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

ACSOLCalifornia

Validity of sex offender residency restrictions under fire again

Suit against Arcadia says exclusion zones made it impossible for plaintiff to find housing

The constitutionality of sex offender residency restrictions is under further scrutiny in Arcadia following a lawsuit filed Monday by attorney Janice Bellucci, president of California Reform Sex Offender Laws.

The suit, which comes months after the state Supreme Court ruled that blanket residency restrictions in San Diego County were unconstitutional, is the first in what Bellucci promised to be a “series” against Los Angeles County.

“They have terrible residency restrictions which we’ve estimated prohibit registered citizens from living in 90 percent of the city,” Bellucci said of Arcadia. “We definitely think that given the state Supreme Court’s decision in March, that what they’re doing is unconstitutional.”

The suit alleges that Arcadia’s municipal “residential exclusion zones,” made it impossible for the plaintiff to find housing in the city, in part because the city failed to make public any list or map of the facilities that make up these exclusion zones. The exclusion zones include not only parks and schools but also school bus stops, public libraries, swimming or wading pools, commercial establishments that provide a children’s playground, and locations that facilitate classes or group activities for children.

In March the California Supreme Court determined that blanket residency restrictions in San Diego County, which are enforced against all registered sex offenders on active parole regardless of the nature or individual circumstances of the crime, were unconstitutional.

The court’s decision, however, noted that the California Department of Corrections retained the statutory authority to impose special restrictions on registered sex offenders, including residency restrictions that were based on “the particularized circumstances of each individual parolee.” In re Taylor, S206143 (Cal. 2015)

Proposition 83, commonly known as “Jessica’s Law,” spurred the creation of city- and county-level residency restrictions by municipalities that sought to avoid having their regions become “dumping grounds” for sex offenders. Following the court’s March decision, the CDCR discontinued issuing blanket residency restrictions for parolees statewide.

“Assuming the people in Arcadia are suffering from the same restrictions [as San Diego] and have the same concerns, I think the suit will be very successful,” said Alex Simpson, adjunct professor at California Western School of Law. “There isn’t anything unique about the [San Diego] suit – all of the same reasons why the court found this was not constitutional apply to anybody who’s in a similar situation.”

Simpson also pointed out that the Supreme Court decision hinged on testimony from law enforcement officers who argued that residency restrictions made sex offenders more difficult to track. “There isn’t any evidence that these restrictions promote public safety,” Simpson said, “and there is a lot of evidence that it is harder to track individuals that are under such residency restrictions because they’re essentially transient.”

Arcadia City Manager Dominic Lazzaretto said that the city updated its sex offender regulations in September in response to “several recent court rulings on the subject.”

“Our intent has always been to ensure the safety of all of our residents while remaining within the bounds of the law and respecting applicable civil liberties,” Lazzaretto said, providing no further comment.

Bellucci said the ultimate goal is to eliminate residency restrictions for sex offenders, which she prefers to refer to as “registered citizens.” Her organization’s website argues that while sexual abuse is never acceptable, neither are “policies that paint all sex offenders with one broad brush.” Instead, “each offense must be judged on its own merits with a punishment that fits the crime and does not waste taxpayer dollars.”

In June, Bellucci filed suit against the city of Grover Beach in San Luis Obispo County over its municipal residency restrictions. Frank Lindsay v. City of Grover Beach, et al., 15cv04577 (C.D. Cal., filed June 17, 2015)

Bellucci said that the Grover Beach City Council in its August 3 meeting approved the proposed settlement which includes repeal of their residency restrictions and payment of attorney fees. Source: dailyjournal.comLJ_Williamson@dailyjournal.com

Join the discussion

  1. Lake County

    Great job Janice!

  2. MM

    So happy to hear the outcome of the Grover Beach lawsuit!!

  3. David

    Janice, you are a treasure! Congrats on Grover Beach settlement!

    Is there any news about County of Los Angeles’s countywide residency restrictions? Are they going to repeal their restrictions?

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 *

.