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
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!!!
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.”
“Clear and convincing “changed to “a preponderance of”. Legiscan just put it up. Bet this comment already posted.
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:
#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!!!!
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 ?
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…
Can the Runners be sued according to 290.46?
CALIFORNIA STATE SENATE
COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
(WITH LINKS TO FULL ONLINE CONTACT INF0 – EMPHASIZE SENDS TO MAIN CAPITOL OFFICES)
(PLEASE SHARE WITH ADVOCACY PARTNERS FOR LAST MINUTE EMAILS, CALLS, ETC)
Senator Loni Hancock (D), Chair
State Capitol, Room 2082
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 651-4009
http://sd09.senate.ca.gov/contact
Senator Joel Anderson (R), Co-Chair
State Capitol, Room 5052
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 651-4038
http://district38.cssrc.us/content/my-offices
Senator Mark Leno (D)
State Capitol, Room 5100
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 651-4011
http://sd11.senate.ca.gov/contact
Senator Carol Liu (D)
State Capitol, Room 5097
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 651-4025
http://sd25.senate.ca.gov/contact
Senator Mike McGuire (D)
State Capitol, Room 5064
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 651-4002
http://sd02.senate.ca.gov/contact
Senator Bill Monning (D)
State Capitol, Room 313
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 651-4017
http://sd17.senate.ca.gov/contact-us
http://sd17.senate.ca.gov/send-e-mail
Senator Jeff Stone (R)
State Capitol, Room 4062
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 651-4028
http://district28.cssrc.us/content/my-offices
Calling time. 2nd round of phone calls went today.
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 ???
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…
Made the calls didn’t even take but five minutes maybe. Sent my letters already hope everyone did the same keep your fingers crossed.
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.
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.
Just made my Senator calls. It only took 5 minutes.
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
http://sd07.senate.ca.gov/contact/email
Capitol Office
State Capitol, Room 4090,
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4007
Fax: (916) 651-4907
TJ
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 :]
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.
I believe from listening the bill did not pass.
Listening to what. Is there a link to the session yet
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
Poor runners must be devastated HA
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
http://www.montereyherald.com/government-and-politics/20150630/bill-to-revive-restrictions-on-sex-offender-housing-stalls