State Legislation Would Require SVP’s to Reside Near Police Departments

A state Assembly bill would, if enacted into law, require anyone deemed a sexually violent predator (SVP) to live within 10 miles of a “permanent physical police or sheriff’s station”. That bill is AB 262 which was introduced by Tom Lackey, who is a Republican member of the state legislature representing Palmdale and a former CHP officer.
“The public needs to be protected from individuals who currently pose a current threat to public safety,” stated CA RSOL president Janice Bellucci. “However, this legislation is written too broadly because it would include people who mental health experts have determined are safe to reenter society.”

Individuals convicted of a sex offense and imprisoned are screened prior to their release in order to determine whether they are an SVP. Those determined to be SVP’s are sent to Coalinga State Hospital where many spend the remainder of their lives. The estimated cost of housing an SVP exceeds $100,000 per year.

“It’s likely that Lackey introduced SB 262 because Christopher Hubbart, a registered citizen deemed an SVP decades ago, was released to the Palmdale area last year,” stated CA RSOL vice president Chance Oberstein. “Hubbart’s release from prison and Coalinga followed a determination by multiple mental health experts that he no longer poses a danger to public safety.”

Bill Info

Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...

 

  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  4. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Use person-first language.
  5. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  6. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  7. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  8. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  9. 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 that are not personally identifiable.
  10. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  11. Please do not post in all Caps.
  12. 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. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  13. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  14. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  15. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  16. Please do not solicit funds
  17. No discussions about weapons
  18. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  19. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  20. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  21. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
  22. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
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.  
 

15 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Seriously, are these people high or something?

The public needs to be protected, not from RSO’s or “SVP’s”, but from rogue police officers who commit sex offenses at a rate SEVEN times higher than registered citizens. This is is pandering for votes or some state appointment somewhere, or he might just be an idiot, I think the latter is accurate. Perhaps he should be subject to retroactive birth control? Apparently, this man knows nothing of Megan’s Law and the lifetime registry, which was implemented to monitor SVP’s and protect the public from trench coat wearing, public park lurking, bus stop waiting wild eyed molesters of all people.
Einstein said it best: Two things are infinite; the universe and human stupidity and I’m not sure about the universe.

Lackey must have been drunk. Momentarily tossing aside the arguments associated with the effectiveness of residency restrictions, and the harm that they actually cause, Lackey has presented a bill that mandates a SVP live within 10 miles of a police station, and also gives local jurisdictions the ability to pass their own SVP-specific residency restrictions. Additionally, persons on parole are required to be returned to the county in which they were arrested in. So, let’s assume that county is Yolo. Yolo has a single Sheriff’s station in Woodland. Woodland has tons of parks, as well as a few schools. So, hypothetically, Woodland passes a local ordinance prohibiting a SVP from residing within 2,000 of a school or park. There is literally no way that the SVP can be released! Not to Yolo, anyway. And, I assume, probably not to most communities, as this is a law that literally ensures that the SVP remains incarcerated for there will be no place in this state that they can be released to!

I’m sure that is the intended effect. And, sadly, I have no doubt that this will pass! What a bunch of hokum!

ummmm… live closer to a police station.. Is this in hopes the police can walk to the person’s apartment to do a “Compliance” check more regularly? Also here in Long Beach, the only thing closer to the police stations is section 8 housing and super expensive condos… and section 8 doesn’t allow SOs to live there

Where do these idiots come up with this @#$%!?
Sorry to play devil’s advocate, but if anyone wanted to commit any crime, how would living 10 miles from, 2 miles from, or right next to a police station stop him/her from committing that crime?
Such stupidity!! And such blatant pandering to constituents!

Maybe its a ploy to do segregation based on criminal background

Now, if this numbnuts gets the bill passed, will he guarantee that the state pay for the move and housing? I think not…just more lawsuits to be filed on registered citizen’s behalf.
My previous post on the subject I made a mistake; police commit sex offenses at a rate TWELVE times that of registered citizens.
Since retroactivity of all sorts seems to legal now, then I opt for the application of retroactive birth control to this guy, however, we may get lucky and he’ll pass away from terminal stupidity.

Where I live the biggest drug shop is next door to the PD. About 2 years ago, there was a sex crime within 2 doors of this same PD.