The Senate Public Safety Committee conducted a hearing on June 30 during which it considered Senate Bill 54 (SB 54). The bill, if passed, would (1) overturn a recent CA Supreme Court decision that declared blanket residency restrictions for registered citizens on parole to be unconstitutional and (2) prevent most registered citizens from obtaining judicial relief from those restrictions.
The bill would not, as described by Senator Runner’s staff, break a stalemate created by the CA Supreme Court, and prevent 5 to 10 years of litigation. Instead, the bill would create litigation throughout the state of California.
Testimony at the June 30 hearing included opposition from 15 people including representatives of the CA Sex Offender Management Board, the Public Defenders Association, ACLU, California Attorneys for Criminal Justice and California Reform Sex Offender Laws. By comparison, the only testimony in support of the bill came from one organization — Crime Victims United — a non-profit financed by a prison guards union.
Following the testimony, Chairwoman Loni Hancock stated her opposition to the bill and encouraged the bill’s author, Senator Sharon Runner, to meet with the Sex Offender Management Board which opposes residency restrictions, in general, and SB 54, in particular. Senators Mark Leno and Carol Liu joined Hancock in opposing the bill.
The remaining Democratic members of the Committee – Bill Monning and Steven Glazer — abstained from voting on SB 54. Prior to abstaining, Monning noted that if the bill passed, registered citizens would require an attorney in order to seek judicial relief. Glazer’s abstention may have been based on the fact that he has been a senator for less than a month and a member of the Public Safety Committee for even less time.
The only committee members who voted in favor of SB 54 were Senators Anderson and Stone, the two Republican members of that committee. In order to obtain the committee’s approval and move on to the floor of the Senate, SB 54 needed four “aye” votes. It received only two. This led to the following headline in one daily newspaper: “Senate Panel Kills Runners Sex Offender Residency Bill.”
Why then did a different newspaper publish the headline, “Bill to Revive Restrictions on Sex Offender Housing Stalls?” The answer is that Senator Runner requested the possibility of a second hearing on SB 54, a request that was granted – with a condition. Senator Runner must revise SB 54 and the Senate Public Safety Committee must conduct a hearing on the revised bill no later than July 14, the date of its last hearing this year.
In order to put the final nails in the coffin of SB 54, California RSOL will send a new letter to members of the Public Safety Committee asking them to oppose this bill. Please send your letter as well as make one more set of phone calls to the members of the Public Safety Committee no later than July 13. Also please attend and/or testify at the committee hearing on July 14.
Once again, it’s time to Show Up – Stand Up – Speak Up. For if you do these simple tasks, we shall overcome not someday, but on July 14.
— by Janice Bellucci
Read all of Janice’s Journal
Related
Hearing Vide0 / Audio (June 30, Senate Public Safety Committee, 2nd item on the agenda)
Party-Line Vote Kills Runner’s Sex-Offender Residency Bill
Bill To Revive Restrictions On Sex Offender Housing Stalls
—– Sample Letter to the Committee ———
[note note_color=”#ededed” radius=”2″]
*Date*
Senator *Senator Name*, Member
Senate Public Safety Committee
State Capitol Building, Room *Room #*
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Senator *Senator Name*:
I am writing in strong opposition to Senate Bill (SB) 54 which failed to pass the Senate Public Safety Committee during a hearing on June 30, but was granted a rehearing which may be held on July 14.
During the June 30 hearing, the author of the bill and/or her staff made false or misleading statements regarding SB 54. For example, they stated that SB 54 would only require residency restrictions to be levied against “the worst of the worst” sex offenders. The fact is that SB 54 would require more than 90 percent of those currently required to register as sex offenders to comply with residency restrictions.
In addition, they made statements that SB 54 would make it easier for a sex offender to obtain judicial relief from residency restrictions. The fact is that SB 54 would significantly reduce a judge’s discretion and make it virtually impossible for an individual to obtain judicial relief because he would be required to prove there is a “pervasive lack of compliant housing” in the county in which he resides. That requirement alone would cost the individual thousands of dollars to hire both a lawyer as well as a subject matter expert.
Further, they made statements during the hearing that SB 54 would resolve a “stalemate” caused by the recent CA Supreme Court decision, In re Taylor, and prevent 5 to 10 years of litigation. The fact is that if SB 54 becomes law, it will spawn lawsuits throughout the state of California challenging both its residency restrictions and limitations on judicial relief.
Finally, residency restrictions such as those included in SB 54 do not achieve the worthy goal of protecting children from sexual assaults. The fact is that the California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB), the states’ experts on sex offender policy opposes residency restrictions because they create homelessness and transience among registered sex offenders and are the single most problematic aspect of sex offender management policy in California. In addition, CASOMB Vice-Chair Tom Tobin testified during the June 30 hearing that CASOMB is opposed to SB 54.
Thank you for your attention to this important matter. For the reasons stated above I request that you and all members of the Senate Public Safety Committee vote “no” on SB 54.
Sincerely,
*your name here*
[/note]———
Alternate Letter: SB 54 reconsideration
———–
Senate Public Safety Committee Members (Addresses under ‘Contact’ tab on each web site)
“Reconsideration Granted” why would they allow her to revise it again?
CA, I’m reading into it, but it sounded to me like,”We’ll grant reconsideration of your Bill – if you go work with CASOMB to fix it.” (And good luck with that!!)
Thanks for the update!
We appreciate you so much!!!
Have a wonderful day.
The Runners made many false statements (lies/deception) to the public to get these laws passed. It is seemingly what they do best, and now they are at it again; at least Sharon Runner is in this instance. They have already created years of headaches/litigation and now she has the gall to claim that SB54 will “break a stalemate created by the CA Supreme Court, and prevent 5 to 10 years of litigation.”
I think by now that allot of us must be wondering how stupid do people have to be to believe these two after all the evidence proves that their claims against and about registrants are untrue, and they are wasting everyone’s time and $$$$ for their own personal gain. Their laws are not needed because they do not address any kind of need. I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that the Runners are getting kick backs from the CCPOA. But who would investigate that?
We need to call and write letters!! I found this letter written by George Runner on June 25th on BOE letterhead to Senator Loni Hancock in support of SB 54. Ugh.
http://www.boe.ca.gov/runner/pdf/SB54SUP.pdf
Very strange: There was one point in Sen. Runner’s testimony that she noted that living in urban areas such as San Francisco is very expensive for anyone, even someone with two jobs. (See approx. 01:04:50 in the video.) She notes that housing costs are lower in her District (Antelope Valley) and compliant housing would be easier to find in such less congested, rural areas.
So let me get this right – for the benefit of all your constituents, Senator Runner: you are recommending that Registered Sex Offenders should move to Antelope Valley in order to find affordable, compliant housing???? My God, your constituents are going to LOVE you!!!
I just watched the video. Sharon does indeed misrepresent information. The guy she had with her avoided answering a question. Their entire premise is beyond stupid. A few of the Public Safety Committee members are clueless on this issue and they had not done any research on the facts or if they did chose not to believe them. Stone for example. I think was just referring to the information submitted by Runner. Sharon had Senator Stone, who ended up to be the moderator clearly on her side on this issue. Which is why I believe the discussion got as far as it did. As for Steve Glazer my representative he was extremely unimpressive. How Convenient Leno was not there? Should be interesting to see what Sharon and George come up with next. As we go into what round 3 or it is 4?
Below is letter sent today to all members of the Senate Public Safety Committee. Please feel free to use it as a model. Letters need to be mailed soon for hearing on July 14.
July 1, 2015
Senator Jeff Stone, Member
Senate Public Safety Committee
State Capitol Building, Room 4062
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Senator Stone:
I am writing in strong opposition to Senate Bill (SB) 54 which failed to pass the Senate Public Safety Committee during a hearing on June 30, but was granted a rehearing which may be held on July 14.
During the June 30 hearing, the author of the bill and/or her staff made false or misleading statements regarding SB 54. For example, they stated that SB 54 would only require residency restrictions to be levied against “the worst of the worst” sex offenders. The fact is that SB 54 would require more than 90 percent of those currently required to register as sex offenders to comply with residency restrictions.
In addition, they made statements that SB 54 would make it easier for a sex offender to obtain judicial relief from residency restrictions. The fact is that SB 54 would significantly reduce a judge’s discretion and make it virtually impossible for an individual to obtain judicial relief because he would be required to prove there is a “pervasive lack of complaint housing” in the county in which he resides. That requirement alone would cost the individual thousands of dollars to hire both a lawyer as well as a subject matter expert.
Further, they made statements during the hearing that SB 54 would resolve a “stalemate” caused by the recent CA Supreme Court decision, In re Taylor, and prevent 5 to 10 years of litigation. The fact is that if SB 54 becomes law, it will spawn lawsuits throughout the state of California challenging both its residency restrictions and limitations on judicial relief.
Finally, residency restrictions such as those included in SB 54 do not achieve the worthy goal of protecting children from sexual assaults. The fact is that the California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB), the states’ experts on sex offender policy opposes residency restrictions because they create homelessness and transience among registered sex offenders and are the single most problematic aspect of sex offender management policy in California. In addition, CASOMB Vice-Chair Tom Tobin testified during the June 30 hearing that CASOMB is opposed to SB 54.
Thank you for your attention to this important matter. For the reasons stated above I request that you and all members of the Senate Public Safety Committee vote “no” on SB 54.
Sincerely,
Janice M. Bellucci
President
While going through the Senate Public Safety Committee website ~ I noticed on their Agenda for July 14th that there is SB 448 (although I think they have it down as 444) – authored by Hueso, Sex Offender, Internet Identifiers. Many references to Prop 35 (just like), but instead of giving 24 hours to provide internet address, it now is 5 days … ???? Also classified as “URGENCY” … could that pass immediately???
What is the address for the new Senator Steven Glazer
Will do my part and write them letters. Thanks for making it easier!
How many people from Crime Victims United show up?
Hi folks… don’t know if you want to bother allowing this one to post through. Just wanted to point out a typo in the “… Complaint Housing” section. (middle of the 3rd paragraph.
Thank you all so much for everything you are accomplishing!! so much respect. I’ve only 11 and a half months to go before discharge. I will be able to help much more then.
What I don’t understand is, why when the federal and state courts decide on a issue. These people in the ca assembly can overturn it. This is entirely unconstitutional!!!! The Federal courts already said that it is a VIOLATION of our constitutional rights, TO GIVE OUR E-MAIL ADDRESSES, to law enforcement, they clearly stated that it violated our 1ST AMENDMENT RIGHT…. WHAT THE HECK IS GOING ON!!!!!!
On 448, will the EFF rejoin this too ?
There was one real chance that these residency/presence bills had this year: if the League of California Cities got into it as a “local control” issue then they had a shot at getting the many former locally elected officials who are now in the legislature. But since the bill only had the support of CCPOA (and their spawn), there was really no firepower to get it through either Public Safety Committee.
Next year is a completely different matter. Next year is an election year and all the legislators turn into politicians looking for something catchy to include in their re-election brochures. Practically every law that adds restrictions to RSOs happens in even numbered years. Odd numbered years are for producing good public policy. Even numbered years are for getting re-elected. It’s sad.
Man here we go again the gov, compelling US to provide personal and private info to them within certain time frames or face criminal prosecution. This seems so unamerican.
There were exactly zero… count them, ZERO!… supporters for Runner’s bill whom had anything to do with safety of children, of the community; no law enforcement officials who would have emphasized the safety factor for their officers, no sociologists who presenented any credible studies that the community would be better protected with this ordinance. Nothing. Sharon Runner couldn’t even get out any of her friends to testify. No GOP minions, no neighbors…nobody. Just a group representing the union of jail workers, because they are invested in as much incarceration as possible for their paychecks, which last I heard, was not a valid reason given in any of the bill text at ANY stage.
Yet, we gotta keep on pushing…
My anti-SB54 and anti-SB448 letters have been mailed. ‘Have phoned the P.S.C. Senators as well as Hueso and Runner. Good luck to us all!!!
I did not see SB 54 on the agenda July 14th, 2015 Public Safety Committee? Only bill SB 448 is listed.