The California Supreme Court has officially announced that it will publish on Monday, March 2, two decisions regarding residency restrictions. The decisions are expected to determine the following issues: (1) whether residency restrictions are constitutional, (2) to whom do the restrictions apply and (3) if the restrictions can be applied to every registered citizen while on parole. The Court heard oral arguments in the case on December 2 in Los Angeles.
During oral arguments in the case of People v. Mosley, the Attorney General’s office argued that residency restrictions are constitutional but that they only apply to registered citizens while on parole (not to those on probation or who have completed parole). The attorney representing Mosley argued in the alternative that the restrictions are not constitutional but if they are, they apply to all registered citizens. During oral arguments in the case of In re Taylor, the Public Defender argued that residency restrictions cannot be applied to every registered citizen while on parole, but must be done on a case-by-case basis.
Related:
It applies to people on probation to fyi. Which is bs.
Janice, thank you in advance for your legal analysis of the decision once the Court issues their ruling.
MS … currently residency restrictions apply to every registrant … Whether on parole or not. SAD, BUT TRUE. Besides the fact that the court will rule on whether or not the restrictions are constitutional … I believe, they will finally answer whether if those restrictions apply to ALL registrants or those just on parole. Monday …
Our thoughts and prayers go out to you from the State of Illinois where any CSO or anyone convicted in a other state who moves here is subjected to a 500 foot statewide restriction. We can’t live within 500 feet of schools, daycares or facilities exclusively or primarily for children unless the offender owned the home in question prior to a particular date which is presumably to a avoid the ex-post-facto argument in court. We still have people here being forced from homes when a daycare plans to open down the street but all it takes is a daycare application to trigger this or so I understand. We will be watching your court’s decision here as will every state.
Can someone explain to me why this could even be considered. The Constitution applies to all of the US and if you read the article attached here from Vancouver, WA, it clearly says to the question where sex offenders can live: Unless court ordered restrictions exist, the sex offender is CONSTITUTIONALLY free to live wherever they choose. Individual States just can’t decide on what is constitutional or not. If one State says it is not constitutional, it applies to ALL States. You can’t pick and choose when it comes to constitutional rights.
http://www.cityofvancouver.us/police/page/faqs-regarding-sex-offenders
There has to be a point where a person reaches their limit. I will register. I will struggle to find work. I will adapt to losing most of my friends and family. I will deal with the home verification raids. But I will not be removed from my home while I have a pulse. I will not be banished. It is worth dying for to me.
I know that worrying won’t help change anything, but I just can’t help it. I am so terrified about what this might mean for my friend, and for so many others in this situation. More homelessness won’t help public health and safety and I hope the courts will realize this. I hear that the judges in March will be different than the ones in December, is that true?
KM, yes, there are some changes to the Court: Justice Baxter retired at the end of January. However, because he heard the oral arguments regarding residency restrictions on December 2nd, he will participate in the March 2nd ruling.
Two new justices were sworn in by Gov. Brown on January 5th: Justice Mariano-Florentino Cuellar and Justice Leondra R. Kruger.
http://www.courts.ca.gov/3014.htm
SACRAMENTO – A federal judge ruled Friday that a voter-approved restriction on where sex offenders can live can’t be applied retroactively, potentially freeing thousands of offenders from a ban on living within 2,000 feet of schools, parks or places where children gather.
U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton said there was nothing in Proposition 83, commonly known as Jessica’s Law, that specified its provisions were intended to be applied retroactively. When that’s the case, California law requires that the statute apply from the date it takes effect, he added.
“The court finds that the law does not apply to individuals who were convicted and who were paroled, given probation or released from incarceration prior to its effective date,” he wrote.
that is from 2/09/2007- Well that gives some of us RSOs piece of mind.
The booze is on standby. If it is a negative, we’ll be drinking to numb the pain. If it a positive, we’ll be drinking in celebration.
CA, could you provide a link to that ruling?
Patrik Henry GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH I think its going to get real ugly if the courts don’t do what they’re supposed to do and keep the legislation ob check and protect the constitution.
CA: Yes, ‘found it. Thanks.
Good luck, CA. My fingers are crossed for you.