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:
From the recently posted CASOMB report: “If, as seems likely, the Court holds that the (Jessica’s) law applies to all sex offenders released from custody since the law was enacted on November 7, 2006, instead of just to sex offenders who are on parole, the law could be enforced against the majority of sex offenders in California. Prior to the enforcement of the residency restriction against parolees in 2007, transients made up only 1% of the registry. Today, nearly 10% of registrants (many of whom are parolees and therefore restricted by the current application) are transient.”
The CASOMB has little hope the Court will be helpful here.
Why would the attorney for Mosley argue that if the restriction are constitutional they should apply to ALL RCs?
Why stick it to everyone?
I wish I wasn’t but I’m scared. I don’t know what we (me, my family, and other other RSOs) are going to do if the courts rule in favor of subjecting all RSOs to the residency restrictions. I live too close to a school. Lived there (own not rent) for years before I was arrested for CP. I’m still on probation. Live there with my wife and our two kids. Local PD said I could stay since I’m on probation not parole. Probation in my county doesn’t appear to enforce any residency restrictions. This WILL tear families apart if they decide against us. Probation and law enforcement will have no choice but to enforce?
It is widely known that the law doesn’t specify a punishment. Is it an infraction? A misdmeanor? A felony? Is imprisonment required and, if so, for how long? These are questions that the law literally does not provide an answer to. It is also very well known that, for this reason, the law is unenforceable.
If the court rules not in our favor, technically, it is still unenforceable, isn’t it? Wouldn’t the legislature have to go back and rewrite the law to define the type and punishment, BEFORE it can be enforced?
So if applied to all is it all who were convicted after 11/7/2006? I thought I read that was the case a while ago. I can’t believe they are going to tell me to sell my house after living there 18 years.
Many other states’ high courts seem to be ruling that such restrictions cannot be placed on individuals not on supervision because they are either unconstitutional or ex post facto punishment. I hope our California Supreme Court will make a similar ruling that the restrictions are unconstitutional.
I cannot understand how it can be viewed in any other way.
Are we truly an entirely different population to whom both the U.S. and California Constitutions do not apply?? So vastly different even from every other group of ex-felons (murderers, drug dealers, etc) that we warrant special exclusion from the Constitution??
(If so, then the only other such group is non-U.S. citizen Gitmo detainees.)
There are so many thoughts, feelings going through me. I’ve lived and owned my home in Orange County, CA … since 1989. We met five years ago and my husband moved in four years ago and we’ve been fighting this battle with Cypress with Janice Bellucci since they tried to make my husband leave almost two years ago, thank you OCDA office, NOT! EVERYTHING weighs on the decision on Monday. Are we forced to sell and find a “pocket” of land we can live in? Or, we can pray/hope for one of the following outcomes … First would be that every registered citizen can choose to live where they want … Second, if not that, then have the residency restrictions apply to those on parole. IF, that is the case … There IS AN END TO THEIR RESTRICTIONS. Once they are off parole they can live where they want … It’s a small step, but … It’s a step, THERE IS AN END. one brick at a time.
I am so … On edge …. I’ve been physically sick since attending the court on December 2nd … I can’t believe 90 days is here.
The Constitution will prevail …ride with us..The Constitution ..!
MM,we’re in this together. I was also there to hear the Dec. 2 arguments. I fear that my dreamhouse my be taken from me and if that happens where will I be able to live? I’ve worked diligently to rebuild my life, but this decades old S.O. cloud is always looming nearby.
So if you were convicted and released from custody before Jessica Law was past, then the residency issue does not apply right? It would be only for people convicted and released after it past right?
Why does the CASOMB say the below statement? What do they know? Was there a clear indicator at the hearing on dec 2nd? Are they guessing? Do they have inside info?
“If, as seems likely, the Court holds that the law applies to all sex offenders released from
custody since the law was enacted on November 7, 2006, instead of just to sex offenders who
are on parole, the law could be enforced against the majority of sex offenders in California.”
Well, we are only a couple days from the actual announcement, but here is what the court should say: we favor law enforcement blah blah, therefore we rule for the Attorney General. As a result, nobody needs to move or sell their house. Once you are off parole no restrictions. End of problem. We are a tough Supreme Court and we go with law enforcement here.
—-with a little luck, that last sentence should be the headline. It will pacify the wingnuts and leave registered citizens to go about their normal law-abiding business.
It has been this way for years and none of us is jumping off the tops of buildings. The public is not menaced by it either.
I was at the hearings . Several of the judges said ” Jessica’s law is a stupid law”
it causes more damage than good.
They will rule in our favor !
Worrying does NOT change the outcome, it just make people sick.
Why worry about what you can’t control? You’re not one of the justices so just let it go. All has been done that could be done and the outcome will be what it is regardless of how much stress and worry you exude. Let it go. If you HAVE to express an emotion then why on earth choose the negative? If you can’t control it at least control your emotions and choose to be optimistic. It’s such a waste to be negative and stressed out, especially it it goes logic and common sense’s way. Buck up!
I have heard several people say that CPC 3003.5 does not provide for punishment, therefore it is unenforceable. Can one of the attorneys that attend the CARSOL meetings respond? AI would be more interested in the opinion of someone who is an officer of the court, but if someone has first hand experience…
Clark said “The Constitution will prevail …ride with us..The Constitution ..!”
It’s too bad Tupac Shakur was killed. He would have had to register and he could have shown that most registrants had a one time bad judgement and never reoffend and focusing on a population with an under 2% re-offense rate makes no sense.
HOW is this not punishment? Forcing ALL people on a list REGARDLESS OF THEIR CRIME into HOMELESSNESS ISN’T PUNISHMENT? WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE COURTS IN THIS STATE?
This is ABSOLUTELY PUNISHMENT!
punishment: the infliction or imposition of a penalty as retribution for an offense.
Unbelievable… Just unbelievable.
CAN ANYBODY PLEASE FIND OUT, IF WE CAN STAY AT OUR RESIDENCE, IF WE WERE THERE BEFORE THE LAW WAS PASSED!!!. I HAVE BEEN LOOKING ON THE INTERNET, AND HAVE NOT FOUND ANYTHING SOLID. I HEARD THAT THE STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL, SAID THAT WE COULD STAY AT OUR RESIDENCE BUT IF WE MOVED WE WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE RESIDENCE PROVISION. IF ANYBODY GETS IT, PLEASE POST THE LIGITAMATE LINK. THAT WILL GIVE AT LEAST SOME OF US RELIEF, JANICE PLEASE RESPOND IF YOU KNOW ABOUT IT, THANK YOU
It feels like we are in the 17 or 1800’s where we all are going to have to stand up and yell give me liberty or give me death.
3003.5. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, when a
person is released on parole after having served a term of
imprisonment in state prison for any offense for which registration
is required pursuant to Section 290, that person may not, during the
period of parole, reside in any single family dwelling with any other
person also required to register pursuant to Section 290, unless
those persons are legally related by blood, marriage, or adoption.
For purposes of this section, “single family dwelling” shall not
include a residential facility which serves six or fewer persons.
(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, it is unlawful for
any person for whom registration is required pursuant to Section 290
to reside within 2000 feet of any public or private school, or park
where children regularly gather.
Like so many people before me, I’ll point out that paragraph (b) does not spell out what type of “crime” it is, or what punishment is warranted. While I am not an attorney, if the ruling does not come down in our favor, I believe that it will take an act of our state legislature to resolve this section. Is it an infraction? Misdemeanor? Felony? Is the punishment a fine, or 3-5 years in prison? The law does not specify, which is why it is unenforceable. I’ll quote the following from the Fresno Police Department to support my position:
“What are the restrictions, if any, sexual registrant are required to follow?
Unless a registrant is currently on supervised release (e.g. parole or probation), they are only required by law to prove current registration. Absent supervised release programs, a sexual registrant is able to reside wherever they chose. Although Jessica’s Law (Penal Code Section 3003.5(b)) was enacted in 2006, no punishment exists in the statute. This law is still being challenged on the grounds of constitutionality.”
Similar statements exist on numerous local law enforcement sites. Since PD doesn’t know what to book you for (do they write you a ticket, or arrest you for a felony?), they can’t take action.
I believe, therein lays some hope. If the court rules that residency restrictions are constitutional, and can be applied to all registered citizens, the legislature is going to have to further define 3003.5. Perhaps they will show some leniency by failing to do so. If they do, then no changes will take place.
On the other hand, they can fast track a bill, and resolve it immediately.
At this point, it’s anyone’s guess! I’ve read the feedback provided by the numerous RC’s who were present at the hearing, and I am hopeful that the justices realize the stupidity of Jessica’s Law (their words). Fingers cross that Monday gives us all a reason to celebrate!
I have been looking on this site for a while now and this is my first post. There is one common sense argument that I have not seen addressed in the argument on the constitutional value of being on a registry. If, as the Supreme Court has ruled, that the registry is not punitive, then why are punitive effects by not registering?
Wierd it says only applied to people on parole yet my son is on probation and they said jessicas law effects him and he cant live 2000ft from park/school. The heck? This is in SD county.
Maybe this will finally get the aclu involved. 30k people losing their homes would be something I would hope they will fight.
This whole residency requirement is beyond stupidity. Currently the residency requirement ie Jessica’s Law only applies to those registrants while they are on Parole. It would not take you would think a rocket scientist to figure out while Registrants are on Parole they are required in California to wear a GPS monitor. That monitor is set up and alerts the Parole Office/Law Enforcement the minute the registrant is not in compliance. So what difference does it make where they live. Once they stepped anywhere near a park or school the monitor will alert the Parole Office? The accuracy range is less than 2000 feet.