The California Supreme Court has spoken but what have they said? The Court published two decisions today that were expected to determine whether residency restrictions are constitutional and if so, to whom do they apply as well as whether the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) may issue a blanket residency restriction to all registered citizens in San Diego while on parole. These issues are of vital importance to more than 100,000 registered citizens and their families. Unfortunately, the Court did not meet expectations because they failed to address these vital issues in a meaningful way for all but a few.
In the first of the two decisions, People v. Mosley, the Court ducked entirely the issue of whether residency restrictions are constitutional. Instead, the Court relegated to a footnote that the issue is not yet “ripe”, that is, it is not ready for the Court to decide. How can that be? The rate of homelessness for registered citizens has tripled since passage of Jessica’s Law. And, according to the CA Sex Offender Management Board, there were more than 6,000 homeless registered citizens in 2012 and that number continues to grow.
Also in that case, the Court did briefly discuss the issue of residency restrictions and concluded that they are not an “added penalty”. Not a penalty? Tell that to the homeless registrants forced to live in their cars if they are lucky and to live on the streets if they are not. The only rays of light in this case shine from the dissenting opinion in which Justice Liu criticizes the majority of the Court for ducking this issue as well as the issue of whether residency restrictions apply to registered citizens who are not on parole. In the dissent, Justice Liu states unequivocally that residency restrictions apply to all registrants and constitute punishment.
In the second of the two decisions, In re Taylor, the Court appears to hand registrants a solid victory by boldly and correctly declaring that residency restrictions violate the Constitution. The Court bases this declaration on a finding that residency restrictions infringe upon a registrant’s liberty and privacy interests and that they constitute unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive official action. Amazing, right? YES…..but only if you are a registered citizen on parole in San Diego and only as a blanket restriction levied by CDCR. The Court granted CDCR the authority to apply residency restrictions that are “more or less restrictive” than those found in Jessica’s Law provided that they do so on a case-by-case basis.
And what if you aren’t on parole and you don’t live in San Diego? What if you completed parole decades ago and/or live in a county, that unlike San Diego, is not densely populated? The answer to those questions will be determined in the future…..perhaps in a courtroom near you. In the meantime, how many more registered citizens will suffer as they are forced to live separately from their families and become homeless? How many more times will the Constitution be violated by Jessica’s Law, a law that is unreasonable, arbitrary, and oppressive?
Cities and counties can prevent the continuation of these violations in their jurisdictions by repealing their ordinances that include residency restrictions. Any city or county that fails to repeal such restrictions faces the possibility of a legal challenge from California RSOL or other like minded organizations.
Thank you, I don’t know what it means for me but I will find out tomorrow at my registration appt.
Janice I really hope you challenge any and all entities that have these restrictions or enact such restrictions in the future. I’ll be donating right after this post and I hope all others do the same. I don’t know if local ordinances can be enforced when you have the AG saying it only applies to parole and then the court saying its unconstitutional as a blanket condition if parole. I’m currently in compliant housing but I wonder if someone goes to registar and are turned away because of a ordinance is there anything that can be done
I don’t understand. How can it say, in black and white, that the restrictions are unconstitutional and only apply the restrictions to certain people?
I thought that the Supreme Court was the law of the land? THE LAND! Not one single county.
I was hoping to move back into my house that is within 2,000 feet after parole with my boyfriend. I live with my parents now and according to my POC I’m considered “homeless”.
I feel so disheartened. I have wanted to move out of this apartment and get a house with my family. I live in Azusa, and so far they haven’t made any residency restrictions outside of parole. But surrounding areas such as West Covina have.
I was hoping to be able to finally look for a home; not depress myself putting every address on Trulia into Google Earth only to see the school or park icon pop up EVERYwhere I search… And the court managed to squirm out of everything once again. And how could they even cite “alarmingly high recidivism.” Really? That’s not what CASOMB said.
I can go through the entire catalog of homes for sale and find NOT ONE outside that 2000ft range. And now the court was gracious enough to leave it up in the tree to ripen some more… While claiming it’s not disruptive enough to be considered punitive!! How is preventing families from living together not punitive? How is suddenly making entire cities off limits not a punishment after the fact? :-/ What is so difficult for the justices to comprehend??
I beleive the court decided it is unconstitutional on several grounds and not on ex post facto grounds which if these violations apply to all rso not just those on parole then this is great news as retroactivity has no bearing therefore it couldn’t be applied to any of us.
I am as confused as everyone else. It sure sounded like a victory to me. What am I missing? If it is unconstitutional for people on parole, it is also unconditional for everyone else. What else is there to interpret. So, are any residency restrictions enforced at this time until it is clarified and decided on?
Please, can someone explain this again?
Hopefully, we will have a favorable ruling with the new Court – minus Baxter – whenever they accept the next case challenging residency restrictions. Until then, it appears ththat the situation remains unchanged.
Well, here it is:
1. the basis of “our” lawsuits is, local government cannot make residency restrictions because the state pre-empts the field.
2. the state says, residency restrictions apply only to people on parole,
3. today the Taylor ruling says, residency restrictions apply only to a small sub-set of people on parole, namely those CDCR can prove represent a clear danger of some kind.
The net result: good bye to residency restrictions for nearly everybody.
Am I mistaken about this? What part have I failed to comprehend?
I look forward to further enlightenment on this important issue.
If it can’t be applied to all rso parolees then it obviously it can’t be applied to all rso.
Allow me to add the following:
1. the Taylor decision eliminates the residence restrictions for most parolees and allows it only for a few.
2. If you don’t have such restrictions while you are on parole, how can you have them once you are OFF of parole? To assume that makes nonsense of the law.
3. To me it seems clear: the decisions are based on the idea that once you are off parole, no residency restrictions.
4. Lastly: we should never just assume things. There is probably some functionary in the office of the Attorney General whose job it is to issue clarifications on matters like this. That person should be consulted; getting the matter verified is very important.
I agree with Mike, all rso, should be able to live in a house.But if you are a register citizens who keep going in and out of jail, they get treated better then those who is following the law and trying to get off parole.again Janice if you need someone to use to sue the state chose me.
Janice. Could you please comment on where Los Angeles County now stands today for registered citizens not on parole or probation. Thank you
They basically said the parole board can still apply restrictions to parolees if they deem fit. Once off parole they can’t enforce restrictions. It’s pretty plain.
Blanket enforcement of residency restrictions against these parolees has … infringed on their liberty and privacy interests, however limited, while bearing no rational relationship to advancing the state’s legitimate goal of protecting children from sexual predators,” Justice Marvin Baxter wrote in an opinion for the court.
The judge added the restrictions violated the plaintiffs’ “basic constitutional right to be free of unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive official action.”
This has to apply to all rso no reasonable mind could interpret this any other way. What’s scary is these politicians have proven there not if reasonable intellect.
Janice I filed a model habeas from the Prison Law Office requesting a stay of this law. Can you help me find legal help. Being homeless and rso I can’t afford an attorney. Static 99 assessment score of 0 which parole agent and others have told me this is rare. I have a home to live in but private school is 1200ft. Just want stability to rebuild life and safety for my children. Desperate for help.
Janice I’m sure your scrambling to make sense of this ruling any comment you have is highly anticipated in this site. A lot of people have come to depend upon your insight and legal abilities to be able to interpret and articulate these confusing decisions by our courts. No pressure though…..
I am the wife of a registrant. His violation was in 1987, nothing since. We, as many of you are trying to understand what today means to those not on parole in California. Tonight we are still wondering. My husband, who used to write a lot hasn’t in a while …. Tonight he did. I wanted to share. Maybe some of you can relate ….
I am your family member, your life partner, your new relationship, your coworker, your neighbor. The person standing in line at the grocery store. I am the stranger sitting next to you on a bus. I am the sadness that lives under a bridge. I am the eagerness that looks for a job.
I am the resident that lives in your area. I am the person that closes my blinds, my curtains, my doors, so I do not see the hatred that you have in your eyes for me. I have made a mistake in my life, I am older and wiser and understanding of what is right and what is wrong. I cannot change time or go back and erase my mistake. I cannot blame the drug or spirits that clouded my judgement. I can only move forward from my past and forever live with the pain that I have caused another. I can only ask for your forgiveness. Please don’t cast me away, I have so much to offer, so much to give. I am a person like you. I am your family member, your life partner, your neighbor, a stranger, a human being that has to register for life. I am a cast away. By RML
It seems unfair to ask too much of Janice…she may not know better than any of us…the Law is what the Court say it is….and the Court didn’t say much today except that…Parolee’s have Constitutional Rights…but maybe not so for regular RSO’s. That matter is not yet decided.
At least this is how I read the Mosley and Taylor opinions out today.
This may come as unhappy news because we, as human beings, would like a little certainty and clarity in our lives. And yet it is what it is.
It is better than a adverse ruling…but to be honest here, we are all left hanging, figuratively but also maybe almost literally…imho.
It could be better but it could be worse…and there may not be a hard answer for a while now.
Sorry…but this is what I think.
Fear Dominates Politics, Media and Human Existence in America — And It’s Getting Worse
Unfortunately for SO’s, the fear of children’s safety is the fuel that POWERS Megan’s Law. We might as well be fighting the NRA gun lobby or the tobacco industry..
Im registering for my annual tommorow. Ill make sure to ask them how this effects people off parole. Also what about people on probation. Ill post my findings here.
RML I can identify with you. There is always hope and we can never allow a mistake to define who we are but what we make of ourselves from that point on. Never give up.
I haven’t tracked down the opinion itself, but if they ducked the question in the one case, that might actually be to our advantage.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe even the very right wing Marvin Baxter who seems to favor anything and everything against registrants, was part of this decision, even though he no longer is on the court. And who’s the other one who was replaced recently, I think it was Werdeger.
We might stand a better chance for a good outcome with the new court makeup, and we certainly can’t do worse – although even Liu has turned out to be a disappointment, starting with the Doe v. Harris case. That is, there might have been enough majority to block the decision, pending a case with the new justices deciding it. After all, as Janice points out, of course the matter is ripe for decision now, so that excuse doesn’t hold water.
If it can’t be applied to all rso parolees then it obvious can’t be applied to all rso. I would think it would be a violation of the equal protection clause if they applied it to someone not on parole for certain offence but didn’t apply it to someone on parole for the same offence.
I hate to say it, but sounds like the assenting justices phoned this one in, and let their law clerks write the opinions. The problem is that the offenses surrounding the plaintiffs were heavily scrutinized, even those that didn’t bring charges, and probably affected the overall tone maintaining the regulatory scheme.
Unfortunately, the relative offense of the plaintiff can offset, and critically damage, the Constitutional freedoms that registered citizens have. It looks as if this battle will have to be fought in the future head-on, and only Janice, Chance, and company have the background and competency to ensure that all the issues are covered properly.
At *LEAST* the justices didn’t throw everything out, but just punted, so there IS a fighting chance down the pike.
It would appear, and this is just my humble opinion, that these decisions are the result of pure cowardice and zero integrity. This was not a complex case. We have a constitution people! It’s there to protect all of us. The most amazing opportunity was right in their grasp! They had the chance of a lifetime to save thousands of people from hardships. They Blew It! No matter what words they used to smear the truth, they blew it.
Another very sad day for clear consciences. My heart goes out to everyone who has to struggle so unnecessarily.