ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459

Monthly Meetings: Nov 21, Dec 19 – Details / Recordings

Emotional Support Group Meetings 2020 (Phone only)

California

CA Supreme Court Decisions re. Residency Restrictions [Update II with Editorials]

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

Reactions / Editorials / Analysis

Join the discussion

  1. Hookscar

    I would hate to see the life my fiancé and I have built for the last few years can be wiped out with a stroke of a pen. Fingers crossed.

  2. Michael

    Not that I really mean it, but…good luck now, Carson, on YOUR fight.
    THIS is the way the judicial winds are blow on this issue. And about time too:

    http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2015/03/02/sex-offender-law-parks-rent-housing-home/

  3. Anonymous

    I skimmed through both readings, so hopefully I have everything correct. Regarding the Mosley case, the court refused to determine whether Jessica’s Law applies to all SO’s. They overturned previous court’s ruling that Mosley had to register as a SO.

    In regards to Taylor, they agreed with lower court that Jessica’s Law cannot be blanket applied to all SO’s on parole, but DAPO still has the right to impose similar like conditions if the person’s case warrants it. So pretty much case by case basis.

    Hopefully, I have it right, but it confuses me – why would they not rule on whether Jessica’s Law applies to all SO’s, but then in the next case say that it is unconstitutional and cannot be blanket applied? Maybe I have it wrong. I’ll wait for a better expert opinion.

    • Anonymous

      Made a typo in previous comment. In regards to Mosley case, the supreme court today ruled that the lower court was wrong (lower court basically said the judge did not have the right to make Mosley register as a SO for an assault charge). Now Mosley will have to register again.

    • Janice Bellucci

      My initial thoughts on the Taylor case: The Court has provided relief for some registered sex offenders on parole in San Diego County. The Court, however, did not decide whether such relief is available to most registered sex offenders, that is those who are not on parole and/or do not live in San Diego. We can only hope that judges who interpret this decision in the future focus upon the Court’s finding that residency restrictions which are applied to everyone on parole impose harsh and severe restrictions and disabilities on an individual’s “liberty and privacy rights” and “bear no rational relationship to advancing the state’s legitimate goal of protecting children from sexual predators….” The Court also found that residency restriction infringe an individuals’ “basic constitutional right to be free of official action that is unreasonable, arbitrary, and oppressive.”

      • CA

        so we can stay at our residences?

        • Robert Curtis

          So I turn my head to look but I still see nothing yet I feel better about myself for the effort in trying. We are striving people towards a goal. Sometimes we’ll hit some awesome valleys but many times we’ll have to climb some high hill-tops. We are making a difference and Janice be encouraged because we know in time our efforts will make a difference for good. Let’s keep moving forward…drive on! drive on!

    • steve

      I thought I read it in Moseley as, only a jury could decide if you would be subjected to residency restrictions because it is further punishment. If that’s true good luck passing ANY presence restrictions.

      • Forsaken

        No, with Mosley they said that it does NOT require a jury to decide, because though it causes incoveniences and problems to SOME registrants, there is insufficient evidence to conclude the punitive effect outweighs the original purpose of the regulatory statute. SO… as far as I could tell, they’ve avoided making decisions on some of the issues because no one has yet been convicted of breaking the rules, and they disagreed that residency restrictions are a punishment overall.

        • steve

          In reading it all again it seems you are correct.

    • B

      What does In re Taylor mean to RSOs? The Supreme Court did not specifically address residency restrictions of all RSOs, but they were quite explicit regarding parolees. They said, “we agree that section 3003.5(b)‟s residency restrictions are unconstitutional as applied across the board to petitioners and similarly situated registered sex offenders on parole in San Diego County.”

      They went on to say that “section 3003.5(b), as applied and enforced in that county, cannot survive rational basis scrutiny because it has hampered efforts to monitor, supervise, and rehabilitate such parolees in the interests of public safety, and as such, bears no rational relationship to advancing the state’s legitimate goal of protecting children from sexual predators.”

      1. What about a parolee in a different county that is less urban and where there is possibly some compliant housing available? Is there a location anywhere in which residency restrictions do NOT hamper efforts monitor, supervise and rehabilitate parolees? Is there any location in which a blanket residency restriction has a rational relationship to advancing the state’s legitimate goal of protecting children from sexual predators?

      The court concluded that residency restrictions may be applied on a case-by-case basis by CDCR, but that a blanket restriction is unconstitutional. It is impossible to imagine that blanket restrictions could be applied in some jurisdictions, but just not San Diego County. The language of the court is too broad to allow it.

      2. How does this effect residency restrictions for all RSOs who are not on probation or parole. The Supreme Court has ruled that blanket residency restrictions for parolees are unconstitutional. They have allowed CDCR to issue residency restrictions on a case-by-case basis depending on the circumstances of the individual parolee.

      Can we rationally believe that once someone successfully completes parole, they will face new blanket residency restrictions by virtue of them losing the constitutional protections afforded by their parole status? This seems unlikely.

      When someone comes off parole, they are no longer constricted by the conditions of parole. If restrictions can only come on a case-by-case basis and not by blanket restrictions, who would make the case-by-case decision for RSOs off parole?

      This decision clears the path for eliminating residency restrictions for all RSOs throughout California.

  4. Bluewall

    I am not sure if its a good thing or not… so I’ll wait for the CARSOL interpretation… :S

  5. Hookscar

    Little by little these draconian laws will be repealed. We are citizens of a mislead and misinformed society by a media that has done nothing but create a societal fear. It is about time that the higher courts see this and recognize that they have been lied to, not just by the politicians that passed these laws, but also the media and “Hollywood” itself. I live in east San Diego county and will not be able to go to Carson on the 7th, but I would encourage those who can do. The greater the turnout, the louder the message.

  6. steve

    Here is a nice tidbit on how they feel about presence restrictions.

    “The court says the terms of the residency restriction are ―potentially burdensome‖ but ―limited‖ because they ―do not regulate a registered sex offender‘s daily activities‖ and ―do not dictate where he or she may travel, visit, shop, eat, work, or play.‖

    • Mike

      Interesting, many local ordinances DO cross those exact lines and thus would not be “limited” in the courts view. Thus the local ordinances should continue to be unconstitutional when challenged.

  7. stephen

    I See the glass half empty, and think the state will look for a way around this ruling even if it has to drag everyone back to court. Plus it only deals with parole, not semi free people. But until they do, feel free to set up your tents in their nice new pocket parks, and bring along some pigeon’s.

  8. mgm

    They keep saying parole..does it apply to people on probation also?

    • NPS

      No. Only those on state parole. Probation is county. When I was on probation, I lived 2 blocks from an elementary school. I asked my p.o. at the time if I’d be in violation. She said no. It only applied to those on state supervision.

  9. NotLikingCalifornia

    It wasn’t a sweeping rejection of Jessica’s Law, but few could have reasonably expected that. All in all, I think it’s a moderately good ruling for us.

  10. confused

    I don’t live in San Diego County. I live in Riverside county. My offense is from 1992 (288a, expunged). The city i live in informed me that i am not able to move basically anywhere here in the city, because they have a local ordinance which applies to all SOs. I am obviously not on parole or probation, so how could this apply to me. I have been waiting for this ruling because i want to move into a place with my fiance. Now, I’m yet again confused. Does this ruling have any effect on other people in my situation?

    • Mosley&Taylor

      Confused: That’s the point of Janice’s piece above. You and others in this situation were not addressed (the majority of registrants). The court said this issue wasn’t “ripe” for a decision.

      If your area is not so densely populated as to disallow most housing options (like San Diego), there may not be much alternative. It seems at least for the short term, that locales will make their own localized restrictions until resolved. Although local cities could preemptively decide to not enforce based on the opinion expressed by the court today.

      Please keep checking for Janice or the broad’s interpretation and further opinion and possible options.

  11. steve

    “The court said, however, that state prison officials could impose tougher residency restrictions case-by-case on individual ex-offenders, depending on their circumstances and the dangers they might pose to children. State prison officials say nearly 84,000 ex-offenders are now subject to the residency requirements.”

    This seems really bad.

    • Nicholas Maietta

      Wait.. 84,000 across 33 states? Are you kidding me? How the heck did we go from 6k just a few years ago of people in prison to 84k people on CDCR’s supervision? .. but i read this and i don’t see them say that.. only 84k. I thought there was something like 105k people on the registry here.

      What am i missing?

      • Nicholas Maietta

        Typo: Sorry, COUNTIES… not states. Not often i am for stupid, but this one took the cake. Still, 84,000 is a very large number of people on supervision.. just how many on on the registry here… anyone know?

      • SC

        The difference between 105k-84k is the 21K still in prison or jail.

    • j

      They specifically indicate CDCR supervision so essentially these rules apply to people under supervision as I see it and after 2006. By them not stating specifically whether these constitute punishment, they do real damage by leaving it hanging perhaps for another hearing or just to leave registrants in the lurch again.

      Hopefully any of these vigilante city administrators in Crow-ange county should
      see the light and realize they are not on firm ground when trying to take over the day to day lives of registrants and interfere with state sanctioned rehabilitative and re-integrative policies and efforts.

      Runner really did harm the entire state, the constitution and the integrity of the political process by using fear mongering and hyperbole to force such a distorted and hateful law into being and leaving the cleanup for others at a huge expense and damage to all – like a kid that leaves a flaming bag of dog poop on a neighbor’s door then rings the bell. That will always be his legacy in the minds of fair minded people, and quite contrary to the tone of his recent election ads that spewed such hatred towards registrants and their families.

      All of it is cruel and unusual punishment and look who is doing it – the cities in OC who must think of themselves as extensions of Disneyland or some other far away and “Dystopic” place place where the cruel deeds are done without regard for human rights or the constitution itself.

  12. mike

    Man I can’t believe the f…ING court would not rule on who residency restrictions apply to. This is crazy. I read both cases and yes in the Taylor case the court states its unconstitutional and infringes on basic rights when not applied on a case by case basis. I also understand that the court can’t rule on who the law applies to since that issue was not an element of the issue brought forth in this case. It sucks that it will take someone being prosecuted for not complying with the law in order for the issue to who it applies can be determined in court. Since there is no penalty for not complying with the law I don’t see how there will be any prosecution for violating it. So my interpretation of this decision is that someone must be arrested for violating jessicas law before the issue of who it applies to can be adjudicated. This is crazy how can the legislation enact a law that is so ambiguous and fail to leave any avenue to resolve the ambiguity. Such as a criminal penalty for violating it. So Janice the take case is extremely great news on so many levels and I imagine that any agencies try to enforce residency restrictions on anyone other then special conditions of parole that you or anyone should be able to get an injunction immediately to stop such agencies including the registration department if they refuse to registar someone for not complying with jessicas law? What would you suggest a person to do if they are confronted by a agency that tells them they have to comply with the residency restriction. I know I will tell them to go f. . theirselves arrest me if you can find a penalty for it.

  13. http404

    I know we are awaiting an analysis but having just thumbed through it here’s what is jumping out at me:

    * Perhaps I’m wrong but in Taylor it looks like they didn’t qualify the complainants outside of San Diego, so while we do have a precedent, those who are subject to residency restrictions in other counties might need to file their own case, of which there is now a clear precedent in their favor.

    * In Mosley the court was very careful not to unravel any of their previous rulings about ex post facto or retroactivity, once again affirming that registration is merely regulatory and in no way punitive, and to what punitive effects there ARE, the regulatory need outweighs it (This is not good). Reading between the lines here, a judge could order you to register regardless of what you were convicted of… it need not be a sex offense, it could be any crime the judge determined had a sexual motivation.

    * Kamela Harris said this only affects parolees. Since this is the AG’s assertion they chose not to even address it, but if you read between the lines, if the state were to apply residency restrictions to all registrants regardless of whether they were on parole or not, they COULD… so long as the restriction was imposed on the individual and their specific circumstances and not blanket. CDOC would not have that authority but I presume DA’s do.

    Will wait for the analysis but what I am reading, Mosley was bad, Taylor was very good but not absolutely great. This is a victory but with caveats because some individuals on parole will still be subjected to residency restrictions.

    • Bluewall

      So in a nut shell the great state of California might call all sex offenders to come in to court and be re-judged on life limitations by a jury?

  14. SC

    In re Taylor, footnote 2, page 4: “The further question whether section 3003.5(b) also creates a separate misdemeanor offense subject to violation by registered sex offenders who are not on parole was not before us in E.J. (E.J., supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 1282, fn. 10) and is likewise not before us here.”

    My interpretation of this is that if Taylor prohibits blanket application of 3003.5(b) against parolees, then blanket application against those not on parole will also be prohibited. But another court case will be needed to clarify.

    • http404

      That’s what I am reading into this too, and for those local ordinances, who has the legal authority to make the determination on a case by case basis?

  15. steve

    Well tomorrow I have to register so we’ll see what they say.

  16. James

    I am with Confused on this, especially with the Mosley case. Be that as it may, I have been for too long hiding, and living, in the shadows….low profile, low risk. Or so I thought…my original offense was 30 years ago now…but it never ends seemingly.

    In any case, I have made my first donation today to the fine work and fight that Ms. Bellucci is doing on my behalf.

    I doubt if I will make the Carson protest…though it is practically possible; in the alternative I could do a long road trip and try to Lobby in Sacramento…this may be less public and something I might be good at.

    Regardless, good luck to everyone out there.

  17. Avig

    Based on the foregoing comments, the results of these cases are clear as mud. I had hoped for a bit more clarity.

  18. mike

    So let me see if I got this right. In mosley the court decided its not punishment and is constitutional as applied to mosley who was not on parole but in the Taylor case it is unconstitutional for several different reasons and cannot be applied as a blanket restriction on people on parole. This is realy confusing and disturbing tbat it appears the court is stating that parolees get more constitutional protection then non parolees get. This is crazy this issue has been ongoing since this idiotic law was .passed in 2006 here it is 2015 and its still not resolved and apparently won’t be for no telling how many more years. What the he.. are people supposed to do. I’ve been living in these ghetto damn apt. for six years now not wanting to move untill this issue of who this law applies to gets resolved and here we are just as confused as the day it was enacted. CRAZY

  19. http404

    Just a thought here regarding municipalities passing their own residency restrictions as Jessica’s Law authorized them. Jessica’s Law residency restrictions, according to AG’s interpretation and also stated publicly by George Runner, one of the authors, the intent was to apply toward parolees. So, IF municipalities WERE to exercise their ability to pass more stringent restrictions as numerous ones have, it seems to me they overstep their authority to do so granted by Jessica’s Law, by applying those restrictions in a manner in which the law did not intend… and by blanket enforcement they are in violation of today’s decision by the court.

    THIS is the case that needs to go to the California Supreme Court.

    • steve

      What am I missing about Mosley?

      Even so, section 3003.5(b) is sweeping and indiscriminate ―in its necessary operation‖
      21
      (Smith, at p. 97) and imposes significant disabilities and restraints that scarcely further the statute‘s protective purpose, if at all. Section 3003.5(b)‘s residency restriction, though regulatory in intent, is punitive in effect.
      This conclusion, in the context of an Apprendi claim, does not mean the residency restriction cannot validly be imposed on persons who are subject to registration under section 290.006. But it does mean the facts authorizing imposition of the restriction must be proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. In this case, the residency restriction is ―a penalty exceeding the maximum [Mosley] would receive if punished according to the facts reflected in the jury verdict alone.‖ (Apprendi, supra, 530 U.S. at p. 483.) Accordingly, I respectfully dissent from today‘s decision upholding the imposition of the residency restriction on Mosley.

      • http404

        You pasted the dissenting opinion for Mosley, from the sole Supreme who didn’t agree with the majority. The majority decision said YES a judge can order you to register even if your conviction is not one listed under 290PC that requires it… and NO, a jury does not need to weigh in on that because registration is not punitive, it is regulatory.

        There seems to be ambiguity between their rulings in Mosley and Taylor but really there isn’t. They are saying residency restrictions are not punitive, but they are unconstitutional by applying them to everyone without due process.

        i.e. the negative effects of applying residency restrictions to everyone is so drastic an impact on a class of citizens that they must use a surgical knife in applying it… not a machete.

  20. stephen

    To James, The first time you stick your head out of the turtle shell you’ll start to feel better about yourself.

  21. Mosley&Taylor

    These non-decision decisions are the very definition of Cruel and Unusual Punishment.

    Supreme Court: We take responsibility for our actions now you need to do the same. Get a spine or get rid of the registry!

  22. Jo

    “California high court says San Diego County’s blanket ban on where sex offenders may live is unconstitutional”

    That’s it. Done. Ever play Jenga? It’s the one crucial block holding it all up and they just removed it. The whole thing crumbles from here.

  23. James

    Stephen, I feel fine about myself, I suspect most of us feel likewise about ourselves…I have however little trust in my society’s desire and ability to do me active and permanent harm…

    I have been waiting until I am so old that I have nothing to lose or worry about….believe me, I am ancient but I still have professional responsibilities to many other people…and yet, you are correct, it is time to start doing something; my donation was a first step…I’ll try to do more.

    Good luck to everyone…it is hard to be a RSO, but living well, being happy even in adverse circumstances, is the best…Answer.

    So be good, be happy….it is the best revenge.

  24. Jo

    Some here don’t seem to grasp the gravity of this decision. It doesn’t matter that they ruled “only” in San Diego because it will be applied across the state. They clearly said it’s unconstitutional then defined that by saying it denied basic services and increased recidivism. It may take someone like Janice to now do another round of specific lawsuits to tear down all the local ordinances but it’s the best case scenario thank you judges for using the Constitution

  25. mgm

    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.

    • Gerald

      I’m glad for you and your wife. I hope your neighbors are, also.

    • Jo

      I think he will be aware of this ruling. Exciting times for you!

    • http404

      mgm,

      Unfortunately they may still impose a residency restriction upon you but CDCR will now need to review your situation and make a determination whether it is warranted in your individual case. Today’s ruling will help some people who are on parole, but I am guessing for those whose crime involved a minor, CDCR will likely still impose a residency restriction and cite that fact in determining why they say it is warranted.

  26. mike

    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.

    • MM

      I agree 110%. How could enforcing residency restrictions be constitutional for those NOT on parole but unconstitutional for those ON parole. Interesting how they left out that little bit for the “guessing game” … Like all those that posted above me – we all really, really wish we knew what this meant. Do we move? Do we not? Are we OK? Are we not?

  27. stephen

    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.

  28. stephen

    Gerald you made me laugh.

  29. Harry

    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.

    • Harry

      These cry babies need to be restricted from residing within 2000 feet of any State. Sorry Canada and Mexico I guess you guys will have to have them.

    • Cool CA RC

      George Runner represents more than nine million Californians as a member of the State Board of Equalization.

      Does he represents RC as well because RC are taxpayers too..

      • Harry

        Mr. Runner does not represent any taxpayer. He is a tax collector, he represent the State of California. Once a liar always a liar.

      • Nicholas Maietta

        I just saw that and it bothers me. I owe 1,600 to the State of California just for the privilege of operating an Limited Liability Company here in California and it worries me he’s on the Board of Equalization.

        It wouldn’t surprise me if i get told next that a new law passed preventing be from operating a company here in California.

        • Harry

          When my wife and I was in business, we would get regular BOE mail from him telling us he was “a friend to the business person”, however, his friendship is like a fox to a chicken.

      • j

        Taxation of homeless registrants is on its way, and a third strike for refusing to pay vehicle tax on a shopping cart used by a registrant.
        they might even put a gps device on the shopping cart. Tounge in cheek for average human beings but it certainly would seem in order from all that we’ve seen thus far. I hope they at least pray for the safety of the shopping cart somewhere out there in the valley.

    • WantsToHelp

      “As the authors of Jessica’s Law, both George and Sharon Runner continue to stand behind the package of reforms that have made California’s communities safer, and are opposed to any efforts to undermine them.”

      Because obviously George and Sharon are experts. By their metric, CA Sex Offender Management Board are really just idiots.

      They can’t both be right and CASOMB has “looked carefully into these issues and has repeatedly stated that the promulgation of conditions which actually create homelessness and transience among registered sex offenders while producing no discernible benefit to community safety is counterproductive and continues to be the single most problematic aspect of sex offender management policy in California. CASOMB continues to recommend the elimination of onesize-fits-all restrictions on where registered sex offenders may live.”

      If there was any way to post that on their page, I would. 🙁

    • j

      The Runners have proven themselves to be the knuckle draggers of the political world.

      When this whole things started for them, back around 2003, they were quite delighted in the vote pandering mechanics and they should be exposed for making a fine art of fear mongering for political advantage.

      Sadly, and to the detriment of the US constitution and especially registrants and their families who have have been forced to endure humiliation, shame, broken families and homelessness as a result of the Runner’ “Vision”. Who needs Hitler and Eva when you have these two?

    • j

      Someone ought to censure Runner for using the BOE website to further his past political follies. This deserves an investigation as to the misuse of this resource.

      What in the world does the Board of Equalization have to do with George’s hateful and misguided political practices? Not a dam thing and he should be called on the carpet.

      He is using an unauthorized forum and resource for his own personal use. This should be stopped and a formal apology is needed for this overstepping.

      • JM

        J…
        We all agree, now we need to work together to try to find a way to expose them. They used information (reports) that did not exist in the voter information packets back in 2006.

        There just has to be a way…

  30. David

    I suspect that all of us here have a shared opinion of the Runners.

  31. NPS

    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

  32. steve

    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.

    • Cool CA RC

      If you are 288c you can get it down to misdemeanor I am not sure about 288a. I was a felon 288a after probation I got it down to misdemeanor.

      • steve

        What year? I’m pretty sure they made 288a unchangeable from felony to misdemeanor. At least that’s what we determined going thru the process.

        • NPS

          288a is a wobbler therefore can be reduced to a misdemeanor and expunged.
          288(a) on the other hand is a straight felony and cannot be expunged.

        • j

          what is the difference between the two offenses you stated?

          it is confusing because they contain the same numbers and letters, just one has parenthesis around the ‘a’.

        • Joe

          Small parenthesis, big difference.

          PC 288(a) is “Lewd and Lascivious Acts with a Child under 14”. This violation is a straight, non-reducible felony and cannot be expunged (PC 1203.4).

          Until 2010 288(a) encompassed pretty much any sexual conduct (from the most minor to the utterly heinous) with a minor under 14. In 2010 PC 288.7 broke out penetrative sexual conduct with a child under 10. This is the basis for the “Tirey” suit (search on this site or google it).

          http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/PEN/3/1/9/5/s288

          PC 288a addresses Oral Copulation, which used to be a criminal offense, period (even for adults homo or hetero, even married couples) in California until 1975. In 14 other states it was still criminal until 2003! (Lawrence v. Texas)

          A few subsections of PC 288a are wobblers and can either be charged as a misdemeanor or felony (state prison or county jail).

          http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/PEN/3/1/9/5/s288a

          The most common, PC 288a(b)(1) – OC with a minor under 18 (16/17) is a wobbler. If the conviction was for a felony but the sentence did not include prison time it can be reduced to a misdemeanor post-conviction.

          Any violation of PC 288a comes with mandatory registration. The aforementioned OC with a willing 16/17 year old was discretionary from 2006 until three weeks ago (Hofsheier – on this site).

          To make a long story short…. PC 288(a) is L&L with a child under 14 (straight felony and non-expungable), PC 288a is OC (can be wobbler and expungable, depending on the sub-section).

    • C

      I am not surprised he was not familiar with the ruling. Because the cops tend to be different every year I get the impression 290 registration is a temporary assignment for those on light duty – twisted ankles, bad backs, returning from maternity leave, etc. That in mind, I would not expect them to be as dialed in to the legal developments as we are.

      My apologies for not mentioning the pat down and before entering. I got a wand (metal detector), too, and the female cop was sporting a taser in addition to her side arm. I found it ironic that the cops in the jails with the real bad guys are unarmed, but the cops handling the pussy cats are loaded for bear.

    • Eric Knight

      IMPORTANT!!!

      Being patted down prior to registration is a civil rights violation. I would ask for the authorization of such an action by the state, and if they don’t give you one then write down ALL details of this particular action and submit a letter to the contact information link above.

      Remember: TECHNICALLY, you are NO MORE LIABLE for criminal sanctions as anyone in that station, INCLUDING other officers and the general public. “Doing it for the cameras” is even MORE aggrevious and should be acted upon.

      Now, I’m not saying that anything will be done about your particular instance, but the actions by the department is unsettling to say the best, regardless of their individual rationalization and otherwise courteous interaction. Janice’s plate is very full, but it’s things like what you went through that help with the ENTIRE movement when preparing litigation for any sex offender issue case.

      • steve

        Thanks of the info Erik. I am not on probation or parole so you are right, I didn’t feel it was right. But like I sad previously they had forced me to register late because they had no appointments available so I thought I was getting arrested.

        • Joe

          I meant to make a similar comment… this is reminiscent of a few years ago when registering in Santa Ana involved waiting inside a jail cell and having to dress in jail garb.

          Document everything. Have your wife walk into the same cop shop in the same week asking a random question and see what happens. Off parole or probation you are no more criminal than she is or anyone looking for a fishing license is.

          On another note, given that the registry itself and strict adherence to it ensures public safety, MAKING you register several days late does nothing less than putting the public in DANGER. Who will be held responsible for endangering MY children?

          Document, document, document.

        • Mjk

          These are horrible stories. I’ve registered several times (currently on Probation) in San Bernardino County & New York City and have only been treated in the same exact fashion as anyone else entering the same building/office. These stories should be well documented as they happen, hopefully in a new thread. I don’t recall the application for a “Price Club” membership involving anything further than filling out some paperwork and showing some ID.

        • Joe

          Here are some older posts about Santa Ana and / or Registration from the search on this site. Maybe they can be bumped to the top.

          https://all4consolaws.org/2014/03/annual-registration-procedure/
          https://all4consolaws.org/2013/05/california-rsol-challenges-santa-ana-ordinance-registration-process/

        • mike t

          I cant help but think of Sgt. Hightower, not to be confused with the one portrayed by Bubba Smith in the police academy series, who was arrested for “Improper photography”, but not ‘kidnapping’ or ‘abuse of power under the color of authority’ for whatever reason. Probably it’s that higher standard thingy I keep hearing about. Of course he decided to retire a few days before his arrest, HEADS UP!, so his pension is still intact. I’m sure he’s pretty tight with the DA too.

          https://all4consolaws.org/2014/09/tx-deputy-seeks-sex-offender-dick-pics/

      • Jo

        Wow! Just wow! I can’t believe you get treated that way. In stark contrast, where I live in California is a small town, the officer shakes my hand and is friendly, and shakes my hand on the way out the door!

      • cool CA RC

        TECHNICALLY, you are NO MORE LIABLE for criminal sanctions as anyone in that station, INCLUDING other officers and the general public. “Doing it for the cameras” is even MORE aggrevious and should be acted upon.

        Where can I find this in the ruling ? I d love to show this to the cops when I go in..

  33. Cool CA RC

    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.

  34. nmv

    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.

    • Janice Bellucci

      The Supreme Court did not provide a direct answer to your question. That is, they did not address whether the constitutional rights of a person not on parole living in San Diego are being violated by residency restrictions. My “common sense” tells me the answer is yes, but it would be a good idea for you to ask your local law enforcement officials whether they would register you if you moved to the new address before you make a financial commitment.

  35. Mjk

    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.

  36. David

    I encourage everyone to read the comments that follow the “Reason.com” article (see link above). The comments are actually reasonable, fair and humane!

  37. Molly

    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.

  38. sadandmad

    @ 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

  39. Joe

    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

    • Timmr

      Yes, hear it all the time, repeating the sentiments of her base, the Tea Party Conservatives (hey, aren’t they the ones waving the Constitution around all the time?) Gets her votes. She’s been in office 20 years. This is the deep south of aptly named Southern California, but fortunately there is a lot of rational caring people here also. You’re Mexican, black, gay, have a sex offense, you stay low. Yes’um.

    • JM

      @Joe
      Yes Joe, there are many here from San Diego. Three of the CARSOL board members are from San Diego.

  40. Molly

    You can call San Diego County Board Supervisor Dianne Jacob at (619) 531-5522.

  41. Q

    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.”

Leave a Reply

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  • We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  • 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.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • 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.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues 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.  
 

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

.