San Diego Sex Offender Residency Law Faces Uphill Legal Battle


An attorney filed a lawsuit in federal court on Monday challenging a San Diego law that restricts where registered sex offenders can live. The City Attorney’s Office may now face the difficult task of fighting a legal battle it is not confident it can win.

San Diego’s “Child Protection Act,” passed by the City Council in 2008, bars registered sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of minor-oriented facilities, including arcades, schools, parks and libraries. The law has not been enforced since 2009 because of concerns over its legality.


Read more


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

We’re with you Janice! Thank you for doing the right thing. These council members that voted against the repeal already look like idiots claiming that these laws protect children when they should be looking within their own family circles to find sexual abuse going on. Mis-guided morons, who are going to cost San Diego tens of thousands and hopefully hundreds of thousands of dollars. Hope they learn their lesson.

Good article that clearly states all the reasons the law should have been repealed. And it has good links/downloads including to the lawsuit filing itself (with Janice’s name right up top!)

(Thank you, ACSOL and Janice, for bringing a big smile to my face!)

Can’t say I’m surprised. The city council in San Diego sounds like a bunch of Nazi thugs to me. They’ll never change. Real Nazis like these just need to be stopped.

City Attorney Mara Elliott must be a very frustrated attorney having to work with a group that can only be described as ignoramuses.

By Golly! Do I read this lawsuit right??? Are we actually suing for damages the “Defendants” in this case the city council members who voted against repeal and some other unknown 1-10 defendants personally, as opposed to seeking attorney fees and other financial compensation from the city???

This has been my dream come true. To make the bastards who do these things personally liable! Only then can we give them pause to think about the consequences!

The problem arises as communities become denser that these “villages” are target rich environments for those offenders who are true predators, presently incurable, and almost certainly recidivist. The alternative is to carefully segment likely sexual predators from sex offenders who are not likely to regress. Some sexual predators cannot be released ever and those teenagers who offend while high or socially pressured to cross the line deserve a second chance. Those abusing second chances and incurable must be removed from society. At present the unrestricted situation calls for every high density development to be avoided by children, parents and young women. Some more balanced approach is needed. Blanket treatment of the wide spectrum of sex offenders into one special class is inappropriate.