Under legal threat, Victorville to repeal sex offender residency rules

[Victorville Daily Press]

With threat of a lawsuit hanging over its head, the city will repeal local residency restrictions for registered sex offenders and defer to existing state regulations.

The move is not unexpected. Cities across California have been forced to bow to pressure from sex offender law reformists in recent years, while courts have simultaneously limited local regulatory authority.

In December 2014, the City Council reluctantly agreed to align its local ordinance restricting the movements of registered sex offenders with the statewide regulations already in effect.

That decision came after the California chapter of Reform Sex Offender Laws sued the city in August of that year, contending that local ordinances were overkill.

Read More

 

Related posts

Subscribe
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 and a**
  4. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Use person-first language.
  5. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  6. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  7. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  8. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  9. 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.
  10. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  11. Please do not post in all Caps.
  12. 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.
  13. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  14. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  15. 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.
  16. Please do not solicit funds
  17. No discussions about weapons
  18. 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.
  19. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  20. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  21. 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.
  22. 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.  
 

14 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Are statewide restrictions preventing RSOs from living 2000 feet from a school or park actually enforced anywhere in the state of California?

The language in this article is poor. Saying “forced to bow to pressure” instead of “complying with the law” makes it sound like the cities are the victims here.

Video of city council…

http://victorville.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=6&clip_id=1725&meta_id=148749

The video will open right at the start of the segment for residency restrictions repeal.

Note the usual “I don’t wanna do it, but we can’t legally defend it!” comment, along with the accompanying dittos.

I’m glad to see another city coming into compliance. It would be nice if there were an article showing what has happened in cities after repealing these restrictions. My guess: nothing bad. I’d hope a reduction in homelessness, but that is something much easier to create than to remedy.

Janice,

THANK YOU!!!

This basically answered my query long ago when I inquired about when the VV police department gave me a letter stating that re:Taylor decision only pertained to those on parole, not any other registrants. Now this informs us that in VV, there are no residency restrictions for all registrants.

I presume that’s what this repealing means b/c the reporting doesn’t actually go into detail:
=====================
With threat of a lawsuit hanging over its head, the city will repeal local residency restrictions for registered sex offenders and defer to existing state regulations.
=====================

What does it mean “defer to existing state regulations”? I thought re:Taylor removed all residency restriction.

I don’t recall ever hearing of residency or proximity restrictions preventing a crime. I’ve never seen any proof that these restrictions keep anyone safe either. Just like I’ve never heard of the sex offender registry preventing a crime and I’ve never seen any proof that it keeps anyone safe. I’ve looked and always come up with a big fat zero. When are people going to wake up to the reality none of this does anything good for anyone?

They are only doing the right thing.
Right?