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).

Editorial Id: 945480
Publication Date: 01/14/2016

Related posts

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.  

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! 🙂

I like what Q said!!!!!

“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 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!