CA: Vidak authors measure to prevent sex offenders from secretly moving in next door to schools, parks and child care centers

State Senator Andy Vidak (R-Hanford) today announced he is amending his Senate Bill 1143 to prevent sex offenders from secretly moving in next door to schools, parks, and child care centers. Click here (pdf) to view the bill’s amended language. …

“Given the Court’s and Brown administration’s reluctance to keep sex offenders from living near children, we looked into other possible solutions,” said Vidak.  “Our SB 1143 will force these sex offenders to at least, before they attempt to buy or rent near a school, park or child care center, notify the property owner in writing that they are a registered sex offender who was convicted of committing a crime against a child.  The property owner will be allowed to use this information as a reason to decline renting or selling the property to the sex offender.” Full Press Release

SB 1143

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

How would this work?
The seller may not care who they are selling to as long as they are getting the MONEY from the house sale.

Or I can have a friend buy the house and he can sell it to me.

As soon as a hearing on this bill has been scheduled, we will send out alerts so that members of our community can speak in opposition. Why does an elected official think he can limit where a registrant and his/her family can live? I believe this bill is an acknowledgment that the government knows that adding a registrant’s home address is a danger to the registrant and his/her family.

So since actual residency restrictions are no longer allowed per California law, he’s trying to insert a loophole that would once again force RC’s under penalty of prosecution to inform people about our status which they’ll then more than likely deny.

Regarding the example they used of an RC living near a day care center and the LE not being able to force him to move, did that person actually do something?

I’ve also just read through this short bill and no actual penalty is listed. Is that because there’s some general penalty for doing something against the 290 status? Or is this one of those things that only exist to scare people into doing something but if you don’t they have nothing to hold over you?

perhaps the letter could be mailed on the way to sign the papers. oops another loophole to be filled.

Wouldn’t this also be unconstitutional because it is compelled speech in violation of the 1st Amendment? That is, you are forcing registrants to make statements to private individuals who have no government affiliation.

This bill seems to me that it would be a slippery slope for us if passed. By passing a law that blatantly allows discrimination against RCs, the next step could be for businesses to legally use it against us for hiring or even selling products to us. Not punishment? I call bullshit!

If anyone will actually follow what this law demands, they will be doing themselves, their families, the country, freedom and humanity a Disservice. Keep that in mind. I would tell this lawmaker to take this law and shove it somewhere. How is this all NOT heading into more of former Nazi Germany? People in other countries would be APPALLED to hear that “Great America”, “Land of the Free”, has politicians that are trying to control citizens like a damn Nazi regime.

I would think the senator would know that the federal courts already said they can’t have blanket residency restriction on people with a past sex offense. Once again, they believe they are above the law, and feel tax money for their personal wasteful use in lawsuits that will come.

Updated April 2016
Office of General Counsel Guidance on
Application of Fair Housing Act Standards to the Use of Criminal Records by Providers of Housing and Real Estate Related

[Where a policy or practice that restricts access to housing on the basis of criminal history has a disparate impact on individuals of a particular race, national origin, or other protected class such policy or practice is unlawful under the Fair Housing Act]

Gender is a protected class. Most registrants are men. This new Bill would be a violation of Federal Law.

Can’t a landlord just check the registry or do a background check already if they want?. If they are so inclined, but why force the information on them? Registry creep to non registrants. This Nazi is trying to force business into complying with his biases. This is fugitive slave laws and Nurember laws all over again. I thought these rural hicks were all for government out of business.

It is blatantly against California PC 290.46. This is worse than city ordinances. It allows individuals to enact residency restrictions,

Furthermore this vermin politician is implying that registrants are using subversion and deception to obtain housing by “SECRETLY moving in next door”. No secrecy necessary. Limiting where a registrant can live and thrive is illegal unless it is a specific condition of parole.

When is the so called government/states trying to protect Kids. It a joke in my book. The government / states should not EVEN be in this at all. The only reason the states and Government get in to this. Is to make money And to make fake FEEL good laws For victim’s/If they really Or victim;s Half the time so called victim’s made to lie so cop’s can get a not tie on the belt Most people if not all plea out cause they got a home to pay for and other things to pay for. SO now you have the states who make off this Feel good laws! Which the Government send money to the states to fight this so call Evil Feel Good Laws should Be BAN Only PROOF !!!Should Be In the Courts Not FEELINGS

Somebody needs to tell Mr Vidak that a teacher at that school is more likely to molest a student than the registrant

California Statutory Law is made up of 29 “Codes”, each with many sections (Civil, Commercial, Corporations, Education, Penal, etc).

In the proposed text of this bill a (new) section of the Civil Code is in direct conflict with / invalidates a section of the Penal Code (290.46). If any new language can alter or invalidate an existing section, within Codes, or God forbid, across Codes without modifying the affected original section, California law will be reduced to an unworkable hot mess.

Aside from the obvious stupidity and constitutional issues of this bill, it should be DOA due to poor form alone.

I buy for purposes of renting out. If I’m denied… let the lawsuits fly!!!
Since my ability to get a conventional, meaningful job has been taken away, this is my source of income.
Oh, by the way, I can always change my mind later and move into one of my rentals. 😉

Its been awhile since I’ve posted!
but guys, seems like the same bull%$#& they try to do to us every damn year!

If the predator is what they are targeting, then fine. I would assume that if a petson has committed such a terrible offense as to be deamed a predator, wouldn’t that person be on a ” shorter leash” than the rest of us that have misdomeanor or low level felonies? If the courts have said through their decisions that we have met the criteria to be released, then shouldn’t that be enough?
If this asshole jerkoff dipshit wants to change things, he better start groing eyes in the back of his head.