The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), not know as an ally of registered citizens, took an important step in the right direction on March 26 by declaring that they will apply the recent Taylor decision statewide. In the Taylor decision, the California Supreme Court ruled it is unconstitutional for CDCR to levy residency restrictions against all registered citizens on parole as a blanket condition. Also in that decision, the Court provided CDCR with discretion to levy residency restrictions on a case-by-case basis.
CDCR’s decision to apply the Court’s decision statewide could benefit thousands of registered citizens if and only if they exercise their discretion wisely. That is, if they levy residency restrictions only on those who pose a current danger to public safety. That category could include those who have “recently” committed violent offenses and are not yet rehabilitated. The category should not include those who have committed non-contact offenses, such as public indecency and sexting.
The media has expressed great interest in CDCR’s decision, including articles in the Los Angeles Times and interviews on both Fox TV and National Public Radio (NPR) stations. There will even be a one-hour panel discussion regarding this decision broadcast on KCRW, an NPR station, on March 30.
Thus far, the media attention has been balanced in large part and even favoring the rights of registered citizens in small part. The media has chosen wisely to focus on the facts related to residency restrictions such as the significant increase in the homelessness rate of registered citizens since the passage of Jessica’s Law and the resulting decrease in public safety.
We are encouraged by CDCR’s decision and the media coverage of that decision as well as by decisions of Riverside County and the City of Downey toward repeal of their existing residency restrictions. It is important to note that residency restrictions in those communities apply not only to parolees but to all registered citizens.
If more cities and counties follow the example set by Riverside County and the City of Downey, there will be no need for a series of lawsuits challenging residency restriction. If, however, the example set by Riverside County and the City of Downey is not followed, there will be a need for many lawsuits. California RSOL and similar organizations are preparing to meet that challenge if necessary.
– Janice Bellucci
Read all of Janice’s Journal
Thanks for the update Janice. Very appreciated.
YOu’d think that since there are way more registered citizens out and off of Parole, they would come first to loosen the res. restriction(s).
Besides, they having to been out, some for decades, continually being punished (more than murders and other physically maiming and disfiguring others) but yet they undure this website and negative adornments.
Why are NOT Murder’s and others so permanent killing and loss of limb and eyes convicts not on a website??? Especially the DUI folks that are repeat offenders that KILL others and just get manslaughter and the drugs sellers that physically hurt and permanently visible damage to human life?
What about people 20 or even 30 or longer ago be given a life sentence on restrictions and pics and profs (NOT DATING) up on sites for all to see?
Case by case basis is better than just throwing away the key at just Parolees, they are usually more at risk than others that have done their time and Parole and life after w/o repeating again or just cause for any other crime than non moving violations due to no funds due to rent increases as they are not allowed to live in a cheaper area nor have a job position to pay any other bills.
Thanks to Janice for her submission and to make everything happen and get the SOMB listen in SAC.
Someday they will have State congress pass the tier program for those who patiently wait.
How does this ruling affect the stay on residency restrictions in Los Angeles county? Is that stay still in effect? I can’t seem to find any information anywhere and am nervous as to how this ruling might be misapplied/abused by parole and probation officers. In child pornography cases, for example, when the parolee has not produced the material or ever touched a child, the way the ruling is worded, the parole officer may demand that residency restrictions be applied to the parolee since the c.p. often involves people under the age of 14.
Janice, is it possible that this is just a cynical move by the CDCR, wherein they simply order their officers to glance at each individual case and then quickly stamp them as “restrictions required” and thus be able to say they are doing it on a “case by case” basis? Seems like this might be seen by them as a more efficient way of getting around the court ruling than challenging it legally.
I am more optimistic the registry will be ruled unconstitutional in the next 5-10 years. The current rulings are just a piece of the puzzle leading to the inevitable. Thank you Janice and crew for all that you are doing.
If you want to hear the panel discussion KCRW is out of Santa Monica on 89.9 FM.
Not sure how powerful the radio station is. Might not even get out of L. A. county. But worth a try.
I wonder what time?
You can listen online. Just search KCRW Santa Monica…
I’M POSTING THIS IN TWO PARTS – sorry, AS ONE PART IT KEEPS GETTING A 404 ERROR:
Thank you for the perspective, Janice. However, I see some of the comment as a bit misguided. I expect it is simply oversight, not attitude. It reminds me of the previous correct decision to stop using the term sex offender and instead call them registrants — after all, they no longer are offenders, no registrant is, someone who is an offender is prosecuted and jailed, not left free and registering. Only those who are not offenders are registrants.
The spot I note is:
It all sounds really good, although I do have some misgivings. If it turns out to be the individual parole agent who is deciding who does and who does not have to live under these residency restrictions I see a great potential for abuse by the individual parole agents making these decisions. Let us not forget the utter BS this whole residency/presence restriction phenomena is. Also, let us not forget that the CDCR (they really do need to drop the rehabilitation part; really, they do) is staffed by a group of individuals making up the whole. These individuals all have their individual biases towards registrants, and I believe are conditioned to believe much of what they hear as fact, weather supported by empirical evidence or not.
bias:
a. A preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment.
b. An unfair act or policy stemming from prejudice.
3. A statistical sampling or testing error caused by systematically favoring some outcomes over others.
Another point is that in mosley the AG states that its the position of the AG and therefore the people that residency restrictions only apply to parolees and no one else and even the court states that that is the position of the AG so therefore no prosecuter can pursue charges in any court in CA if its the states and therefore the peoples position that the restrictions only apply to parolees. Am I missing something. It would be impossible to prosecute someone if the state has stated its position allready on record and with the supreme court even restating that’s the AG position. I would think it would be illegal for local jurisdictions to refuse to register anyone because there residence isn’t compliant with some local ordinance. I would think that that statement made by the AG and in the judges opinion can and should be used whenever it can.
LA Times Website today has put up an editorial in support of the state and court decision last week nixing blanket residency restrictions on sex offender parolees:
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-sex-offender-registry-20150329-story.html#navtype=outfit
This is very supportive and argues for common sense, pointing out that it is wrong to think that registrants across the board are child molesters, are likely to reoffend, or are any kind of danger to children, and that in any case, residency restrictions like this only make matters worse, not better, that making people homeless is only going to make them more likely to be a problem and will leave them harder to track.
The editorial is NOT coming out against registration generally, although it makes a big statement about all registrants not being the same, many are not high level offenses.
This is very good, especially coming from the LA Times, which in recent years has been thrashing sex offenders, doing all possible to reinforce the idea they are all the same, they are solely parolees, they are predators after children, they have a high recidivism rate. Now, out of nowhere, they put up a very well considered and honest editorial.
I hope this means they will be changing their reporting about sex offenders too. I have personally fought them many times over it, to no avail. Gee, even in this editorial, they still don’t give a clue that even misdemeanants are caught up in this crap, to point out how low level this goes. And they say nothing about the public identification of registrants on the Internet.
The editorial board is not the same people as the reporting staff and assignment editors. I hope that changes with this editorial, but time will tell.
Somewhat off topic but relevant.
Ariz. governor vetoes bill shielding cops’ names
I aid really like some feedback from Janice or chance or anyone with a legal background on the following motion I am preparing. If you have the time I would really appreciate it thanks.
I the plaintiff Michael …………… do hereby bring forth this motion for declaratory and injunction relief in the superior court for the county of sacramento in the state of California.
This motion is being brought forth as a as applied challenge to the constitutionality of the sex offender registration requirement and notification laws on the state and federal levels in my personal situation.
Introduction
I’m asking the court to grant me permanent injunction relief from the requirement to register as a sex offender and to enjoin any and all local state and federal entities from enforcing any and all of the sex offender registration requirements and notifications as applied to me.
I am a non-violent non-contact first time ex-offender from a incident that occurred over ten years ago. I do not believe I pose any risk to the public and I have also been told by every psychiatrist that interviewed me while incarcerated and while on parole that I did not pose a risk for re-offense and I do not need treatments because I was not a sexual predator and therefore was not and am not a threat to public safety. I am unable to provide these reports because the department of parole refused to give me access to those reports.
The issues being brought forth are the following.
There are a multitude of constitutional violations that I will outline in this motion and that I would like this court to consider and address.
1. The sex offender registration requirement and notification laws violate my fundamental constitutional right to my liberty by severally infringing on my ability to travel both in-state and intra-state and also international travel. With all the different state laws and local ordinances that are in place it makes it virtually impossible for me to travel in this country without a very real potential for violating one of these laws or ordinances. It is a violation of my fundamental right to liberty and to travel in this country. The registration and notification laws makes it impossible for me to travel to almost all of the major countries in the world as they are notified by our government of my registration status so therefore I am denied entry.
2. The sex offender registration and notification laws violate my privacy rights by making public my personal address current photo which is not public information and also to my criminal record that is only available to authorized individuals who meet certain criteria and has a need to know basis not to the general public at a click of a computer mouse.
3. The sex offender registration and notification laws violate my fundamental constitutional right to be free from unreasonable arbitrary and oppressive official action.
It is unreasonable as it severally infringes on fundamental rights while not achieving any legitimate legislative purpose.
Insert studies and reports.
The fact that the courts have previously stated that it is minor collateral consequences of a regulatory scheme is simply unreasonable to conclude based on the severity of those consequences I endure because of the notification laws. I would like the court to not rely on and reiterate the statements and opinions of the legislators as to the need for the laws because of the high recidivism rates and the high risk offenders pose to the public which simply is not true and is pure hyperbole and heresy. The court should rely on facts and data collected and submitted in reports from credible sources and experts in the fields such as the following.
Insert studies and reports here…..
These laws are arbitrary as they are applied in a blanket enforcement policy that makes no distinctions between those who may or may not pose any risk to the public and provides no due process to make those determinations.
These laws are oppressive as they affect and limit employment as very few employers will hire a registered sex offender simply because they are on a website that is accessible to the general public. It also affects housing because very few property owners or property management organizations will rent to a registered sex offender for fear of vandalism and or the loss of present or potential tenants because of the accessibility to the registry by the general public. Also my personal and professional relationships are affected in a severally negative way because of the registry.
They also cause severe psychosocial stressors that cause major mental and physical disorders. The following is just one study on the effect of stress and is relevant since my psychiatric report by the parole department states that I was being subjected to severe psychosocial stressors because of the sex offender registration and notification laws.
Psychosocial stress and health problems Health in Sweden: The National Public Health Report 2012. Chapter 6 Authors
Maria Danielsson 1
Inger Heimerson 1
Ulf Lundberg 2 , 3
Aleksander Perski 4
Claes-Göran Stefansson 1
Torbjörn Åkerstedt 4
1 Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare, Stockholm, Sweden 2 Centre for Health Equity Studies, Karolinska Institutet/Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden 3 Department of Psychology, Stockholm University, Sweden 4 Stress Research Institute, Stockholms University, Stockholm, Sweden
Maria Danielsson, Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare, 106 30 Stockholm, Sweden. E-mail: maria.danielsson@socialstyrelsen.se
Summary Stress can be defined as an imbalance between demands placed on us and our ability to manage them. The body’s stress system is adapted to confront sudden physical threats. Today, however, we are increasingly exposed to prolonged mental and psychosocial stress. Prolonged stress can give rise to a range of problems: poor performance, chronic fatigue, disinterest, dejection, memory disturbances, sleep problems, numbness and diffuse muscle pains. These symptoms may eventually be followed by depression, post-traumatic stress disorder and chronic fatigue syndrome, and ultimately chronic pain conditions, cardiovascular disease and diabetes.
These laws also create real fears of being the victim of vigilante attackes harrasment and vandalism.
Maine Killings Raise Vigilantism Fears(two sex offenders killed) http://www.comcast.net ^ | 4 18 06 | GLENN ADAMS
Posted on Tue Apr 18 2006 11:58:39 GMT-0700 (PDT) by freepatriot32
http://www.foxnews.com/…/washington-m Mobile-friendly – Jun 5, 2012 – A Washington man accused of fatally shooting two convicted sex offenders on the Olympic Peninsula …
These are just two examples and there are thousands more examples and instances that are readily available on the internet.
In conclusion I prey the court grant me my motion for permanent injunction relief and enjoin local state and federal agencies from requiring me to register as a sex offender or subjecting me to the notification laws under local state and federal laws that are unconstitutional for reasons stated above as applied in my case.
Anonymous Nobody said “LA Times Website today has put up an editorial in support of the state and court decision last week nixing blanket residency restrictions on sex offender parolees”
I would give the L.A Times editorial a 100% rating on support for the state ( CDCR ) interpretation of the California Supreme Court ruling, and a 90% rating on support for the California Supreme Court ruling. The LA Times editorial supports the CDCR’s decision to interpret the California Supreme courts specific determination that blanket residency restrictions on parolee rso’s be done on a case-by-case basis, as meaning that replacing the blanket on all parolee rso’s with a smaller blanket to cover parolee rso’s who are high-risk , lewd conviction with victim under 14. A few newspapers stated the new smaller blanket criteria to be in the new class quite ambiguously, but it appears now the somewhat arbitrary class the CDCR has chosen is high risk determination parolee rso’s with lewd conviction victim under 14. The news papers adding to the confusion with the ambiguity which could lead the public to believe more people are and should be subject to the residency restrictions coupled with splashing CDCR’s ambiguously name-calling whoever they claim to still want to give the residency restrictions as a ‘pedophile’ only leads the public to more hysteria at a time when the public should be understanding the California Supreme Courts reasoning that no parloee rso in San Diego should get a residency restriction unless deemed so on a case-by-case basis for the purpose of public safety/reduction in homelessness and not buying into the media and CDCR’s rhetoric. With the CDCR’s position/interpretation and media support of their interpretation, soon to be implemented policy, the class of people most needing of a home, rso parloees who are high risk, etc will still be boxed out of entire cities, forced to be homeless. Since these people factor into the 98.2% of rso’s who do not reoffend, their reoffense rate can’t be that high. The LA Times Editorial said that some classes of rso’s have a high reoffense rate, but they did not expand on that. The California Supreme Court did not make that a part of their decision in the Taylor case, so I don’t see why the CDCR is creating a smaller blanket. A blanket is anything that is evaluating ex-offenders on a ‘more than one case’-by-‘more than one case’basis. Anything other than a case-by-case basis is using someone elses behavior to issue restrictions on another person, by steriotyping them. The California Supreme Court did not say class of cases by class of cases. They said case-by-case. But this is an improvement from the previous policy.
I hope you do not feel I am picking on your posts, but I have been tracking this issue myself for a while now…
Anonymous Nobody said “This is very good, especially coming from the LA Times, which in recent years has been thrashing sex offenders, doing all possible to reinforce the idea they are all the same, they are solely parolees, they are predators after children, they have a high recidivism rate. Now, out of nowhere, they put up a very well considered and honest editorial.”
The LA Times, when putting out editorials representing their opinions have been quite positive. Certain reporters sensatonalize, lie by omission, and paint false pictures of uncontrollable parolees and rso restrictions as having more support than they do and fail to mention recent court activity that properly negates these draconian laws. Certain columnists like George Skelton and Steve Lopez have been very hateful and support whatever unconstitutional laws are proposed. If George Skelton put out a column that doesn’t support whatever arbitrary draconian anti-rso law comes about, that would be out of nowhere. Another example of out-of-nowhere is the LA Daily News editorial on Jessica’s Law. today. Their first editorial years ago was in support of it. They do not address their past support of prop 83. But no one is perfect. They did a reversal in todays editorial. For them to make this opinion of policy reversal, it gives me hope John Roberts is open to truthful reasoning and analysis when new evidence is presented, like the LA Daily News Editorial Board has shown they are.
Another fallacy I need to point out with the media…The media often print the comments of some moron, usually a politican who will say of the judges who decided something in favor of registrants in any way, be it giving them a sentence the politician thinks is too lenient or deciding some sex offender law is unconstitutionally cruel and unusual, which amount to “well, I bet that judge would not want that sex offender moving next door to him, Lets see how he’d like that.” Implying the judge is the only one in the world who claims he could put up with that. As if he really doesn’t want that and move the SO in next to him and see how he likes that, which he won’t, supposedly. Thats the rational of the politician making the comment. To that I say, it’s not just some judge who hypothetically would claim he doesn’t mind sex offenders living near him but would really not want that, but 30% of voters voted against Prop 83. 1 out of 3 people, roughly, know most registrants are not dangerous, know registrants should not be restricted in residence , probably wouldn’t mind if a harmless registrant and their family moved nearby and they knew all this when they voted against Prop 83 back in 2006.
The LA Times’ George Skelton opposed prop 35. And here I had him pegged. And come to think of it, Steve Lopez was mostly a cheerleader for the victims in the Catholic Church scandal, but didn’t get into blanket hatemongering with support for anti-rso laws like George Skelton did back in 2006. So as far as the L.A Times, would you say its only the reporters of news stories recently who are not representing the truth on registrants? Lying by omission, reporting on otherwise worthless stories if not for being able to use the term ‘sex offender’ in the story titleline, misrepresenting the dangerousness of harmless registrants, implying laws for parolees apply to all non-parolee registrants in their news stories, etc..
Call me cynical if you must, but I notice that the slew of fairly presented articles came about BECAUSE the court ruled, more or less, in our favor. To wit, they probably had all this information all this time, probably much of it from myself who’s been sending this type of information since 2006. So I sense that they feel the situation is inevitable, so now THEY are trying to come out and say “Well, of COURSE we need to look at everything rationally; we don’t need residency restrictions and never did.” But a month ago they would have run to the Runners with tongues out of their mouths like exhuberant puppies hearing, then writing, about the “big bad sex offenders.”
Yes, I consider it progress, but it’s not because of an epiphony; rather, it’s because the court came out with the decision and unless the US Supreme Court ever rules on residency restrictions, there is nothing to be done about it.
How does this affect federal parolees and probationers?