ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459


Monthly Meetings | Recordings (6/12 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings

Click here to sign up now for ACSOL’s Online EPIC Conference: Empowered People Inspiring Change Sept 17-18
Download a PDF of the schedule

California

Bill allowing cities and counties to adopt stricter sex offender ordinances voted down

A bill which would have allowed cities and counties to adopt sex offender ordinances more restrictive than state laws was voted down by an Assembly committee Tuesday.

Assembly Bill 201, authored by Assemblymen William Brough, Mike Gipson, and Marc Steinorth, would have given localities the ability to enact not only more stringent restrictions on where persons required to register as sex offenders can live, but also “presence restrictions,” which would limit their ability to visit places such as parks, libraries, swimming pools, or arcades.

“In addition to the myriad of other reasons why this bill is probably unconstitutional, the lack of a provision in the bill to provide notice to sex offenders in particular jurisdictions as to what the rules and regulations are in that area also make this bill unconstitutional,” the bill’s analysis reads.

The analysis also found the legislation would “open local jurisdictions to a flood of lawsuits” against presence restrictions, which have historically been successful by focusing on the restrictions’ lack of due process.

Arguments in favor of the measure said that local ordinances were vital “precisely because they are to account for the various conditions unique to their locality.”

Yet opposing arguments said that the bill is based on a number of inaccurate assumptions, including the belief that residency and presence restrictions are effective prevention tools. According to a report by the California Sex Offender Management Board, “No research shows that exclusion zones are helpful in preventing re-offense.”

“If the bill had been passed, it would have resulted in a return to recent chaos when 79 cities had 79 different laws that prohibited individuals from visiting both public and private places,” said Janice Bellucci of California Reform Sex Offender Laws.

“At that time, more than 100,000 citizens were in constant and reasonable fear that they would be arrested, sent to jail for up to one year and fined up to $1,000 for violating a law for which they had no notice because the cities failed to provide signs warning them of those laws,” she added.

Brough, Gipson, and Steinorth did not respond to requests for comment.

Last March, the state Supreme Court ruled that blanket sex offender residency restrictions in San Diego County were unconstitutional, but that offenders could still be subject to restrictions made on a case-by-case basis. In Re Taylor S206143 Cal. 4th 1019 (2015).

lj_williamson@dailyjournal.com

\\ladj008/DJICText/News/Text/1067545D01142016I7.htm
Editorial Id: 945480
Publication Date: 01/14/2016

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 do not solicit funds
  • If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  • All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  • 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.  
 
Subscribe
Notify of
9 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

“lack of due process.” What part of that don’t they understand? How stupid and wasteful of time and resources do they have to be to keep asking for the same thing when they know it’s illegal? What part of unconstitutional don’t they understand?

“No research shows that exclusion zones are helpful in preventing re-offense.” That’s Right! Besides, there is much re-offense to speak of anyway!

Brough, Gipson, and Steinorth are not Americans. Real Americans wouldn’t want to do this to citizens, they need to go have sexual intercourse with themselves! 🙂

Don’t you mean there is NOT much re-offense to speak of?

Yup. Sorry about that. Some things get me so riled up I start furiously typing and my mind get’s ahead of my fingers, and ultimately my fingers miss some things trying to catch up and sync with my mind.

I like what Q said!!!!!

Really? Thanks! Which part did you like? The part where I say what Brough, Gipson, and Steinorth need to go do with themselves?

Those idiots need to stop rousing the rabble with hate. Too many of us have been murdered because of the rhetoric from their kind. If they hate freedom so much, the constitution and bill of rights; if they love oppression so much, they should go somewhere else; to some other country like N Korea, because in my eyes their kind are not Americans. They should strive to be more like Janice, Chance, and everyone else that stands up against their kind of crap. Janice, Chance et al are the real Americans. They are the patriots. They fight the good fight! And they do it for truth!

We must learn to live together as brothers or perish together as fools.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

“The analysis also found the legislation would “open local jurisdictions to a flood of lawsuits” against presence restrictions, which have historically been successful by focusing on the restrictions’ lack of due process.

And whom do we have to thank for this? Three cheers for Janice Bellucci, her staff, and all the financial contributors to CA RSOL!

I find it disturbing that in spite of the “flood of lawsuits” these cities are willingly pushing the state to place their cities in a position to be financially harmed. But it’s not5 their money anyway; so I suppose why should they care.

I say hooray for Janice and her crew and the Assembly Committee for having the wherewithal and good sense to push for justice! Thank you all!

WHY IS FRESNO COUNTY ALLOWED TO PASS ORDINANCE BILL NO 08-010 MAKING THE RESIDENCY RESTRICTION 3000 FT INSTEAD OF 2000 FT????????????????????????????????

9
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x
.