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
Ok how’s this?
Please vote no on SENATE BILL 54 (sex offender residency restrictions).
Senate Bill 54 will be coming before the committee and needs to be scrutinized closely as it is in direct conflict with the recommendations of the experts in the fields and seems to ignore any of the empirical evidence that suggest it is counterproductive and is a solution where there is no problem.
I strongly oppose SB54 and I am praying that legislators and committee members heed the evidence and recommendations from the experts in the fields and also the recent Supreme Court decision and vote NO on SENATE BILL 54.
According to the CA Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB), the state’s experts on sex offender policy, the promulgation of conditions which create homelessness and transience among registered sex offenders, such as residency restrictions, is counterproductive and continues to be the single most problematic aspect of sex offender management policy in CA. Therefore, CASOMB recommends elimination of one-size-fits-all restrictions on where registered sex offenders may live.
The CA Supreme Court has also determined that residency restrictions violate the liberty and privacy rights of registered citizens and bear no rational relationship to advancing the state’s goal of protecting children from sexual predators. While the scope of that case is limited to registered citizens on parole, it is only logical that registered citizens who are not on parole have even greater liberty and privacy rights interest. It is a fact that a person on parole has a higher risk of reoffense then a person who has completed parole supervision so there is no rational basis to subject a class of citizens who have a greater liberty and privacy interest to the same residency restrictions that has already been ruled unconstitutional.
Senate Bill 54 if passed would cost the state millions of more dollars in litigation simply to come to the same apparent conclusion.
Here are some more facts that you may or may not be aware of from the leading authorities
California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) End of Year Report 2014. (page 13)
Under the current system many local registaring agencies are challenged just keeping up with registration paperwork. It takes an hour or more to process each registrant, the majority of whom are low risk offenders. As a result law enforcement cannot monitor higher risk offenders more intensively in the community due to the sheer numbers on the registry. Some of the consequences of lengthy and unnecessary registration requirements actually destabilize the lifes of registrants and those -such as families- whose lives are often substantially impacted. Such consequences are thought to raise levels of known risk factors while providing no discernable benefit in terms of community safety.
The full report is availible online at. http://www.casomb.org/index.cfm?pid=231
California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) (page 38)
Sex offender recidivism rate for a new sex offense after a three year period is very low, only 1.8% of the 69.5% that return to prison. 88% of that 69.5% return to prison for parole violations.
The full report is available online at.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdcr.ca.gov%2FAdult_Research_Branch%2FResearch_documents%2FOutcome_evaluation_Report_2013.pdf&ei=C9dSVePNF8HfoATX-IBo&usg=AFQjCNE9I6ueHz-o2mZUnuxLPTyiRdjDsQ
No one can doubt that child sexual abuse is traumatic and devastating. The question is not whether the state has an interest in preventing such harm, but whether current laws are effective in doing so.
Megan’s law is allready a failure and is destroying families and their children’s lives and is costing tax payers millions upon millions of dollars.
Senate Bill 54 would bring more chaos and instability to an allready challenging environment in which this class of ex-offenders have to navigate and attempt to reintegrate back into. It would also be counterproductive to the states legitimate interest to protect its citizens. Residency restrictions would make it more difficult for law enforcement or the public to supervise or locate high risk offenders while increasing known risk factors for reoffense for lower risk offenders without any increase in public safety.
Please vote NO on SENATE BILL 54.
Thank you for your time.
Here is where I think the fundamental issue is fueling all of this:
Prison is for taking rights away from those who misbehaved and broke the law. Their rights are stripped and it is the ultimate definition of residency restrictions. The courts are blind; they do not overreact or get emotional, in theory any way, and the mete our the punishment accordingly.
However, once the sentence is completed, in America, rights are restored and people are given another opportunity to fly straight. That is one of the great things about this country. In fact, there are many charities and organizations that exist to assist ex cons in getting back on their feet. With loans, with housing, with job assistance.
Yet for those who have committed a sex crime, its like prison never stops. Once the sentence is complete, the politicians and media run the crime committed up the flag pole daily for all to see in the form of public shaming, on the List and in a constant barrage of rules and laws. Where the courts doled out the punishment and the sentence was served, the public and lawmakers want the prison sentence to never stop. They constantly re-try us and run our crimes out into the court of public opinion, so the public is in a constant state of angst, and easily motivated to pass more laws and stricter restrictions.
Residency Restrictions is nothing more than prison again. We already served our sentence. These law makers are trying to put us back in prison again based on what we did and already paid for. Taking away rights, limiting movement, restricting where we can live; that is called Prison.
Letters, people!! Let’s flood their offices with letters …. phone calls … emails …. and FAXes!
Remind them that the California Supreme Court found blanket residency restrictions to be unconstitutional.
I decided that I shouldn’t comment on something I haven’t seen. Therefore I found the following documents.
Here is the text of the proposed bill:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/sen/sb_0051-0100/sb_54_bill_20110412_amended_sen_v98.pdf
Here is the bill analysis for the Public Safety committee:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/sen/sb_0051-0100/sb_54_cfa_20110425_113652_sen_comm.html
This bill is very deceptive. It tries to sounds like it is ironing out the wrinkles in Jessica’s Law to make it appear more Constitutional; nonetheless, it would create even a bigger stain as I see it. It would make it even harder for any registrant to challenge residency restrictions.
From the analysis:
“How could a registered sex offender establish by clear
and convincing evidence that as a result of the pervasive
lack of compliant housing, a substantial percentage of sex
offenders subject to the residency restriction have,
despite good faith efforts, been unable to find compliant
housing within the county? Is this an attainable element
for relief?
Should all persons subject to the residency restriction
be constrained from future judicial relief under the
process proposed by this bill by a prior petition,
regardless of the competency of the prior petitioner’s
effort? Could future petitions be obstructed by the
simplest of ineffective petitions being filed and
dismissed, or filed and denied?”
OK, friends and fellow citizens, I have written my letters. Have you done yours? If so, thanks and good luck to us all. Now the calls…
I sent my letters to the Public Safety Committee members this weekend. Its hard to believe that we have had to fight this battle so many times this year. While this “version” of Jessica’s Law does not pertain to me, I was compelled to fight the battle. From the “chatter” and expression of concern, I wonder if some, who are not going to be affected by this bill have deferred there commitment to the cause. Fact is we can’t. I am reminded of Martin Niemueller, “First they came for the Communist, but I did not speak out, because I wasn’t a Communist. Then they came for the Socialists and Trade Unionist, but I was neither, so I did not speak out. And then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak out for me.”
This is the first step for the Runner’s. They will continue to add to this list in the coming Legislative sessions. We ALL must speak out. Janice is not affected by this bill, but speaks out for all. I hope that everyone is writing their letters and preparing for the calls. Don’t wait until there is no one left to speak out for you.
Just read that the city of El Monte has voted to repeal their residency restrictions, one more step and it will be complete. How would/does SB54 affect their laws, in their city? Since they repealed their residency restrictions ~ could someone live in that city???
I have mailed my letters. My letter begins, “Shelter is a basic need for all people. No one, including the government to should interfere with this need, in way, shape or form” and I concluded with “This evil, law has no place the American society. Please vote NO!”.
Letters written and ready to drop in the mail today during lunch. I also added information on how this would directly affect us and a little background on why the fear is so unsubstantiated (based on an offense from 28 years ago!). I also added my name, address & phone number – should a Senator want to contact me directly.
This is just a repeat of a bill that has already failed in committee before I don’t see how the idiot runners expect any different result. They are the definition of insanity. Sent my letters yesterday
Exactly Janice we need a way to get the word out to every rso in the state. They’re lucky they didn’t require us all to give up email addresses then we could’ve contacted everyone for free very easily.
Sending out 154 letters to the Senate Public Safety Committee. Hope they all help, these letters are from either 290 people or their family members, or those against these laws. Do not let ourselves become complacent or these types will do it all over again, and all of the advances that have been made will be reversed.
With all due respect to persons on parole, does this bill affect persons on probation as well? please enlighten me if you could.
thank you.
IS THIS BILL RETROACTIVE?
As currently written, SB 54 would apply to registered citizens on probation.
IF SB 54 DOES PASS, CAN WE AQUIRE A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AGAINST THE BILL? AND CHALLENGE THE CONSITIONALITY OF SB 54? PLUS I WOULD LIKE TO THANK YOU JANICE YOU HAVE BEEN FANTASTIC AND WE GREATLY APPRECIATE EVERYTHING YOU HAVE ACHIEVED!!
My question is about the Senate Public Safety Committee.
Are those people on the Senate Public Safety Committee, the same people that voted no on SB267 or are they different people?
I strongly believe this bill will not pass! It is simply not practical.
My letters to the Public Safety Committee are going out today. Next off phone calls. Let’s stand together, stand strong and let our voices be heard.
can we acquire a temporary restraining order if this bill passes? does anybody have a definitive answer?
Upon re-reading of the SB54 one thing that we need to remember is that in order to amend Proposition 83, it is required to have a 2/3 majority. That is if it has gotten past the Public Safety committee. We need to be prepared to write letters to the entire Senate to block this bill if it passes the Public Safety Committee. I am not aware of the split of the Senate, but we need to be prepared if it will be necessary.
I hope that the Public Safety Committee is seeing that Runners and others people who are supporting this are wasting their time.
Here the text for SB54
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB54
Introduced by Senator Walters in December 19, 2014 but seem that Runner took over.
I am trying to find out why she Runner think this is an “declaring the urgency thereof, to take effect immediately.”
Anyone care to explain?
I think we have the advantage on our side on this.
I think Runner will use the same old scare scheme,
“There are child molester under every bushes and trees.”
Maybe we can just open the window and show the council members that there is nothing under the tree.
It is just Runner’s wild imagination going on only in her head.