Norwalk Repeals Residency Restrictions

The Norwalk City Council unanimously agreed to repeal the city’s residency restrictions during its meeting on November 1. The repeal will take effect 30 days after that vote.

In considering what action to take, the Norwalk City Council noted that studies and reports “suggest that blanket enforcement of residency restrictions have not improved public safety”. The Council also noted that “residency restrictions have the unintended consequence of increasing homelessness among registered sex offenders, thereby actually threatening public safety.”

“The Norwalk City Council is to be commended not only for its decision to eliminate residency restrictions, but also for the reasons it did so,” stated ACSOL president Janice Bellucci.

The City Council also relied upon multiple studies, including recent studies issued by the California Sex Offender Management Board and California Department of Justice to reach its decision. In one of those studies, the agency determined that the transient status of registrants is “associated with higher recidivism rates”.

Finally, the City Council cited two recent state court decisions, In re Taylor and People v. Lynch, as additional reasons to repeal the city’s residency restrictions. In the Taylor case, the California Supreme Court found that blanket enforcement of residency restrictions “greatly increased homelessness”. In the Lynch decision, a Court of Appeal determined that Jessica’s Law applied only to parolees, however, the Norwalk residency restrictions applied to all registrants regardless of whether or not the registrant was on parole or probation.

Related posts

Notify of

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


  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. 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.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. 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.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  19. 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.
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

Awesome! Teaching politicians about civil rights one city at a time. Good work.

The good part is they backed up their decision with relevant studies and good judgement, which means they think the restrictions really are bad policy. They could have just said they are doing it to avoid the consequenses of a lawsuit, in other words saying they repeal only under duress. Important distinction.

Norwalk…this city of Norwalk, California stands as a beacon of light for all cities in America to really put some effort in understanding what a public policy does and really the history on this type of treatment on people. History shows its inhumane.
That’s why Norwalk can be that beacon for the better of ALL.

Another success of Janice and ACSOL members spreading the word!

While it’s nice they seem to recognize studies and cute germaine ideas of public safety and homelessness. One important issue seems to be entirely missing. The persons they imposed the restrictions upon are U.S. Citizens, meaning they have no legal right to impose restrictions against them of any kind once their term of punishment is served or being served. You do not lose your citizenship simply because you are incarcerated or in custody to the public. Restrictions are imposed by parole or probation authority.

U.S. Citizens are free to live, work, attend school, and do any other form of expression free of restrictions, PERIOD.

But I guess U.S Citizenship is meaningless in this nation now.

repealed for all the right reasons. The success is all the greater when they rely upon facts and make earnest decisions based upon those facts!

Another achievement for ACSOL, another win for Janice, greater awareness of Constitutionally-supported civil rights for Registrants.

Thank you, Janet, for all your work and your commitment to justice. Finally woke up today to good news. Hope this is a chink in the wall across the country. Atticus would be proud of you!

Its a great HomeRun.
A HomeRun for All.
The policy makers Norwalk.. now understand and its that understanding must be for every city state & federal policy toward people.
And its simple policy makers: “At the lunch break I’d suggest you read the Constitution”.
Thank you Bobby Kennedy.

Hmm, they got rid of it because it causes unintended consequences such as homelessness? What about all of the unintended (really intended) consequences of registries, like murder, discrimination, loss of rights? We just don’t want you to be homeless so we can find you. Wow, such logic and reasoning applied here they must be graduates of Harvard. You have to admit, they will do anything to get you exposed.

How long has it been since the Taylor decision? Must be well over a year. Those ordinances still exist? Who knew?

Congratulations and thank you.