Seal Beach Repeals Residency Restrictions

The Seal Beach City Council voted last night in favor of repealing its residency restrictions. The vote was taken based upon a recommendation to repeal by the City Manager which noted that residency restrictions are ineffective and have been stricken down at the state level. The City Council is expected to consider this issue a second time during its next meeting on March 27 and the repeal would be in effect 30 days later.

“This is a significant victory for registrants and members of their families,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci. “That is because when the Seal Beach repeal goes into effect, there will be no residency restrictions in all of Orange County.”

The staff report relied upon by the City Council included references to and discussions of two recent court decisions, In re Taylor, and People v. Lynch. In the first decision, the CA Supreme Court determined in March 2015 that the CA Dept. of Corrections could not apply residency restrictions to all registrants on parole. In the second decision, the First Appellate Division decided in October 2016 that Jessica’s Law, which established statewide residency restrictions, was limited only to registrants while on parole.

The City of Seal Beach’s residency restrictions were challenged in a lawsuit filed on January 10, 2017, in Orange County Superior Court. It was the 18th lawsuit filed challenging a city’s residency restrictions. Subsequent to filing of this lawsuit, lawsuits were filed challenging residency restrictions in the City of Monrovia and the City of Temecula.


Seal Beach grudgingly scales back restrictions on where sex offenders can live (LA Times)

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

Another unconstitutional law created by holier-than-thou N.I.M.B.Y.s bites the dust! Thank you Janice, Chance, and all!

God Bless You Janice..There is a special place in Heaven for people like you..

Another significant win. Thank you Janice.

Awesome job!

BTW, I didn’t know about People v Lynch. Essentially, anyone not on parole has no residency restriction. This clarifies the unknown in the re:Taylor case where the scope was only for parolees.

Congratulations on another win!

By any chance, does someone keep track of all the residency restriction wins ACSOL has achieved?

How do I know if my city has one? Going to my city’s official website just mentions Jessica’s law for reference.

The statement that “there will be no residency restrictions in all of Orange County” is only partially true. There are still cities like Cypress that have only agreed not to enforce their residency restrictions but not repeal them.

people v lynch another indication that the California courts are prime for a real challenge to the entire scheme….

I think it’s awesome that our group can have victories on matters like where we’re allowed to live.
But what about all the many places that deny us and our families a place to rent just because of the SO status?
Forcing us to live in slums or on the streets.

Congrats! The scary thing is that I live very close to Seal Beach! I had no idea this law existed’ Very disturbing!

between the Lynch case (which no one has mentioned or referenced untill now) and the fact that state laws supercede local ordinances that no one can be charged or prosecuted for violating any of these residency or presence restrictions…it seems to me to be settled law here in California. the state didn’t even contest who Jessica’s law applies to….they conceded it only applies to people on parole…I find it hard to believe that no one has ever brought to light the Lynch case seeming how utterly important it is to so many of us…of course nothing surprises me anymore…Lynch I am almost positive nullifies any residency restrictions anywhere in California so if someone tells an rso to move or that they can’t move somewhere in California we can tell them to go screwww themselves and simply cite the Lynch case…thats my take on the subject..if I’m wrong please let me know….

also these decisions coming from these left wing radical judges shooting down Trump’s travel bans are extreemly important cases and language from the courts…the reason I say left wing judges is because by all legal rights trump has the statutory and constitutional authorities to impose this ban…there is no ambiguity to the statutory section that authorizes him to do it…but we can definitely use these decisions and relate them directly to us…

Councilwoman Ellery Deaton said she supported the decision to rescind the ordinance but only under duress.
Really!?! Who threatened her and how? How can a person support anything under duress? Poor choice of words I guess. I have to register every year under duress!

Congrats again on the victory ACSOL! This is more free publicity and awareness for our plight. If each article like this gets at least twenty readers to question the ethics and integrity of these insane restrictions, then I’m happy. I Realize that many people will lose their sense of security or panic over this, but there are plenty of cynics out there who will see though this BS.