ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings: Details / Recordings

Emotional Support Group Meetings

ACSOLAction ItemsCalifornia

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.


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

Join the discussion

  1. CA

    By the way EVERYBODY do you guys know that the state of California spends $25,000,000 every year, on the registration act!!! thats a lot of money for the state to spend on something that has proven ineffective. Just food for thought!!!

  2. MM

    I just received this tracking email on SB 54 …. Does anyone know what this means exactly?

    Tracking Notification:

    SB-54: Sex offenders: residency restriction: petition for relief.

    On 19-JUN-15 the following history action was applied:

    “From committee with author’s amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on PUB. S.”

  3. Two states east

    “Clear and convincing “changed to “a preponderance of”. Legiscan just put it up. Bet this comment already posted.

  4. CA

    MM, I think she amended these two provisions=c) Notwithstanding any other law, original jurisdiction for any petition filed pursuant to this section shall lie with the appellate division of the superior court in which the petition is filed. The court may consolidate all pending petitions.
    (d) The appellate division of the superior court in which the petition is filed pursuant to this section may grant the petition if the petitioner establishes by clear and convincing a preponderance of the evidence, and the court finds, both of the following:

  5. CA

    #1The court may consolidate all pending petitions.#2 a preponderance of the, other than those two additions everything else is the same. She might amend it again who knows!!!!

  6. Two states east

    Sharon CROSSED OUT “clear and convincing”, which is the medium standard, and put in it’s place the lowest standard “preponderance” for burden of proof ( the highest standard is of course “beyond a reasonable doubt).

    So Sharon can SELL IT EASIER…She sez ” Hey, I’m using the LOWEST standard for them to prove they can’t find a place to live; we should hold them to at least SOMETHING!

    Oh I can’t resist: Strap on a truth-o-meter to her ankle. Then she sez: “You want a 12% hit when you SELL ??$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$”. Hey people, isn’t that the number Relators use if within a half mile ?

    • Timmr

      She wants registrants to show a burden of proof, but can’t seem to recognize the burden of proof in RE: Taylor. Is this a joke, or what?

      • CA

        Ok, this is what stumps me, obviously since Jessicas Law has been enacted, parolees have had a difficult if not impossible, time trying to find housing that is compliant with prop 83. That is the whole reason why EVERYBODY has said it doesnt work. so what make this amended bill any different. Obviously the same housing issues are going to arise again! and flood the courts with RSOs all with the same problem! “YOUR HONOR MY CLIENT CANT FIND COMPLIANT HOUSING”.

  7. Two states east

    ANANUDDER THING… Sharon is expecting if nothing else, legal challenges. “Preponderence” wording is usually used in Civil actions; not too much in Criminal. However, “Clear and Convincing” is used a lot in Criminal actions. I would think she has been advised to get any wording that MAY be interpreted Criminally OUT OF THERE..

    Okay, I got all this out of Wikipaedia under “Burden of proof”. Now back to my comic books to read…

  8. Harry

    Can the Runners be sued according to 290.46?

    • j

      I think they ought to be charged with conspiracy to violate the constitutional rights of registrants and their family members.

    • j

      Excerpt from LA Times regarding beating of jail visitor. They are being charged with conspiracy to violate the civil rights of the victim. I believe that is what is in the cards for those doing the same to registrants through unconstitutional laws:

      “Sgt. Eric Gonzalez and deputies Sussie Ayala and Fernando Luviano were found guilty of deprivation of civil rights and falsification of records in the 2011 beating of Gabriel Carrillo. Gonzalez and Ayala were also convicted of conspiracy to violate constitutional rights.

      The three face at least six years in prison when sentenced Nov. 2.

      “An individual who carries a badge and a gun and who uses their authority and power to violate people’s constitutional rights — as was the case here — is one of the worst kinds of criminals and should be brought to justice,” said Assistant U.S. Attorney Lizabeth Rhodes, one of the three prosecutors on the case.

      How about an individual who has sworn to abide by the constitution as in guess who?
      This might have some merit or at least some consideration for those who abuse registrants under the color of authority.

  9. MarkW-SF


    Senator Loni Hancock (D), Chair
    State Capitol, Room 2082
    Sacramento, CA 95814
    (916) 651-4009

    Senator Joel Anderson (R), Co-Chair
    State Capitol, Room 5052
    Sacramento, CA 95814
    (916) 651-4038

    Senator Mark Leno (D)
    State Capitol, Room 5100
    Sacramento, CA 95814
    (916) 651-4011

    Senator Carol Liu (D)
    State Capitol, Room 5097
    Sacramento, CA 95814
    (916) 651-4025

    Senator Mike McGuire (D)
    State Capitol, Room 5064
    Sacramento, CA 95814
    (916) 651-4002

    Senator Bill Monning (D)
    State Capitol, Room 313
    Sacramento, CA 95814
    (916) 651-4017

    Senator Jeff Stone (R)
    State Capitol, Room 4062
    Sacramento, CA 95814
    (916) 651-4028

    • Janice Bellucci

      Please call these 7 Senate offices this week. The Senators need to know that you oppose Senate Bill 54. Making all 7 calls will take you less than 15 minutes.

    • MarkW-SF

      The links added here have direct email contact forms as well (I know that letters and calls are best, but just saying email info is directly accessed through these links).

      ALSO: Copy and paste (or attach) your letters you sent to the Safety Committee, and email/post them with this Committee contact info to your advocacy/support networks, and call them to action! Make it easy as possible for your CA family, friends, colleagues, advocates, etc networks to help!

      We are fighting the Scarlet Letter and Witch Hunt phenomena of our time!

  10. PR

    Calling time. 2nd round of phone calls went today.

  11. MarkW-SF

    Did we ever got a citation source for “the state of California spends $25,000,000 every year, on the registration act!!!” statement made here on June 19, 2015 at 9:59 pm ???

    • CA

      MarkW-SF there is your answer! I read it awhile ago, and i didn’t remember the source, but Molly found it. It is probably more now!Thank you Molly!!!

  12. Molly

    I’ve searched but the closest number I was able to find is from the CA SOMB 2014 report, “A Better Path to Community Safety, Sex Offender Registration in California, Tiering Background Paper.” Point 7 on page 6 states in part:

    7. … An extrapolation based on estimated costs in one large jurisdiction suggests that the statewide costs for registration by local agencies alone is about $24,000,000 per year. This estimate did not include the cost of enforcement and compliance efforts by law enforcement agencies. Nor did it include other costs related to prosecution, incarceration and other related tasks…

    • j

      It takes about two hours per registrant per officer at say $40/hour and most likely another hour of administration at the doj. Add about $100 network/facility fee for transferring records and maybe $100 per year per registrant for general administrative overage. Based on 80,000 registrants:

      $80.00 80000 6,400,000
      $100.00 80000 8,000,000
      $100.00 80000 8,000,000

      I don’t know if this is even close, but just a attempt to reach that number.

      If they changed the registration to only when an address change occurs, like it was before chicken little declared the sky was falling, this number would drop dramatically.

      As far as the other costs of managing the incarcerated and supervised release, this could be easily as much as $250m-$500M. I have no idea what those numbers might be in reality.

  13. mike r

    Made the calls didn’t even take but five minutes maybe. Sent my letters already hope everyone did the same keep your fingers crossed.

    • Harry

      I made my calls, today.

      • Janice Bellucci

        Thank you, Mike and Harry, as well as all others who have made calls to the Senate offices. Your calls make a difference! Keep them coming!!

  14. mike r

    You know I think rsol and all others who have a stake in these laws across the entire nation should be notified every time one of these laws,are being considered and phone numbers and addresses should be posted on all the websites so as to get people from all over the country to call and write letters in opposition to these laws. After all the entire country has a stake in this.

  15. Nationless

    Dear Esteemed Senate Member,

    I sacrificed ten years of my life and my sanity for the United States of America. I am a service-connected disabled combat veteran.

    Please consider all the facts associated with the justification of SB54. You will find the author included few facts and many emotions.

    I will no longer be herded. I will not be banished. I will not be forced from my home.

    Please vote appropriately, based on facts, on SB54.

    Thank you.

  16. David

    Just made my Senator calls. It only took 5 minutes.

  17. TJ

    I have been making my phone calls this afternoon, and I reached Senator Mike McGuire’s office and was told that he was no longer on the Senate Public Safety Committee. He has been replaced by Senator Glazer out of the East Bay area the 7th Senate District.

    Please contact him

    Capitol Office
    State Capitol, Room 4090,
    Sacramento, CA 95814
    Phone: (916) 651-4007
    Fax: (916) 651-4907


    • PR

      I will call him tomorrow and mail him a letter. Thanks for the info.

    • David

      Thanks, TJ. I just called and Sen. Glazer’s office confirmed that he is now on the Public Safety Committee. (It’s rather annoying that Sen. McGuire’s office didn’t bother to mention that when I called McGuire’s office yesterday.)

    • Harry

      I called Senator Glazer office this afternoon. I do not know if I can get slow mail letter to him in time. I will try email. Since Senator McGuire is not on the committee anymore, I hope that he would share or forward the stuff we have sent him with Glazer.

      • PR

        Great plan Harry. I did send him a letter but I also just send him an email. And I had 3 people call him today. He is newly elected and from the San Francisco Bay Area.

  18. CA

    so if your conviction falls under pc 667.61 and you have to register, this bill applies? and if your conviction is not under pc 667.61, it does not apply right? can anybody seriously answer this question please, it would be greatly appreciated thank you :]

    • Janice Bellucci

      It is my personal opinion that AB 54 “only” would apply to those convicted of offenses listed in Penal Code Section 667.61. Unfortunately, that penal code section includes most although not all sex offenses. It is best to review that section to see if the offense for which you were convicted is included. Because the bill would apply to most registered citizens, California RSOL opposes it and will testify against it during the Senate Public Safety Committee hearing on June 30. We expect ACLU, Housing CA, CA Attorneys for Criminal Justice and other organizations as well as individuals to join us.

      • CA

        Thank You Janice for taking the time to respond! and again thank you for all your hard work and efforts!!!

      • Timmr

        California RSOL opposes it, because the bill would apply to most registered citizens? What if it only applied to a say, less than half, then you wouldn’t oppose it?

  19. David

    Yes, thank you very much for fighting so hard for us, Janice.
    As unlikely as it is, I’m hoping it will be only Senators Hancock and Leno in attendance and we see a repeat of the SB267 hearing.

  20. steve

    I believe from listening the bill did not pass.

  21. mike r

    Listening to what. Is there a link to the session yet

    • steve

      Yes you COULD have listened and watched live. It is my feeling most if not all future sex offender measures will not pass the committee’s muster without CASCOMB supporting. Pray Runner is never the chairwoman.

  22. mike r

    SB 54 was killed on aparty-line vote, with the committee’s liberal majority voting against the measure.

    “I amdisappointed the Democrats on the Senate Public Safety Committee donot understand the importance of this bill,” said Runner. “The California Supreme Court decision creates uncertainty. County governments need a clear process to protect voter approved residency restrictions when possible and expedite reliefwhen necessary. SB54 providedmuch needed clarity.” if this article is true then its dead wow break out the champagne

    • NPS

      Eat crow Sharon Runner!!!

      • j

        I would have phrased it a bit differently but thanks for keeping it civil.

    • j

      The only uncertainty in this whole equation is why is someone so full of hate and devoid of logic and the tenets of freedom is actually warming a seat in the Senate.

      She is bombarded by the facts and yet she remains eager to violate the constitutional rights of registrants and their families. The truth is that there are people that will push these vigilante measures simply to bully an unpopular group, use these votes to stay in power, and then have the shamelessness to call this legislation or common sense or character for that matter.

      The only thing that the committee missed is helping her out in her career made out of bullying a beleaguered populace who has already had adjudication of their cases.

      Shooting fish in a barrel using such hateful and arbitrary punishment is not the (or should not be) goal of any worthy public servant. What is in the water over there?

  23. mike r

    Poor runners must be devastated HA

  24. mike r

    The bill alsoclarified how 2,000 feet should be measuredand ensured only violent sex offenders would be subject tothe residency restriction.

    ONLY APPLY TO VIOLENT OFFENDERS MY A.. the runners are straight liers in too of being traitors to the constitution

  25. mike r

    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.

    • David

      Mike, it is definitely national news. This article is from the journal ofvthe American Bar Association:

  26. Paul

    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.

  27. mike r

    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

  28. PR

    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.

    • Harry

      Someone, might want to send her a copy of that, oath.

    • steve

      Let her piss off the Dem’s because when it goes back it won’t have a chance. She’s is really an idiot to throw them under the bus.

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 *