Board to Rescind Residency Restrictions for Sex Offenders [UPDATED]

RIVERSIDE COUNTY: Supervisors vote to lift sex offender residency restrictions (March 24)

Riverside County supervisors are expected Tuesday to begin the process of nullifying an ordinance prohibiting where convicted sex offenders can reside.

The Office of County Counsel is requesting that the Board of Supervisors completely invalidate Ordinance 902 in order for the county to comply with a California Supreme Court finding that residency restrictions are no longer enforceable, except in narrowly defined circumstances. Full Article

AgendaRepealing Ordinance

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

The Beginning!

Wait, whut?

“… to comply with a California Supreme Court finding that residency restrictions are no longer enforceable, except in narrowly defined circumstances.”

Here is my observation:
1. Someone, likely a lawyer came up with this interpretation.
2. County supervisors don’t want the county to get sued?
3. Someone OUTSIDE San Diego, in California, not on parole.. can stay in their homes!

Given the fact it’s been weeks since hearing much of anything since the ruling, this is absolutely refreshing to hear. I’ve been thirsty for any an all information about this since the ruling as i’m sure many others have. In Janices’ Journal, i saw only an interpretation that this is still an unclear issue.

Well, Riverside County sees clarity, it appears. Let’s hope this is correct. The more lawyers who can chime in on this the better.

As I’ve said all along, the ruling is pretty plain. These guys are just smart enough to rescind it in front of any probable lawsuits

Let’s hope this is a sign of things to come throughout the state. These government entities pay close attention to what their neighbors’ activities. Well, except cities like Carson and counties like San Bernardino…

Excellent news!! I hope all other California counties follow Riverside’s lead.
Here’s a link:

(Nicholas, I hope this will lead to the clear answer you’ve been seeking regarding your residence.)

Any news on L.A. County’s intentions with regard to residency and presence restrictions? (Municipal Code 13.59)
(I think Janice was in discussion with L.A. County’s D.A.?)

You know what I have determined that the courts have been saying in ruling against all these residence and presence restrictions?

They’ve been saying, “The Emperor has no clothes.”

I wonder at the selfish gall of the politicians propose and pass these laws/ordinances. They have to be doing so KNOWING full well that such will do naught to protect children.

They give parents a false sense of security. How much more dangerous is it for kids when the go about life thinking there is NO danger?

“I don’t have to watch my kids at the park. No one is going to hurt them. We have an ordinance saying the RSOs can’t be in the park, so they are safe”

Never mind that a true SVP is not gong to give a rats ____ about such a misdemeanor ordinance, when he it there to commit several felonies in one swoop. Or that one with evil designs might not yet be a RSO. They have the ordinance.

Plus, people, of all kinds, NEVER go to a park that hey do not live within 2000 feet of.

George Runner admitted on the KFI640’s John and Ken Show (so it’s on the record now) that there was nothing magic about the 2000 foot requirement.
That they only picked it because that is the number that had survived court challenges in other states.

Nothing magic about it? George, you sold it (Jessica’s Law) to the people as what was NEEDED to keep children safe from “sexual predators”. Keep “them” from having an actual residence from within 2000 ft of a school or park and ALL will be well.

Now you are saying…what? That the number was made up?
That it all was a LIE just so you and yours cold look good to the electorate?

Well, George, that is what the court found too: That the Emperor had no clothes.

Statements like this

“Some lawmakers, including Assemblywoman Melissa Melendez, R-Lake Elsinore, denounced the court’s decision as “judicial activism” that would inevitably endanger children.”

are so far off the mark that these statements would be laughable, were it not for the harm they do. I wonder how these conclusions reached, as they do not line up with anything factual.I also wonder why nobody ever asks those making these groundless statements to prove that they are true with facts.

What if your conviction was expunged, but yet your still required to register?

Speaking today about the so-called “Sodomite Suppression Act”, California A.G. Kamala Harris opposes the “… proposal that seeks to legalize discrimination and vigilantism.”
How is “Jessica’s Law” (or, for that matter, “Megan’s Law”) any different in its effect, AG Harris?

well today my son stay was granted in orange county California he has now a permanent stay for residency. What a relief this is for us. I know this is just the beginning and I know that it can get better. My prayers are lifted too many that are being affected by this and I hope and pray that more positive outcome will happen very soon.