The CA Supreme Court Decisions in the People v. Mosley and In re Taylor Cases are posted. Please stay tuned for commentary from California RSOL.
Related Media:
Reports
- LA Times
- OC Register
- SF Chronicle
- SJ Mercury
- Riverside Press-Enterprise – with CA RSOL mention
- San Bernardino Sun
- UT San Diego
- Huffington Post
- SCPR
- CBS San Diego
- ABC San Diego
- reason.com
- KUSI San Diego
- KEYT (with video of Janice Bellucci and CA RSOL)
Reactions / Editorials / Analysis
- George Runner – Author of Jessica’s Law (February 25 – 🙂 )
- Melissa Melendez, R-Lake Elsinore (March 2)
- NBC 7 San Diego (March 3)
- KQED Talk Radio (March 3)
- SF Chronicle Editorial (March 3)
- LA Times Editorial (March 4)
- Meyers Nave Law Firm (March 4)
- San Jose Mercury (March 5)
- Collateral Consequences Resource Center (March 10)
- Best Best & Krieger – Attorneys at Law (March 12)
So when i see my p.o next week i can tell him im moving back in with my wife. She was like 1kft away from a school. Iam in SD county.
All the news articles are saying that the law has been overturned. I’m assuming that if the law cannot be applied as a blanket condition of parole then it so obvious that it cannot be applied to all rso that it doesn’t need to be stated as such. The mosley case only determined that it was constitutional for a judge to impose disrectionary registration on mosley not whether the law was in fact constitutional or not. The Taylor case seems to be the precedent set as to the constitutionality of the law. I realy hope this is the case if so its a great day for us all.
James I’m happy your willing to get involved, that’s more than 99.99% are willing to do. Thank You. I to am old, and have responsibilities, When I twice addressed our General Assembly, they weren’t just my Government, they were also Customers of where I work. I just got to the point of being tired of being kicked around. Here’s a weapon for you, by law they must post where they get their campaign money from and where they spend it. It’s not popular to spend those contributions in other states, but most quietly do. Put the spot light on them for it. Don’t just go after them for RSO reasons, make them look bad in the publics eye for any reason you can find. Thank them with an award for having the highest drunk Driving death’s in CA. Be Creative.
Gerald you made me laugh.
As for me and my house, we are staying put and not going to worry about. I believe in most cases the authorities are not going to enforce these restrictions, partly because the ruling is not clear. I, also, believe that those whom are not on any kind of supervision has nothing to worry about. I suppose there are some out there will try to kick the bee hive over, however, they will get stung.
Runners Oppose Court Decision Limiting Jessica’s Law
http://www.boe.ca.gov/members/runner/newsreleases/RunnersOpposeCourtDecision03022015.htm
I suspect that all of us here have a shared opinion of the Runners.
Here is another explanation of the ruling from the San Jose Mercury News. By the way, this newspaper is very objective and far superior in quality of writing than other newspapers in our state.
http://www.mercurynews.com/california/ci_27625367/california-court-says-state-cant-ban-all-sex
So I went and registered today at Van Nuys. Showed up at 645a and already 5 people out there waiting. Got me in at 7a. As soon as i got in the door he asked me to put my stuff down and hands up against the wall I immediately thought I was getting arrested for regestering late. Midway thru the pat me down he said” don’t worry new procedure we have to do this for the cameras.” Holy shit thank god.
So detective ends up being very nice asked where my case was originally and age of victims. But no details of what happened was asked. After talking about my kids and colleges he suggested I get a certificate of rehabilitation. Told him I looked into it and I don’t qualify because 288 can’t be reduced to misdemeanor. He said “try again”.
Anyway asked about yesterdays ruling and he said “don’t know what this means”. In other words the higher ups haven’t told them how to proceed.
Got out of there in 25 minutes but I did notice the kid that went in 15 min before me was still there. Heard him say he was on felony probation so I think they really take there time which anyone on parole or probation.
Sorry the error is that I was a Felon 2588c not 288a.
the reason you can get it down to misdemeanor is because the judge can decide if it is misdemeanor or Felon in 288c.
I live in San Diego and am confused by all of this. Does this mean I can currently live were I want? To meet the 2000 foot requirement while on parole I moved to a bad part of town (At least it was a roof over my head, so I am thankful for that.) Now that I am off parole, I have found stable employment and want to move closer to work. Does this ruling mean I can live within the 2000′ limit in San Diego County?
Thanks for any insight.
Anyone else catch George Runner’s mistake in his press release linked above?
His press release is dated “For Immediate Release – February 25 2015” regarding an opinion filed by the CA Supreme Court on March 2, 2015.
Rookie mistake. Couldn’t even remember to change the date on the letter he wrote a week before the court filed the paper.
I encourage everyone to read the comments that follow the “Reason.com” article (see link above). The comments are actually reasonable, fair and humane!
I just called the Governor’s office to see what he intends to do to whoever made the decision in San Diego that lead to the court’s findings of points 5 and 6 in re Taylor:
5. In addition to CDCR‟s policy prohibiting parole agents from supplying registered sex offender parolees with specific information about the location of compliant housing, parole authorities in San Diego County have taken affirmative steps to prevent parole agents from helping parolees find compliant housing.
6. Rigid application of the residency restrictions results in large groups of registered sex offender parolees having to sleep in alleys and riverbeds, a circumstance that did not exist prior to Jessica’s Law.
I told the Governor’s representative that as a taxpayer I did not want to continue paying the salary of the person responsible for treating 290 parolees worse than dogs, sending them to live in alleys and riverbeds.
Governor Brown’s phone number is 916-445-2841. His representative told me sending an e-mail would help him document my concerns to the Governor. Someone in San Diego needs to lose their job over this decision, I’d like to suggest everyone start emailing and calling the Governor.
@ janice bellucci
what about A Hofsheier relief?
i have a 288ab1 (oral cop), 286b1 (anal sex), and 261.5.
the 261.5 is not mandatory registration, but oral and anal sex are. thats a violation of equal protection.
AND Placer county just denied my Habaeus Corpus petition for the 2000 ft. maybe i should refile now?
or file a motion saying that its unconstitutional in san diego, same should apply here
This one is classic. Any San Diegans here?
San Diego County Board Supervisor’s Chair Dianne Jacob …
“Once an individual has committed a sex offense, against a child, they lose their freedom, lose their rights. They should stay locked up,” said Dianne Jacob.
http://www.kusi.com/story/28255339/changes-coming-to-jessicas-law
You can call San Diego County Board Supervisor Dianne Jacob at (619) 531-5522.
Call me a pessimist, Call me whatever, I don’t really care; just stop calling me a “sex offender”, predator, pervert, or anything else, because what landed me here did not involve “sex” and I didn’t prey upon anyone and there was not a “victim.” But as long as these honorable? people continue to brush aside the truth I can’t help but think things will continue to get worse and more confused before (if ever) things get better.
“The Supreme Court held that, on its face, the sex offender residency restrictions in Penal Code § 3003.5 are regulatory rather than punitive in nature and are intended to promote public safety. The Court also noted that the restrictions are not akin to banishment and they do not dictate where he may travel, visit, shop, eat, work or play. Thus, the Court concluded the restriction was not facially unconstitutional.”