ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459

Monthly Meetings: Nov 21, Dec 19 – Details / Recordings

Emotional Support Group Meetings 2020 (Phone only)

ACSOLCalifornia

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

Join the discussion

  1. The Anon

    Seriously, are these people high or something?

    • Harry

      That something is this sex offender stuff is a mental health issue in the society. There is lot of sick people, in charge. Mr. Tom Lackey and company need to be cleared by multiple mental health experts to see if, they poses a danger to public safety

    • L. Mitaro

      They actually think they’re being “proactive” and “vigilant” by keeping the “usual suspects” within arm’s reach.

      You’d HAVE to be on drugs to believe this would be an effective strategy.

  2. mch

    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.

  3. Paul

    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!

    • Joe

      I do not think it takes a rocket scientist to figure out that the way this bill is written it ensures that there is, by definition, no place in many counties where a person labeled an SVP can possibly reside. I doubt that that is going to fly.

      It would not surprise me if, after going through the legislative process, everything is stricken except

      “The bill would provide that its terms do not prevent local jurisdictions from enacting local ordinances that further restrict the residency of a person convicted and adjudicated as a sexually violent predator.”

      Sneaky, sneaky. Or am I giving the good Assembly member too much credit?

      • Eric Knight

        Bingo! You hit the jackpot!

        Just like Proposition 35 had very little, if anything to do with human trafficking to conceal the real agenda, Internet identifier registration, the SVP law itself is extremely minimal in its actual scope, as most registrants do live within 10 miles of a station. So if one takes the bill at face value, one would think there is a huge problem with SVP’s living outside the 10 mile radius and committing all sorts of child abuse.

        Obviously, there has to be something more, and you caught it in Section 3.

        That is the REAL INTENT of this bill: To allow municipalities to restore their proxmity laws for parks and other places. As written, it would allow a muncipality to completely ban registered citizens from living, visiting, or even passing through the city.

        This needs to be exposed as the REAL agenda. The 10 mile zone is just a ruse.

        • Joe

          Update on AB 262. It was amended in the Assembly on March 26. The portion that caught my eye has already been removed:

          The bill would provide that its terms do not prevent local jurisdictions from enacting local ordinances that further restrict the residency of a person convicted and adjudicated as a sexually violent predator. – GONE

          https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB262/id/1187968

          There you have it – guy can’t be right 100% of the time…. 🙂

  4. Bluewall

    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

    • j

      The law when introduced prohibited housing discrimination based on registration status. How does section 8 break the law and get away with it; n what basis other than additional punishment? They lose either way but all they have to do is claim “regulatory” and their lie becomes truth.

  5. David

    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!

  6. Bluewall

    Maybe its a ploy to do segregation based on criminal background

  7. mch

    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.

  8. Harry

    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.

Leave a Reply

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  • We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  • 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.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • 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.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
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.  
 

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

.