The Assembly’s Public Safety Committee has scheduled a hearing on January 12 during which it will consider Assembly Bill (AB) 201. The bill, if passed, would allow local governments to adopt laws that restrict where a registered citizen may be present such as parks, libraries, swimming pools and fast food restaurants. If the bill is passed, the lawsuits filed during the past two years that eliminated presence restrictions in the state of California would be overturned.
“We stopped AB 201 in 2015 when we showed up, stood up and spoke up in opposition to this bill,” stated CA RSOL president Janice Bellucci. “We must speak up again in 2016 to end this bill for once and for all.”
Assemblyman Brough (Republican, Orange County) introduced AB 201 in January 2015. The bill was considered and passed by the Local Government Committee in April 2015. The committee then referred the bill to the Public Safety Committee.
During the 2015 hearing, 10 people including representatives from the ACLU, CA RSOL and Housing California testified in opposition to AB 201. In addition, hundreds of letters and dozens of phone calls were made to legislators opposing the bill.
The day after the hearing, the bill’s author withdrew the bill from further consideration in 2015. AB 201 must be passed by the Public Safety Committee as well as the full Assembly in January 2016 in order to remain viable. If the bill is not passed by both groups, the bill will not be considered by the Senate.
————
REASONS TO OPPOSE AB 201:
- State appellate courts have ruled that presence restrictions adopted by cities and counties are preempted by state law which provide adequate protections
- Court of Appeal – January 2014
- CA Supreme Court – April 2014
- Bill would delegate state authority to cities and counties by allowing them to adopt “presence restrictions” that prohibit registered sex offenders from going to public parks, beaches, museums and libraries
- Presence restrictions do not increase public safety
- Recent presence restrictions in 79 cities and 11 counties created chaos
- Current state law adequately safeguards public safety
- Presence restrictions violate the state and federal constitutions
- Presence restrictions do not increase public safety
- Registered sex offenders on parole commit a subsequent sex offense at a rate of less than 1 percent according to CA Dept. of Corrections
- Children are sexually assaulted by family members, teachers, coaches and clergy in more than 90 percent of such assaults, according to CA Sex Offender Management Board
- Many registered sex offenders never harmed a child
- Only 3 percent of sexual assaults occur in public places like parks; most occur in private places like homes, schools and churches
- Presence restrictions violate state and federal constitutions
- Denied access to public libraries violates 1st Amendment
- Denied access to public parks, beaches, etc. violates 14th Amendment
- Taxation without representation
- Local law adopted after conviction constitutes ex post facto law
- Presence restrictions already passed by cities and counties are inconsistent and do not provide registered sex offenders to be law abiding citizens
- One city allowed registrants to use dog park while another city does not
- One county allowed hiking on public trails while another county does not
I have a dismissed conviction per 1203.4 for a misd. Sex charge I currently reside in Oklahoma.(starky vs.OK) the supreme court has ruled the 3 tier post ex facto so thousands are getting off the registry. Which was originally 10 years for starky. He had been register ring since 1998. the supreme court also agreed the registry was punitive and in essence amounted to lifetime probation yet they say in conclusion the benefits outweigh the costs in essence.
Read this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-briggs/a-nation-divided-by-fear_b_8865242.html
It explains a lot.
These ordinances have nothing to do with sex offences its about pushing a population of people to the point where its impossible to live without breaking some rule have they built the concentration camps yet?
OK, in the “Bill Analysis” it says this= Bill Summary. This bill allows cities and counties to adopt ordinances, rules or regulations that are more restrictive than state law relating to the ability of people who are required to register as sex offenders to reside or be present at certain locations within the city or county. The bill also specifies that a local agency is not preempted by state law from doing so.
SO THINK IT SAYS, THAT THEY CAN MAKE IT MORE RESTRICTIVE THEN STATE LAW, BUT THEY CANNOT VIOLATE STATE LAW, AND STATE LAW CANNOT PREVENT THEM FROM MAKING IT MORE RESTRICTIVE!
BUT IF THE STATE LAW DOES NOT APPLY TO PARTICULAR REGISTERED CITIZENS, LIKE THOSE CONVICTED PRIOR TO THE PASSAGE OF JESSICAS LAW, THEN IT DOES NOT APPLY TO THOSE REGISTERED CITIZENS.
I WOULD APPRECIATE RESPONSES AND COMMENTS, SO WE CAN ALL BETTER UNDERSTAND THE TRUE DEFINITION OF THIS BILL.
Paul, do the Justices that can block these bills, have to worry about being reelected?
If not then we do not have to worry about a election year, does that make sense? They do not have to worry about re election, and can rule against these unconstitional bills.
I just looked at the Committee Members on the PS staff.
It seems like those are NEW members.
Are there any of those there last year?
http://apsf.assembly.ca.gov/membersstaff
I send email to all PS staff.
thank you
RSOL readers and supporters… enough is enough, right? – please unite w/o delay and hold VERY strong!
Sharing the info. to follow as a FYI… plz. consider doing something similar… TIME SENSITIVE! Any written opposition must be in their office by 1/7/16 at 4 p.m.! Contact them directly for an email address to send WRITTEN opposition for consideration by the deadline… I just did it and got a reply (from a human) that my email was received! Or better yet, show on 1/12 and SPEAK civilly, but firmly for the ~100,000 tax paying and currently law-abiding citizens potentially adversely affected! Thank you. 🙂
Assembly Public Safety Committee
1020 N Street (LOB), Room 111
Sacramento, California 95814
916.319.3744 phone
916.319.3745 fax
AND/OR SHOW UP 1/12!
Committee Hearings
Tuesday, January 12, 2016
Public Safety
QUIRK, Chair
9 a.m. – State Capitol, Room 126
Committees: Public Safety
Hide Details
HEARD IN SIGN-IN ORDER
Summary:A.B.No. 201 Registered sex offenders: local ordinances.
**********************************************************************************
Hello Committee on Public Safety Hearing Staff…
Please read in full if at all possible.
As one actually ‘living the life’ and potentially and directly adversely affected by further restrictive, and consequentially punitive (in my opinion) PC290 related legislation, I am wanting to convey strong opposition to AB201 and respectfully request not passing this (or any other similar) bill… please…
Although society’s ongoing unhealthy level of ‘hysteria’ on anything related to PC290 clearly continues (to include prejudging and putting all such offenders in the ‘same boat’ w/o knowing the facts), please consider that such proposed legislation only perpetuates bringing out further ‘raw emotion’ on the topic rather than moving to facilitate and find a true, humane, safe, long-term, and equitable balance and resolution to the understandable related concerns and corresponding challenges surrounding the topic.
[To this end, I assert that a long overdue reforming the California 1947 Sex Registry process – to include the implementation of a ‘tiered registration system’ – is desperately needed, should be the current focus, and would be going in the right direction. In my case for example, I am not a recidivism statistic – 25 years later – yet I remain ‘on the dreaded, ‘scarlet letter’, and marginalizing public list’ (for life) while concurrently trying to make a living in the same community as many of you – as a law-abiding, hard working, tax paying, voting citizen and neighbor. FYI – as I am confident many in the same situation would concur, “life-time registration” meant to me at the time – 25 yrs. ago as was told to me – that this would ONLY be with official law enforcement agencies (and I am still fine/agree with this today as there is no interest to re-offend)… However, this registration requirement was definitely not indicated or understood to be for the entire community or online world-wide access and definitely not knowing that the current 100,000 registrants in CA would have to endure continual and frequent ‘adverse change’ to this ‘requirement’ through new and ongoing retroactive legislation (such as the proposed AB201)].
Your awareness of the adverse and life-changing ramifications of such legislation; consideration of this genuine written opposition; and supporting a ‘no vote’ on AB201 would be sincerely appreciated.
Please see further opposition communication sent to both the State Assembly and Senate.
Thank you for your time and support of opposition if at all possible please.
—– Forwarded Message —–
Sent: Monday, January 4, 2016 2:28 AM
Subject: 1/12/16 – AB201 – Further Restrict 290 Registrants
State Assembly (District 9)
Assembly Member Jim Cooper-DEM
State Senate (District 6)
Senator Richard Pan-DEM
NOTE: Find your reps here:
http://apsf.assembly.ca.gov/membersstaff
Regarding the scheduled Committee on Public Safety
Hearing on 1/12/16 & AB201 – please – for numerous personal & communal reasons… it is respectfully requested, & I implore you, to vote NO on this & any other current or future similar proposed legislation. In short, please consider that doing the right/honorable/humane thing is often not the easiest or most popular thing (especially serving in an elected political office), however, I assert that this legislation is one such life-changing occasion that one needs to remain steadfast in opposing such restrictive & further ostracizing legislation directed toward only one ‘class’ of offenders put in the ‘same boat’. Prior offenders or not, we are all human beings, neighbors, & community members first… before we should be swayed by politics or any ‘hype’. I too have a job, pay taxes, partake in community activities, volunteer, remain law-abiding (25 years later), & vote in elections. None of us can change poor/immature/hurtful choices from so long ago, however, those affected can choose to not have any further victims & strive to be the best law-abiding citizens that we can be. Reasonably, however, we need the chance, laws, support, & resources to be able to do this. Further restrictive, punitive, & marginalizing legislation only significantly adds to one’s already challenging ‘scarlet lettered’ existence in our community. At this rate, with the ongoing ‘societal hysteria’ on the topic in general, & with such proposed legislation, those affected will potentially not even be able to walk pets, bicycle, run, eat, etc. in public for fear of passing a park or school or other ‘forbidden area’ under a local agency’s jurisdiction. Thank you for your consideration & doing the right thing… voting NO & opposing AB201 (& HR515).
I remain available by email to share my personal story – not as an excuse, but as an explanation to better understand that we are not all undeserving of a second chance & fair treatment & less ‘Big Brother’…
Mailed all my letters and sent all my e-mails today. Thank you Janice, for all you do!!!
What is the address and time of the AB201 hearing? I will not promise any thing, I may come, if the traveling weather is reasonable.
Sent emails to all of them. Praying for sanity.
I have written the following to my District 17 Representative, David Chiu. However, when I attempted to send it to the Committee members, starting with Bill Quirk (great name), it would not let me send as a form submission. To clarify, is it that we should email everyone on the Committee? If so, do we have email addresses not dependent on their damned submission system? Is there anyone else we should send these to? Thanks!
I urge you to oppose bill AB 201.
It is ineffective, as now demonstrated through a number of studies (see California’s own CASOMB [California Sex Offender Management Board] recommendations which categorically repudiates the effectiveness or utility of either residency or presence restrictions) and violates both California and U.S. Constitutions.
Presence restrictions do not increase public safety but do violate principles of due process, the U.S. Constitution’s First and Fourteenth Amendments and constitutes ex post facto punishment under Article I of the U.S. Constitution.
Registered sex offenders on parole commit a subsequent sex offense at a rate of less than 1 percent according to CA Dept. of Corrections.
Only 3 percent of sexual assaults occur in public places like parks; most occur in private places like homes, schools and churches.
Implementing a system of internal banishment without due process is contrary to the principles of our democracy and our state.
State appellate courts have ruled that presence restrictions adopted by cities and counties are preempted by state law which provide adequate protections (see: Court of Appeal – January 2014 and CA Supreme Court – April 2014).
Presence restrictions violate fundamental precepts of fairness and citizenship by denying Registrants access to public resources to which they are entitled and for which they have paid through their tax monies.
Another round of phone calls just made…………Let’s do this! Keep calling.
You can email each of the members simply by using their street, city and zip in the fields in place of your own
HERE ARE EMAIL ADDRESSES AND PHONE NUMBERS FOR EACH PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MEMBER:
The web-based email system doesn’t work if you are not in a Representative’s district. So I called and got the pertinent email addresses which, in several instances, are for staffers rather than the representatives.
If you email martin.zindiola@asm.ca.gov who is the staffer in charge of the Public Safety Committee (and not attached to a particular Representative) then your email will be entered as a matter of public record attached to the bill.
Bill Quirk, Chairman, public safety committee
Capitol Office:
Tel: (916) 319-2020
Fax: (916) 319-2120
if sending to his email address for the committee, it becomes a matter of public record:
martin.zindiola@asm.ca.gov
Melissa Melendez
CAPITOL OFFICE
(916) 319-2067
(916) 319-2167 fax
The staffer WOULD NOT give me her email address!
Reggie Jones Sawyer
Capitol Office:
Tel: (916) 319-2059
Fax: (916) 319-2159
stephanie.burri@asm.ca.gov
Tom Lackey
CAPITOL OFFICE
PO Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0036
Phone: 916-319-2036
Fax: 916-319-2136
ANTOINE.HAGE@ASM.CA.GOV
Patty Lopez
Capitol Office:
Tel: (916) 319-2039
Fax: (916) 319-2139
christopher.sanchez@asm.ca.gov
also send to:
assemblymember.lopez@assembly.ca.gov
as well as cc: (so he may be sure to get it [a good staffer!]
william.ulmer@asm.ca.gov
Evan Low
Capitol Office:
State Capitol
Tel: (916) 319-2028
Fax: (916) 319-2128
assemblymember.low@assembly.ca.gov
Miguel Santiago
Capitol Office:
Tel: (916) 319-2053
Fax: (916) 319-2153
brandon.gaytan@asm.ca.gov
CORRECTION: One of the email addresses sent in previous post, under Bill Quick, is incorrect. It should read:
martin.vindiola@asm.ca.gov
New bill analysis posted, as of Jan 11.
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billAnalysisClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB201
Made all my phone calls yesterday. Good luck to everyone who will be speaking up in Sacramento. Wish I could be there, but I am home with the flu. I will be watching the hearings from home.
The Bill FAILS! Great work by all!
Yes. We stopped AB 201! The Public Safety committee did not pass the bill and it is dead!