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.
THE JUSTICES KNOW IT’S PUNISHMENT AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL THEY ARE IN DENIAL AND DON’T WANT TO ADMIT IT TO THEMSELVES THAT A GROSS INJUSTICE IS BEING DONE TO US AND THEY TOO ARE CRONNIES OF THAT INJUSTICE. BEWARE! IF WE SAY TOO MUCH AND EXPOSE THE WRONGS THEY DO WE WILL PROBABLY BE ON THEIR LIST TO WASH US UP FOR GOOD! CAUSE WE’RE MONEY IN THEIR POCKETS AND REMEMEBER THE PUNISHMENT AND LAWS DOESN’T APPLLY TO THEM AND THEIR REPUBLICAN FREINDS. OFFICER HAYES OF SAN DIEGO WAS CONVICTED FOR GROPPING FOUR WOMEN AND ONLY WAS GIVEN ONE YEAR AND WAS LET OUT EARLY. IF IT WERE A LATINO OR A BLACK MAN HE’D AT LEAST GOTTEN 15 YEARS OR MORE. AND HOW COPS CAN KILL SOMEONE BY LYING SAYING HE FEARS FOR HIS LIFE AND WON’T EVEN GO TO JAIL LIKE EVERYONE ELSE WHO KILLS SOMEBODY AND STAYS IN JAIL UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY SO MUCH FOR EQUAL JUSTICE FOR ALL ! BUT I’M NOT GOING TO STAY QUIET I’M GOING TO KEEP EXPOSING THEM FOR WHO THEY REALLY ARE BEHIND THOSE SUITS, SHIRTS AND TIES AND UNIFORMS AND ROBES. I AM NOT A SEX OFFENDER I’VE PAID MY DEBT FOR WHAT I’VE DONE ! AN EX SEX OFFENDER YES BUT NOT A SEX OFFENDER ! IT’S INTERESTING TO HEAR AND SEE ON THE NEWS HOW MANY LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS ARE BEING ARRESTED FOR SEX CRIMES AND NOT TO FORGET TO MENTION HOW CURRUPTED AND PERVERTED THE MAJORITY OF OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS ARE!
I think the 22-page dissenting opinion by Justices Liu and Werdegar on “Mosley” gives reason to be optimistic about future CA Supreme Court decisions.
What a nightmare. Basically it is going to come down to Probation and Parole making a decision on their probationers and parolees. Like that isn’t a nightmare already!
While the justices, basically, SAID that their ruling only applied to SD county, isn’t the practical effect that it will apply to other counties as well, with lower courts, in future cases, looking to it for guidance?
Having been paroled from Texas and extradicted to California to finish 16 days of a prior sentence, I have been living with my son in a nice room off the rear of the garage for 6 months with full family support…even thought L.A.P.D. shows up once a month in 3 to 4 squad cars to do a compliance check, and my probation officer also comes to my room once a month. Now, after 6 months with no complaints from anyone, I am told I have to move out because I am 1000 feet from a school on another block. Children do not even walk down our street. It seem that the Interstate Compact office refuses to approve my address even though the probation office did so. Now, with this ruling I am scrambling to find somewhere to live. This housing restriction should be on a case-by-case basis and should be rooted in the conviction or conduct of the person AND be done so by the Judge in the case as part of the sentence. Let every one of these law makers have to register and have housing restrictions as part of their due dilligence and then say whether or not these constitutes punishment. They also said Water Boarding was not punishment until a U.S. Congressman allowed himself to be Water Boarded…for 3 seconds before declaring it TORTURE! Well, they are torturing me…are they trying to make us fail and re-offend?? Is that the goal??
Well, I personally think this is great news. Was this ruling secondary to a Federal a Court Decision? I can maybe understand how someone on parole or formal probation be prohibited from certain things ie: alcohol use/drugs ect, but being prohibited from living in certain areas or visiting a library is a whole other matter. I’ve volunteered in the past for Prison Ministries and many of those released to a half way house could leave during the day and attend school and take buses to reach their destination. So, what if a school bus stop was near a regular bus stop? Or, what if a Parole was attending college and needed to visit a library in order to conduct research? I honestly could have attended a University in order to obtain an MBA, yet wasn’t even aware that I was required to register at the school. Plus, I was honestly unaware that this city had other registering requirements. As already noted, elected officials are making it increasingly difficult for registered citizens to function, but yet tend to forget the less than 2 percent recidivism rate. It honestly makes no sense. Gang members with multiple convictions, drug dealers, prostitutes, convicted murderers and even individuals with multiple DUI’s that have resulted in bodily harm have more rights. Yet, for some guy with an expunged battery/summary probation 20 years back is finding it harder and harder to function? I can only imagine how those of you with convictions remaining must feel!
Janice do you plan on filing any lawsuits in the near future challenging any of the cities that have residency restrictions in any of their ordinances? I’m just curious if rsol has any plan of action after this decision.
For a law that had over a 70% approval there sure isn’t much being said by any authorities in opposition of the courts decision. You would think if it was such a bad decision that all kinds of organizations would be complaining left and right about this decision. Ie. DA police parole ect. Nothing frim none of them. The only people saying anything in opposition is this deranged antiamerican traitor runner and wife.
OK can some help me with this? Since the 4 individuals that won their case regarding residence restriction in San Diego… Does this mean once they are off parole, they would be forced to comply with residency restrictions because they are no longer on parole? If this only applies to paroled individuals, what happens after their parole? It seems to me that they can live anywhere they like in San Diego as long as they are on parole. But the second they get off parole they are going to be restricted as to where they can live. There would be no incentive to getting off parole if they can’t live anywhere after. Can someone please help me understand this???
KQED ran a call in on this… And the people on the show were much more favorable than we might imaging, including Tom Tobin of CASOMB and George Runner.
http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201503030930
I’m wondering if anyone knows what effect (if any) yesterdays ruling for San Diego County had/has on Judge Peter Espinosas ruling for Los Angeles County whereby he suspended the 2000ft rule part, of Jessicas Law. Since yesterdays ruling said nothing about Los Angeles County, is this still in effect?
Thank you Janice and staff you give me and I’m sure a lot of other people hope that our liberty may someday be restored.
Thank you, Janice. Thank you, Frank. Thank you, Chance. I see this as a great step forward, as it seemed at one point all hope was gone. These draconian laws wouldn’t exist in the first place if they were viewed in the eyes of a constitutional originalist, since the constitution doesn’t mention a SOR or anything similarly draconian. As for the living constitutionalists, who interpret the constitution as time progresses with unforseen issues presenting themselves, a lot of them view the constitution from a prosecutorial viewpoint, where they are concerned with catching criminals, and even they cannot honestly argue with this ruling since prop 83 residency restrictions led to counter-productive consequences. The remaining unamerican traitors like the Runners who would oppose this wise decision are too biased by their own guilt in creating these harsh measures in the first place and why would they ever quit trying to scapegoat registrants when they have mastered using it as a political and enriching tool for their personal success? I saw one comment on one of the pro-Runners sites and it said this decision was judicial activism, which is a joke since it was the same court who decided Doe V Harris. If these unamerican traitors like the Runners and Bill Brough don’t like a country with a constitution or even don’t like countries that interpret the law by Case law/precedent, then they might prefer living in a country that just goes by whatever the statute says written by whatever usually-hypocritical tough-on-crime lunatic writes it into law, such as most third world countries do.
These residency restrictions are so draconian. How can anyone rationally now argue for presence restrictions when registrants, wihout a court order otherwise, can now live in places that presence restrictions forbid? That makes no sense. Presence restrictions are especially harsh for someone who has to go the bathroom while travelling and might need to use a fastfood place, which seem to be the only consistent places that provide restrooms for someone not close to their own home. Truck drivers, bus drivers, delivery drivers, all types of workers use fastfood bathrooms to get through the day on their jobs. Presence restrictions hurt gainful employment of ex-offenders by barring them from these places and making delivery jobs basically impossible, and are, just like residency restictions, counter-productive.
Above, I meant to write…..
The pro-prop 83 people and those who view the constitution from a living constitutionalist viewpoint who often also have a prosecutorial focus on catching criminals and making for a safer society, should see this decision as a good thing, since not only are residency restrictions counter-productive in acheiving a safer society due to the counter-productiveness of creating homelessness, but also this decision was wise because the criminals to be caught are 98% non-registrants, and create a counter-productive false sense of security by imposing harsh restrictions on registrants residency.
I posted about a month or so ago that these laws all of them including sorna itself needs to be challenged on the grounds that none of them serve a legitimate legislative purpose as they have no measurable effect in reducing recidivism or increasing public saftey while infringing on the liberties and rights of very large number of free citizens. Now with these decisions in mosley and Taylor we know exactly what the opinion of the justices are when it comes to ex post facto and registration. These justices are adamant that there opinion is that registration is not and will not ever be considered punishment in there opinion no matter how harsh it becomes. They made that quite obvious in the mosley case and I don’t beleive challenges on ex post facto grounds will ever prevail. So we need to focus on other ways to get sorna overturned and low and behold the court just showed us exactly how we do that in Taylor … Sorna as a whole us unconstitutional because it is arbitrary unreasonable oppressive official action that infringes on the liberties and privacy rights of tens of thousands of people while actually decreasing public saftey by encouraging vigilante attacks on free citizens andit their family members.The legislative intent may have been to increase public saftey and prevent reoffense sorna has proven to be a unsuccessful and counter productive measure as study after study has proven that it has no measurable effect in reducing crime in any way. When a legislative measure infringes in the liberties and a number of other rights of citizens then it doesnt matter if the intent was regulatory or not the law has to undergoes strict constitutional scrutiny and must be proving to increase public saftey and prevent crime in a measurable meaningful way. Sorna simply does not pass constitutional scrutiny and has proven to be counter productive to the legislative intent therefore it is unreasonable arbitrary oppressive official action that severely infringes on the liberty and privacy rights of tens of thousands of CA citizens and must be repealed.
The justices practically created a boiler plate motion in Taylor that can be used to overturn sorna.
What do you think about my opinion Janice I am a willing plaintiff or I imaging this could possibly be a class action.
The only other regulatory laws that regulate ex felons are really the gun control act now in that measure there is clear evidence that it reduces crime and even prevents crime as it helps keep guns out of ex offenders hands with sorna there is no rational connection between the registry and crime reduction or prevention
We need a boiler plate motion for injunction and declaratory relief based on the grounds mentioned above with all the relative facts data reports and case law included that all rso can just fill in their own personal info and then file independently in the superior courts across CA. If you and staff created such a motion and sent it to me via email I would gladly take and file it with the Sacramento superior court as a pro se plaintiff or with you as my counsel. I really beleive that the court would have no choice but to grant such relief if the facts and data proving that sorna has no meaningful or measurable effect on reducing or preventing crime is included in the motion. It can’t lose. These justices are unanimous on this issue and that’s rare enough to get a unanimous decision on anything in the supreme court. I know we can get at least a majority decision on these grounds and even possible a unanimous decision on this issue out of the courts. This is really a incredibe opportunity for rso to finally have a chance to actually get registration overturned all the way up to the federal level. I really hope that the aclu rsol and other civil rights defenders take the Taylor ruling and run with it all the way to the top. SCOTUS.
http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statements/2013/apr/22/ohio-public-defenders-office/ohio-public-defenders-office-says-sex-offender-reg/
This is just one of hundreds of sites with reports and studies that show that registration or at minimal public notification has no effect on sexual offense and in fact is counter productive.
I thought the court’s arguments in Moseley were weak, and the “Ice” case seemed to be something they pulled out of their —, as it really doesn’t fly when you think about it. Also, the court didn’t address any of the problems with AB109, Prop 47,etc., which., since 2012, certainly make being on the registry extremely punitive than just residency restrictions alone. Also, as a historian, the statement, “Sentencing choices such as sex offender residency restrictions are devices developed by the sovereign states in more modern times [than the time when the Constitution was framed in 1789] that were not historically entrusted to juries. A requirement that juries must always authorize them would often interfere with their intended and effective implementation.” Is there anyone out there, other than Moseley and my husband, who were not convicted of crimes that mandate registration, yet were sentenced by the judge to register??? Did you notice this statement? To say that if juries must authorize the sentence it would not be implemented “effectively” is a big NO KIDDING in my book! No jury would sentence someone to register who they did not convicted of a sex crime, and the “states rights/sovereignty argument has been a conservative, and today Republican, argument throughout our country’s history. I am not surprised, as the Chief Justice is a Republican who is married to a cop. And so the triad continues: prosecutors, judges, and cops against the accused. Some “justice” system. 🙁
I realize CA didn’t except sorna and has their own legislation on registration I’m not even sure what its named in CA but I just used the term sorna as a reference to registration as a whole whatever legislative name they give it.
http://press.uchicago.edu/pressReleases/2011/August/JLE_1108_SexOffenders.html
Here’s another example if the ineffective registration laws. Like I said there are many studies and reports that prove registration and especially public notification has no positive effect on public saftey and is actually counterproductive and are arbitrary.
I guess its still just called megans law in CA so replace sorna with megans law.
Count me in if there is a class action.
pam said “… and the “states rights/sovereignty argument has been a conservative, and today Republican, argument throughout our country’s history.”
That’s true, until the Medical Marijuana issue came about.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again; These are not honorable people (with the exception of Justice Liu ) on the Calif supreme court, and the same goes for the federal supreme court. They don’t want to acknowledge the truth and prefer to keep the lie alive. They lie by omission and just plain pretending like the truth doesn’t exist.
Ephesians 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
Psalm 101:7 He that worketh deceit shall not dwell within my house: he that telleth lies shall not tarry in my sight.