The Senate Public Safety Committee is scheduled to consider Senate Bill (SB) 1143 on April 24. If passed, SB 1143 would require registrants convicted of an offense involving a minor to disclose their requirement to register to both potential landlords as well as those who have a house to sell. If a registrant failed to make this disclosure, the landlord or seller could lawfully cancel an existing lease or contract.
“This bill must be stopped,” state ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci. “If the bill becomes law, there will be a significant increase in the number of homeless registrants and that, in turn, will reduce public safety.”
The committee hearing will begin at 9:30 a.m. and be held in Room 3191 of the State Capitol.
Registrants, family members, and supporters are encouraged to write letters opposing SB 1143 to Senator Nancy Skinner, Chair of the Senate Public Safety Committee.
SB 1143 – Oppose – 5 April 201804052018 Sample Letter
Isn’t this what the registry is for? Also, credit check, internet search, if a manager or owner wants the information it is there.
This will make more transient sex offenders. So the law makers would rather have us register 12 times a year instead of once. Just think of the burden on the local police forces. If we were all transient then what would be the point of the registry? Plus it would be 1.2 million registrations a year in California instead of 100,000. Politicians have their heads so far up their arses they can’t figure out which way to go.
I thought transient sex offenders had to register weekly. I think that is true in Texas, anyway. Not sure about CA.
Unfortunately Jason, the word “may” is a major problem. The other major problem is it is a private party making the call not any state official, furthermore, the penalty is civil and not penal in any sense, at least according to any state statute. I am really glad to see this major issue getting the recognition that it deserves and that people are coming around to know exactly what the consequences that this bill would have…..If passed I am not even sure who you would sue unless you actually get denied housing or sale of property but even then the language protects civilian landlords or sellers from liability. Who to sue???The gov.???What part of the gov exactly???Can you sue the legislature???Doubt it…This is bad if passed and it very well may pass, last time the bill was in the state statutes and the public safety members were well aware that the courts would strike that law down but this is a entirely different breed of animal and I see it passing very easily…..I don’t even see a way to file for a TRO because who the Hel*^%$ due you sue???? You have to have a defendant……I think the state itself has absolute immunity if I remember correctly so their out….IDK man….
You know what I think needs to happen is someone who is a credible attorney needs to send this politician a cease and desist letter and inform her that if she introduces this bill and it gets passed and if there is any damage or harm caused by it and if the law is declared unconstitutional then that politician “no longer has immunity” and that she will be sued and held personally liable for any damages that arise from the unconstitutional law. This is exactly what needs to happen and I do not know why no attorney does this. Just think all those people that were affected from Jessica’s law had a right to sue the individual legislators that authored that bill in the personal capacity since they enacted an unconstitutional law knowing very well what kind of harm it would do…..I really believe this is the case and that is what the “under color of law” are for but people do not use it for some reason…..That lady is working under color of law to deprive tens of thousands of people of their constitutional liberties know very well that (or should have known, which is the same thing for suit) that the law is unconstitutional and that it will deprive individual liberties so there goes her frigging immunity out the window. The only way to fight these people is either thru the courts of thru their pocket books…..
He&*%^&% if no one else does I just may very well do it myself…
If anything it will be in the back of her mind because you know she doesn’t know what the laws are and if she really can be sued. Make her take pause at the very least and show her we are not going to just take this crap laying down…….Look this law has already been debated and reject by the safety committee as well as been struck down by the CA supreme court (although only for parolees) so this lady knows very well that she will be violating our liberties but is going ahead anyways because she faces absolutely NO consequences one way or the other unless some one does like I am stating…Just throwing it out there as I have my own case and are embroiled with the CA AG right now because I will not sit back and take it…
Just a quick look online..IDK man….Take a lot more research…
The immunity only applies to lawsuits that try to force the government to act or that demand money damages. You may sue the government for a declaratory judgment, to protest a wrongful injunction, and for equitable relief. Generally, you may sue to restrain the government in some way, but not force it to act.
You may sue if a government employee, official, or agency abuses its authority or acts beyond its authority. Employees are protected for acts and omissions in the scope of their employment, but not beyond it.
If the government, or a government employee, does an act of gross negligence or recklessness there is no immunity.