do as your told puppet …it was a Constitutional failure then…Its a Constitutional failure NOW……………..Whewwwwwwwwwwww.!!

Obviously, the lawsuits are a DIRECT result of Janice and CA RSOL’s onslought against the unconstitutional actions brought out by the cities. To be blunt, the bill is DOUBLING DOWN on the stupidity shown by the cities with regard to the Constitution. While the majority of fights have been to restrict the cities to respecting current state law and not to add to the restrictions, this bill contains a multitude of laughers.

Let’s start with the opening statement:

(a) The Legislature finds and declares that a comprehensive system of risk assessment, supervision, monitoring and containment for registered sex offenders residing in California communities is necessary to enhance public safety and reduce the risk of recidivism posed by these offenders. The Legislature further affirms and incorporates the following findings and declarations, previously reflected in its enactment of “Megan’s Law”:…

Right off the bat, the legislature is attempting to show that actions are necessary to enhance public safety and reduce the risk of recidivism, risks that are NO MORE than 1.9% of all registrants. The irrational premise is thus set:

…(1) Sex offenders pose a potentially high risk of committing further sex offenses after release from incarceration or commitment, and the protection of the public from reoffending by these offenders is a paramount public interest.

WOW…the BIG LIE RIGHT OFF THE BAT!! This clause is a 100% falsehood based upon CASOMB, DOJ (both CA AND US), and virtually every credible study and statistical source gathered over the last 10 years. Sweetheart, this is NOT 2003 when there was no data; we are in 2015 with absolute REAMS of proof…yet this yahoo wants to attempt to play this card. Bottom line: Clause (1) is a huge FAIL.

Moving on…

(2) It is a compelling and necessary public interest that the public have information concerning persons convicted of offenses involving unlawful sexual behavior collected pursuant to Sections 290 and 290.4 to allow members of the public to adequately protect themselves and their children from these persons.

OK, there is all SORTS of information, starting with the Internet registry itself. Any moron with a mouse can get any information on any registrant with a couple of clicks. Information is all over the planet on every registrant, so (2) is another FAIL.

(3) Persons convicted of these offenses involving unlawful sexual behavior have a reduced expectation of privacy because of the public’s interest in public safety.

What in tarnation does privacy have to do with the bill, sweetie? Other than the fact that having such language in an official document that is ostensibly supposed to resemble constitutional authority laughable in the first place, particularly since “public safety” is not even a consideration anymore. And of course, HOW IN HELL IS THIS RELATED TO THE INTENDED RESTRICTIONS??

(4) In balancing the offenders’ due process and other rights against the interests of public security, the Legislature finds that releasing information about sex offenders under the circumstances specified in the Sex Offender Punishment, Control, and Containment Act of 2006 will further the primary government interest of protecting vulnerable populations from potential harm.

Ha ha, another funny. And also irrevelent to the proposed bill itself.

(5) The registration of sex offenders, the public release of specified information about certain sex offenders pursuant to Sections 290 and 290.4, and public notice of the presence of certain high risk sex offenders in communities will further the governmental interests of public safety and public scrutiny of the criminal and mental health systems that deal with these offenders.

Your repeating yourself sweetie. Been there, done that, 1 and 2 above. Give it a rest and move on…

(6) To protect the safety and general welfare of the people of this state, it is necessary to provide for continued registration of sex offenders, for the public release of specified information regarding certain more serious sex offenders, and for community notification regarding high risk sex offenders who are about to be released from custody or who already reside in communities in this state. This policy of authorizing the release of necessary and relevant information about serious and high risk sex offenders to members of the general public is a means of assuring public protection and shall not be construed as punitive.

“…and shall not be construed as punitive.” ROTLMFAO!! Of course it’s not “punitive” other than the fact the registrant can’t move on with his life, but I digress. I’m still laughing.

(7) The Legislature also declares, however, that in making information available about certain sex offenders to the public, it does not intend that the information be used to inflict retribution or additional punishment on any person convicted of a sex offense. While the Legislature is aware of the possibility of misuse, it finds that the dangers to the public of nondisclosure far outweigh the risk of possible misuse of the information. The Legislature is further aware of studies in Oregon and Washington indicating that community notification laws and public release of similar information in those states have resulted in little criminal misuse of the information and that the enhancement to public safety has been significant.

Wow. You dig LONG and HARD to come up with a scenario from two state who DON’T have ANY registry restrictions. One of the states don’t even have full addresses, just block numbers for the harshest level! Congratulations, my lovely. I got just one teeny weenie question…

…If you can find data that “prove” your point that the registry is “civil” because there is “little criminal misuse,” well, come here, let me ask this gently in your ear…go on, put it down…good now….


Ear ringing? No, sweetheart, that’s the reverberations of the uestion bouncing around your EMPTY SKULL!!

Anyway, the entire justification of the new law allowing the cities to essentially restrict registrants is essentially blown out of the water, over the mountain, and into space. HOPEFULLY, none of this will ever get out of committees in either the Senate and/or Assembly. In any case, thanks, genius, for bringing out the bill this early when you guys don’t even have any sense of why the cases are being lost IN THE FIRST PLACE.

These repeated civil right violation proposals especially from the home of the changed court record after immediate backhall conference …they won’t honor you a fair trial there so what do you expect to honor your civil rights from double jeopardy ..?…..this further proves and is ripe to challenge this states registry as punitive. ….double jeopardy …putting people on registry so to undermine civil rights…….this is further proof….their greed to bad policy will be their downfall and this listing.

Orange County is my responsibility. I will take a very strong interest in Assemblyman William Brough. He by introducing this Bill just put my children in the cross-hairs of danger by taking away their first line of protection (their parent).

Children sometimes get hurt in parks and beaches whether from choking on a hotdog or falling out of a tree…if those children are the children of registered citizens they’re not good enough to have the protection of their parents in parks and beaches.

There is no history of registered citizens violating against children in the parks and beaches to justify having such a bill. This is an extreme violation of parental rights and child safety.

As with Proposition 35 this too may need court intervention if passed. I will make weekly trips to the Capital to protect my children from these type of invasive laws if needed.

The proposed legislation attempts to solve a problem that does not exist.
If the problem did exist, the bill’s provisions would do nothing towards solving it.
California has the SOMB for a reason: to keep the focus on the real world of facts and viable, effective actions. The assemblyman’s bill exits the world of facts and travels to the world of delusion and prejudice. The bill deserves to be defeated and the SOMB’s tiering proposal adopted.

How can this be possible to even consider? So, it was determined that this was unconstitutional, and now it is not? Do they just make up their minds with the changing of the weather? It should not be that easy to just introduce a new bill every time someone thinks things need to be changed and get it passed, just like that. What are the chances of this bill actually being passed? This really would be punishment beyond belief. We are all paying taxes in this country, and most have served their time. THIS IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

I am going to go on a limb here and say that this bill was a free campaign ad for the assemblyman, simply because it’s a non-starter. I really don’t see how this bill will ever get out of committee in a heavily-democratic Assembly or Senate on Constitutional grounds (re: expectation of costly legal defense), let alone to the floor for a full vote.

Milwaukee, Wisconsin is finding this out the hard way.

My feeling is this idiot knows this is illegal and won’t get passed. Even if it did, it would be struck down. Mr. Brough is not concerned with children, public safety, nor creating good law; Mr. Brought IS concerned with getting hysterical parents who have been conditioned by politicians and the media to think sex offenders are lurking behind every bush waiting to grab their kids to vote for him. It’s one of the most vile and pathetic forms of bottom-feeding fear-mongering politics there is. But, unfortunately it works for people like him more often than not. here is the idiot who is introducing this bill we need to keep a list of these fools so we know not to vote for them or support them in any way and also bombard them with opposition and facts to how ignorant they are.

Just more of the same: A solution looking for a problem.

I don’t think this bill will pass or even get to a vote. There is a legitimate state interest in the state pre-emption on matters like this. Suppose you are a RSO traveling into a city with a presence restriction. You pull up to a restaurant to eat and the police happen to scan your license plate and discover you are a RSO and that your restaurant is within 300 feet of some restricted zone. How is a registrant supposed to know the ordinances of each city in the state? How are the supposed to know which parts of the city are within the zone and which parts are not?

There is a state law that prohibits registrants from going on school grounds, but everyone knows what a school is. No one knows where “child safety zones” might be. Presence restrictions make no sense in any case, but in the case of “child safety zones”, state pre-emption is entirely appropriate. I think the Public Safety Committees of each side of the legislature will see this.

This state registry is ripe to challenge on illegal punitive grounds and civil right violations …these repeated failure wannabe..never will be..restrictions on free citizens and the recent ca scourt said what the registry really is…………………….they said it…………..these are HomeRun opportunities of free people to break from oppression ….I want to put my name and input and would love a job to help free people from oppression.

I’m guilty of unwittingly trespassing in a “child safety zone”. This past holiday season, while traveling northward with my family to visit relatives, I made the mistake of stopping at a gas station/travel center in San Bernardino. We got gas, purchased some munchies, went potty and stretched our legs. How were we supposed to know that this was forbidden. It is also a video arcade based on the county definition making it a “Child Safety zone”. The travel center had several pinball and video games. Honestly, I didn’t even know I was in violation until their ordinance was repealed last week and I read the article. There were no signs posted.
It makes me wonder how many traveling registered citizens break these “Gotcha” laws daily. How can these local ordinances be an effective deterrent when most RC’s are clueless to their existence? If a bill like this were to pass, I’m afraid it would create total chaos for registrants. I could imagine that anyplace that sells candy in some cities might be considered a “Child Safety zone” too. Where does it end? Will Jim Crow laws make a comeback?
I’ve made it a personal policy not to talk to Strangers; By Strangers, I mean kids I don’t know. It’s self preservation. If kids come to my door to solicit donations for their school or soccer team, I grumble at them and slam the door in their face. No more Girl Scout cookies! If they say “Hello” to me while I’m at the checkout counter in the store, I’ll put on my ‘mean face’ and ignore them. I don’t care what their parents think, because I do care what their parents think. If a child strays from their parent in a store I’ll get the hell away from them. This is how society is ‘evolving’ with all the superstitions floating around out there. It takes a parent to raise a child, not a village!

290.03(a)(7) is complete nonsense in the first place. No real study has ever found that registration and/or notification has increased public safety, AND there is definitive proof that registration and public release of the information has resulted in significant criminal misuse!

In addition, the proposed changes ARE intended to further punish registrants, because there is no evidence establishing this increases public safety in any way.

Janice, is there a way for this to be challenged because it is the complete opposite of the truth? Also, is it possible for it to be challenged because it does not put any limitations on how extreme local jurisdictions can go in placing new limitations?

From my understanding, this would allow a city to establish a residency restriction so severe that it expels all registrants. If this passes, local agencies would be given free reign to do anything they want. Counties like Orange could have a residency restriction two miles from any park or school and a similar presence restriction, effectively expelling any registrant from the county.

What about monetary damages for denying access to public places that we as tax payers have paid to create. I’ve paid taxes since I was 14 years old and am now 47 so all my taxes that I have paid to build these parks and libraries and all the other places they want to deny me access to should be returned to me since I wouldn’t be able to use such places. Hell I have more of a right to parks and libraries then other peoples kids do since I actually paid for them. There’s also the fact that I am subject to taxation without representation as no law makers or gov. Officials represent my needs and wants or my rights. We should all be recompasated for all our taxes we’ve paid

@Eric Knight: Good post. Thanks for the link to the Milwaukee story. They raised a lot of important issues in their news story. If course, at the conclusion of the piece, the newscaster erroneously – and certainly intentionally – referred to all sex offenders as “predators”.

Food For Thought. IF sex offenders are a separate class, then it is my thought that all other government laws do not apply unless they also list sex offender.

Next it will be if I buy a car from someone and get a traffic ticket then the gov can take my car because there is a higher probability that I will drive recklessly or drunk in the future. The gov is stealing our tax money by denying us access to parks and other public places and are in fact using such places to deny our rights such as freedom to travel or live where we choose. I dont think this issue of taxation without representation or the fact that they are stealing our tax dollars that we’ve all paid by denying access to public places. I thinly these cities and counties could and should be sued for monetary damages caused bf denying us access to piblic places that we’ve paid for.

This is a rather disturbing article. This is certainly a very hateful and uneducated individual who isn’t up to date with current legislation and clearly didn’t do his homework. As many people are aware, we have a government agency contacting legislatures with the hope of creating a new law that would create a tiered sex offender registry in California, based upon a 1.8 percent re-offense rate and the conclusion that many currently on the registry pose no risk at all! As most people are aware, when people are allowed to re-enter society, marry and become law abiding citizens with jobs, the re-offense rate probably even lessons. So, this proponent of this legislation clearly hasn’t done his homework, doesn’t know the facts and must have a personal issue or vendetta. I have no comment.

One vote from either Miguel Santiago or Evan Low (preferably both) KILLS AB 201 in the Assembly Public Safety Committee. 3 NO votes are already locked in. Get busy writing those letters tonight, mail them in the morning and make those calls tomorrow. Ask to speak to the Assemblymember 1st, then his/her Chief of Staff, then his/her Legislative Aide in charge of Public Safety:

California Assembly Public Safety Committee
Committee Members District, Office & Contact Information

Bill Quirk (Chair) Democrat, District 20
P.O. Box 942849, Room 2163, Sacramento, CA 94249-0020; (916) 319-2020

Melissa A. Melendez (Vice Chair) Republican, District 67
P.O. Box 942849, Room 6031, Sacramento, CA 94249-0067; (916) 319-2067

Lorena S. Gonzalez Democrat, District 80
P.O. Box 942849, Room 6012, Sacramento, CA 94249-0080; (916) 319-2080

Reginald B. Jones-Sawyer, Sr. Democrat, District 59
P.O. Box 942849, Room 4126, Sacramento, CA 94249-0059; (916) 319-2059

Tom Lackey Republican, District 36
P.O. Box 942849, Room 4009, Sacramento, CA 94249-0036; (916) 319-2036

Evan Low Democrat, District 28
P.O. Box 942849, Room 2175, Sacramento, CA 94249-0028; (916) 319-2028

Miguel Santiago Democrat, District 53
P.O. Box 942849, Room 5119, Sacramento, CA 94249-0053; (916) 319-2053

Senate Public Safety Committee
Committee Members:

Senator Loni Hancock (Chair)
Senator Joel Anderson (Vice Chair)
Senator Mark Leno
Senator Carol Liu
Senator Mike McGuire
Senator Bill Monning
Senator Jeff Stone

Is South Pasadena one of the cities successfully sued by CA RSOL, Frank, and Janice? I saw this news article about a RC arrested for “loitering” in a park and wondered:

The CA Assembly may wish to note that in either Mosley or Taylor, the question of parks as public spaces is addressed ….. in a way that seems to suugest restrictions on presence in parks may be unconstitutional.