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)
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.
http://www.cbs8.com/story/28239684/california-court-rules-against-sex-offender-law-application
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/
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.
I am not sure if its a good thing or not… so I’ll wait for the CARSOL interpretation… :S
Little by little these draconian laws will be repealed.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.
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.‖
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.
They keep saying parole..does it apply to people on probation also?
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.
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?
“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.
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.
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.
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.
Well tomorrow I have to register so we’ll see what they say.
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.
Based on the foregoing comments, the results of these cases are clear as mud. I had hoped for a bit more clarity.
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
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.
To James, The first time you stick your head out of the turtle shell you’ll start to feel better about yourself.
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!
“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.
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.
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