CA State Legislature to Consider Presence Restrictions Bill on Jan. 12

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

Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...

 

  1. Submissions must be in English
  2. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  3. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  4. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  5. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Always use person-first language.
  6. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  7. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  8. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  9. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  10. 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 that are not personally identifiable.
  11. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  12. Please do not post in all Caps.
  13. 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. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  14. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  15. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  16. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  17. Please do not solicit funds
  18. No discussions about weapons
  19. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  20. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  21. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  22. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
  23. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
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.  
 

90 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

wow here we go again….. Why don’t these politicians focus on some real problems like gang bangers, drug cartels, and repeat violent offenders… Oh because that would be doing something logical which they are severely lacking.in logic…….

Well, if I’m not mistaken, the public safety committee was the same committee that recommended a tiered system and was opposed to enacting this same law

Janice, are we to go thru the letter writing campaign once again. If we are please forward the letter that you want us to mail, and to whom. I am certain we can all get the Assemblies Public Safety Committee addresses, just provide us with the letter that you would like sent.

BTW thank you for all of your hard work and all of your teams work.

Ted

Some of these people seem to have a relentless desire to persecute. I wish they would find a different hobby.

I’m thinking the Senator might have dementia. Let’s be real, this is absurd. I read the old proposal and it absurd/there was a comment staring high re offense rate. This is truly disturbing and very dishonest. The saddest part is that study after study has proved these restrictions do nothing but create havoc on families and individuals. In addition, like presiding judges have already state, registered citizens wouldn’t even know what to do as they travelled from one city to another

California State Assembly
Committee on Public Safety

Assembly Member Bill Quirk (Chair)
P.O. Box 942849, Room 2163, Sacramento, CA 94249-0020; (916) 319-2020

Assembly Member Melissa A. Melendez (Vice Chair)
P.O. Box 942849, Room 6031, Sacramento, CA 94249-0067; (916) 319-2067

Assembly Member Reginald B. Jones-Sawyer, Sr.
P.O. Box 942849, Room 4126, Sacramento, CA 94249-0059; (916) 319-2059

Assembly Member Tom Lackey
P.O. Box 942849, Room 4009, Sacramento, CA 94249-0036; (916) 319-2036

Assembly Member Patty Lopez
P.O. Box 942849, Room 5160, Sacramento, CA 94249-0039; (916) 319-2039

Assembly Member Evan Low
P.O. Box 942849, Room 2175, Sacramento, CA 94249-0028; (916) 319-2028

Assembly Member Miguel Santiago
P.O. Box 942849, Room 5119, Sacramento, CA 94249-0053; (916) 319-2053

This is becoming absolutely ridiculous. How many more times can they propose the same thing? I am addressing envelopes now to be ready to mail when necessary. What a waste of time yet again.

My conclusion is this. Unlike most states, California has neglected to address the dire need to change its laws. First, almost every state in the nation has a tiered system in place. Most registered citizens fall off the registry after 10/15/20 years, if they have obeyed the laws ect. This is the right thing to do. We have (I bet it’s in the thousands) many individuals convicted of very minor and sometimes expunged offenses from 20/30/40 years ago? So, if the senator is truly concerned, she should support a tiered system to allow the states resources to focus upon those individuals who have been recently released or have repeat offenses. Prohibiting them from visiting parks ect does nothing more than create obstacles for those seeking to live a normal life. The state currently can’t even update their website with accurate information? Let’s set up ways to help and support those individuals who truly want to better their lives. This isn’t what America stands for.

New Person, I totally agree. Truly. Although, Rome wasn’t built in a day. We have to all start somewhere. Best wishes

New Person, yes, this is our screwed up world! A convicted drug dealer can attend his daughter’s school play, but we can’t do so. Convicted DUI drivers – a group with very high recidivism rates – can still buy alcohol and still operate a car, endangering many innocent people. But we are the ones they harass and endlessly punish.
At least a tiered registry might get some of us off the list eventually.

The registries and all the assorted restrictions, laws, and regulations are, in effect – lifetime probation. There’s really no other way to view it – it certainly exceeds anything that’s “merely administrative”.

Yeah I would like to see them try to make anyone ever convicted of a dui to install ignition interlock systems in their vehicle for the rest of their lives. It would have a rational basis and would undoubtably save hundreds if not thousands of lives. And it would be strictly regulatory so let’s see that stand constitutional scrutiny….

I agree, the registry needs to be abolished all together, but I will take every little step forward as a victory. This bill can not be passed. It was too confusing in the first place. In some counties you can visit parks, and in others you can’t. Who would have the time to find out where a registered citizen can be in a park, and where he can’t. LE will not be able to understand these confusing laws, neither can we, nor should we be expected to. This bill will be struck down once and for all.

There is no retroactive statement in this bill, therefore, only individuals convicted of a sex offense, after this bill passes (which I highly doubt) would be affected by it. Remember a federal judge said in 2007, “that in order for a law to be retroactive, it must be written that it is retroactive in the law itself”.

Man its going to get ugly and bad things are in store for this state if these laws pass. There will be to many of us adversely effected and people are going to end up snapping.

It seems every time you win one small one they hit you with 50 more, is this ever going to end? I really do not know how some of you people handle this. It must be really hard for the ones with no support system.

If this bill becomes law, when would it be applicable, January 2017?
If anybody knows, please comment, Thank You :]

This bill is TOTALLY unconstitutional…

All I have to do is hit the “resend” button on the emails for the most part. I don’t even have to change most of the addresses. They REALLY don’t understand the concept of deceased equines, sticks, and hitting motions, do they now?

Man I want to see them try to pass a law stating that everyone ever convicted of a DUI has to have an ignition interlock system installed on their vehicle for the rest of their lives. That means everyone past and future. Its strictly regulatory and far less restrictive than the registration scheme and has a much more rational basis.. Lets see that pass constitutional muster…….Im telling ya I am fed up with these lawmakers now with our passport stating sex offender on it… They are lucky I cant buy a gun I can tell ya that shit……..Shits gunna hit the fan pretty soon just watch and see………..

This explains a situation I dealt with today. I was recently assigned a new parole agent. Immediately upon taking my case he informed me I was not allowed to leave the city limits. I had always taken drives in the country. I find it therapeutic. According to my parole conditions, I have a 50 mile radius I am allowed to travel within, without requiring any prior approval. I am never alone. I have Parkinson’s disease and cannot drive. Also, my prior agents gave me permission to travel within county on occasion for recreation. Typically my 72 year old mother drives me. Now I am not allowed to even exit city limits! Then today I get a text from my agent asking why I go to this certain shopping center. Well there is a fueling station there and a couple of restaurants I like to dine at. When I explained that he told me I couldn’t go there anymore. Is this preparing me for restricting my ability to enjoy a good meal or getting fuel and a water or a hot dog? This is unreal! The list of things I can’t do already is so incumbering I feel like I can’t breathe. I can’t go look at properties to invest in. I can’t see my children. I can’t go outside the city. I can’t associate with most of my support system, because they have children. I can’t go bowling. Can’t go to the park or library. Can’t spend holidays with my family. Can’t see a movie at the theatre. Can’t go to the mall and shop. Can’t, can’t, can’t. Yet I was a model prisoner without any write ups and have been a model parolee. I have graduated most of the programs they had me in. None of that is taken into account. In the words of my agent, “I only know you’re face sheet.” That’s all they see. Not who I am. I am not judged on the content of my character or by the progress I make, but by my past. It leaves an already diffucult time of year for me seem hopeless for the future. I am truly discouraged.

A ‘tiered’ registry is a stupid solution. A tiered registry relies on the Static-99/R. The Static-99/R is junk science; it is inaccurate and unscientific. See Shoba Sreenivasan, “Alice in actuarial-land: through the looking glass self of changing Static-99 norms,” J. Am. Acad. Psychiatry L. (2010); see also California Sex Offender Management Board, Year End Report (2015) [citing Static-99/R accuracy at 29 percent in flagging so-called “high-risk sex offenders” (yet CASOMB has the audacity to sugarcoat and call this figure ‘very accurate’)]. A tiered registry would require many first-time non-violent sex offenders to register for life because of the junk Static-99/R score. Yet many violent sex offenders would NOT be subject to lifetime registration under a tiered registry. A tiered registry is disproportionate and void of logic.

To add: “Static-99 scores do not predict the severity of potential future offenses, however. Rapes involving extreme violence and the abuse of young children are lumped together with crimes like voyeurism and indecent exposure.” Peter Aldhous, “These 10 Questions Can Mean Life Behind Bars,” BuzzFeed News, Apr. 22, 2015. This is what a tiered registry fails to consider!

I have always been concerned about the Tiered Registry. my offense 32 years ago involved a child. I did my time, did probation, and have not reoffended. So when I hear concepts among RSOs that I, and others who have committed this category should be heavily punished as the real bad guys, while they who committed lesser offenses should be let off the registry, it makes be concerned. All RSOs are currently the pariah, and you suggest that the right thing to do is make “me” the pariah. If you were in my shoes, would you want to be forever labelled the worst-of-the-worst?
The counter to my concern that I have heard is: We need to start with the tiered registry to help those with lesser offenses, and eventually we can work on getting relief for those with major offenses who have not re-offended. That sounds good. I certainly don’t see value in everyone suffering as we are; I don’t want any of us to suffer lifetime restrictions. But, knowing human nature, knowing that people always want someone “worse” to compare themselves to so that they can feel better about themselves; knowing that this is the product of our sinful nature, as the Bible states, “Those who compare themselves by themselves are unwise”, I expect that the tiered registry would specifically target me, and the RSOs who are not of my category would suddenly go silent. If that be the case, registrants with low-level offenses who get relief might take their trophies and go home, or worse yet, pick up their pitchfork and flaming torch and join the mob seeking to destroy Frankenstein’s monster.
So please don’t get upset if I express my credulity about the tiered registry. Maybe it would be best for everyone, including me, but maybe it would be the worst thing that could happen to me, and you cannot assure me otherwise. Remember that my name here is “Concerned Registrant”.

Why can’t we challenge the registry, in the state supreme court? Im sure they would agree that the registry is useless based on all the data provided by CASOMB. In the report provided by CASOMB, they stated that it cost the state of California almost $25,000,000 every year to keep it up and running, and in the report, they also stated that it is not effective.