Senate Public Safety to Consider Residency Restrictions Bill [UPDATED with Public Safety Committee Hearing Date]

UPDATE: The Senate Public Safety Committee has scheduled the hearing for SB 54 on June 30. The hearing will begin at 9:30 a.m. and be held in Room 4203 in the State Capitol building.

Senate Bill 54 (SB 54) has been referred to the Senate Public Safety Committee. Although a specific hearing date has not yet been set, the committee must hear the bill in either June or July to the Senate schedule.

As currently written, SB 54 would prohibit most registered citizens from living within 2,000 feet of a school, park or place where children gather. The author of the bill is Senator Sharon Runner, an author of Jessica’s Law, which has similar restrictions.

“It’s time to write and send letters in opposition to SB 54 to the Senate Public Safety Committee,” stated CA RSOL president Janice Bellucci.

The CA Supreme Court ruled on March 2, 2015, that CDCR could not require all registered citizens on parole to comply with Jessica’s Law because the restrictions violate their constitutional rights of liberty and privacy. The Court did not, however, decide whether residency restrictions violate the constitutional rights of registered citizens who are not on parole.

“It has long been recognized that people on parole have limited rights,” stated Bellucci. “It is logical that registered citizens not on parole have greater rights than those on parole. Therefore the state legislature should not pass a law that requires registered citizens not on parole to abide by residency restrictions.”

A copy of the letter sent by California RSOL opposing SB 54 as well as the list of Senate Public Safety Committee members can be found below. Letters should be sent as soon as possible to ensure they are read by committee members.

Related

Janice’s Journal: Jessica’s Law Authors Attempt to Overturn CA Supreme Court Decision

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
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. 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.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. 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.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email 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.  
 

167 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

The measure received just two “yes” votes Tuesday, both from Republicans, in the Senate’s seven-member Public Safety Committee.

I’m amazed the tides are turning people standing up speaking up and taking action is paying off. I imagine this is going to become national news real fast.

This is a call to arms for all registrants and their families and friends. When a hot button issue like this hits the news, we can use it to inform the public. Right now, please go to your local news sites (TV news, radio news, web news, newspapers, etc.) If the SB 54 story is covered, go to the Comments section below the story and teach the world what we need everyone to know. The following is a sample that can be used (and please note that citing the CA Sex Offender Management Board in comments will be extremely helpful):

Establishing a 2,000 foot residency restriction zone makes no sense. In many communities, it effectively banishes sex offenders. Such a violation of the Constitution is easily challenged in court and would be overturned after wasting millions of taxpayer dollars to defend. Even if not found to be a violation (highly unlikely), sex offenders would be banished to another area where they would be forced to congregate in great numbers, mostly becoming homeless. The California Sex Offender Management Board confirms that homeless sex offenders utilize millions in additional resources, are not as easily tracked (even with GPS), and pose a danger to our communities and children unlike their counterparts who have housing, treatment, a support system, and employment. Maybe the time has come to think with our brains rather than continue the hysteria of Runner’s senseless witch hunt.

I do not believe that those offenders pose a danger as opposed to there counterparts. Sure it increases the risk for reoffense but it is a false statement to say they pose a danger. I don’t beleive anyone that isnt a habitual violent offender actually poses a danger to the public no matter what circumstances their put in. I feel that statement is misleading and shod not be used

I am so happy that this proposed bill went down.

I find it so annoying though that Sharon Runner blames the defeat of SB 54, which was an objectionable, unconstitutional bill on the democrats that served on the Public Safety Committee. She is so insulting it had nothing to do with our Party System. She needs to stop the blame and remember the oath she took when she took office.