San Diego is repealing city laws that restrict where paroled sex offenders can live, but the change won’t have any impact because the laws haven’t been enforced since at least 2009.
Monthly Meetings: July 20 – Berkeley [details]
Emotional Support Group Meetings – Los Angeles: June 22, July 27 [details]
ACSOL Conference June 14/15 in Los Angeles
Does someone have links to the original lawsuits that successfully stopped residency restrictions in California?
I need examples of how they argued the various constitutional violations so I can try to get someone in Texas to try the same approach.
One other thing, I came across this great explanation of Substantive Due Process:
http://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1045&context=flr
One snippet from the middle:
********
the Supreme Court has ruled that if a
government official does not place a person in a position of danger, but
merely fails to adequately protect victims as members of the general
public, a substantive due process claim may not proceed. In DeShaney, the
Court explained that unless the government, by an affirmative exercise of
power, restrains an individual’s liberty to protect himself, there is no cause
of action under the Due Process Clause.
********
Reading that, it sounds like Substantive Due Process is very relevant to be challenged by sex offenders since the government’s arbitrary sex offender laws puts us in a position of danger and our lack of privacy also restrains our liberty to protect ourselves.
Hi Chris,
The case was re Taylor. I found this link using a google search for: re Taylor residency restrictions. I hope this helps.
http://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/2015/s206143.html
@Chris F
I like that SDP snippet. I do wonder if a court would even consider that we’ve been placed in a position of danger or restrained from protecting ourselves. Also, our interest would need to be weighed against the positions of danger and restraints from protection the rest of society suffers if we aren’t restrained in some way (using the State’s assumption as to our risk to the public).
Don’t get me wrong, I’m with you all the way. I’m just trying to pick at it from an opposing perspective.
Frank Lindsey is a great example of a body put in a position of danger by the government via the registry.
There are others out there as well. Don’t forget the one incident where it cost a non-RSO their life b/c of mistaken identity as proof that it can affect individuals who are not RSO.
“Can affect individuals who are not RSO” ?!?!????? You should listen to this child. She is just the tip of the iceberg of non registrants adversely affected.
https://www.youtube.com/user/ChildOfSexOffender
The problem remains that the State will argue it merely compiled already available public information, which certainly created no danger and doesn’t prevent you from protecting yourself. “That someone took neutral public information–against that stern warning on the website, no less–and committed a criminal act isn’t our fault, Your Honor.” That’s the truth as they will spin it, and does anyone on here think there would be any other argument but that? Never mind that they facilitate the use of such information in harmful ways.
It’s like the scene from “Running Scared” (the original one from 1986) where Billy Crystal’s character, Danny, announces to a bunch of street thugs, “this block is being designated a Neighborhood Watch Area. There’s a guy up here named Snake. He’s wearing garage-sale clothes and the top of his head looks like a parakeet. He also has FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS in small bills in a briefcase. As his neighbors, it is your responsibility to make sure there are no suspicious characters or evil perpetrators lurking in the area who would seek to do him harm. Again, FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS in small bills, tax-free, in a briefcase right in this apartment. Which has a really cheeseball lock! You can bust your way in there, bop him on the head, take the money, nobody would know! So it’s UP TO YOU. Thanks a lot, have a good day.” (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091875/quotes)
@ AJ
And speaking of ‘Neighborhood Watch’… apparently there’s a special meeting coming up, but we’re not invited.
“Due to the sensitive nature of this topic and the specific information that will be covered in the class, attendees cannot be registered sex offenders as defined in the California Penal Code Section 290. ”
in other words, ‘No dogs allowed’. You can only imagine the level of misinformation that will be spewed in this elite meeting.
http://yucaipadailynews.com/community/community-neighborhood-watch-meeting-to-offer-sex-offender-awareness-training/
Sounds like a lawsuit to me.
@mike t
I agree with David: lawsuit. It’s a public meeting, led by public officials. They cannot says it’s open to the public and then except people. Also, how can they justify it as furthering public safety to exclude RCs? Who would even know if an RC is in attendance…unless they take attendance. Is it now okay to hold exclusive meetings of “us against them”? I’m betting their thinking is to avoid giving all those nasty RCs the intel and tricks to be used.
I’m not in CA, nor do I like to say, “hey Janice,” but….hey Janice…! 🙂
First they came for the Sex Offenders, and a courageous attorney and civil rights activist along with her colleagues spoke out and stopped them!
God Bless You, Janice and all. Thank you for everything!
great piece Chris…they are putting us in danger..that’s unambiguous and cannot be denied..they are also taking away our ability to protect ourselves or our family members by not allowing us to own or possess firearms, tazers, mace, or any type of defensible weapons that the general public can and do use..under the substantive due process it doesn’t really matter why it just matters that it is being done…I’ll have to include this…