ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459


Monthly Meetings | Recordings (07/23 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings

ACSOL Conference Oct 1, 2022 

 

California

CA: Senate Public Safety Approves Weakened AB 514 [UPDATED]

[UPDATED 6/29/18 with court decisions regarding cities – see the end of this article]

The Senate Public Safety Committee today approved a weakened version of Assembly Bill 514.

The original version of AB 514 would have prohibited some individuals convicted of a sex offense involving a minor from living within 1,000 feet of day care centers. The bill would have applied to both registrants on parole as well as registrants not on parole.

The amended version of AB 514 does not prohibit any individual convicted of a sex offense from living near a day care center. Instead, it requires local law enforcement officilas to notify day care centers when a registrant moves within 1,000 feet. This requirement does not apply to individuals whose names are currently exempt from the Megan’s Law website.

During consideration of the bill, three organizations — ACSOL ACLU and CA Public Defenders — spoke in opposition to the original bill. The organizations educated committee members about recent court decisions which have determined that similar residency restrictions are unconstitutional and/or limited the restrictions only to registrants while on parole.

Senator Scott Wiener stated he had “serious concerns” about the language of the original bill. He added that the bill would have the effect of excluding all registrants from living in densely populated cities such as San Francisco, a city he represents. He also stated that the original bill would require registrants who currently live near day centers to move.

Senator Nancy Skinner, who chairs the Senate Public Safety Committee, stated that she shared Senator Wiener’s concerns. She added that the sex offender registry, as currently established, is flawed despite last year’s passage of a Tiered Registry. She suggested the amendment that was ultimately decided upon and which the bill’s author, Assembly Rudy Salas, agreed to.

The bill must next be considered by the Senate Appropriations Committee where it could face opposition by the law enforcement community that would bear the expense of notifying day care centers about registrants who live nearby.

Also see

CA: Senate Public Safety to Consider Residency Restrictions Bill on June 26

Court decisions:

Order – MSA – May 2018_000012 (city of Maywood)

Order – Partial SMJ – Dec 2017 (city of Adelanto)

 

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.
  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
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.  
 
Subscribe
Notify of

67 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Is this madness going to be challenged, Janice?

The original version of AB 514 would have prohibited some individuals convicted of a sex offense involving a minor from living within 1,000 feet of day care centers. The bill would have applied to both registrants on parole as well as registrants not on parole.

Now wait a minute. If the bill and coding are still in the 3003.5 section then it should only apply to parolees anyways. If it applies to everyone then the language about residency restrictions across the board would mean that they apply to everyone. All the bill did was add daycare centers as another section 3003.5(c). So if (c) applies to everyone then (b) applies to everyone……and (d)even applies to everyone.
Remember, Taylor did not address whether the law applied to non-parolees and specifically stated that they were not deciding that issue. This is very concerning because if like I stated if (c) applies to everyone then (b) and (d) applies to everyone. It is the same exact language in (c) as (b)…..

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Section 3003.5 of the Penal Code is amended to read:
3003.5. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, when a person is released on parole after having served a term of imprisonment in state prison for any an offense for which registration is required pursuant to Section 290, that person may not, during the period of parole, reside in any a single family dwelling with any other person also required to register pursuant to Section 290, unless those persons are legally related by blood, marriage, or adoption. For purposes of this section, “single family dwelling” shall does not include a residential facility which that serves six or fewer persons.

(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, it is unlawful for any a person for whom registration is required pursuant to Section 290 to reside within 2000 2,000 feet of any a public or private school, or park where children regularly gather.

(c) Notwithstanding any other law, it is unlawful for a person for whom registration is required pursuant to Section 290 to reside within 1,000 feet of a day care center or family day care home, as defined in Sections 1596.76 and 1596.78 of the Health and Safety Code, respectively, if one or more of the victims of the crimes for which the person is required to register was 14 years of age or younger at the time the crime was committed.

(d) This section does not prohibit municipal jurisdictions from enacting local ordinances that further restrict the residency of any a person for whom registration is required pursuant to Section 290.

I have to reinsert this code section back into my complaint no two ways about….If I am reading something wrong please correct me…

Here we go again…Does it apply to everyone or not????????????????????????????????????????????? Just because the AG states they will not enforce the laws against non-parolees and because no LE has used the law against a registrant does not null the language of the law and now it is being stated that (c) applies to everyone with the exact same language in the text in (b) and basically (d) as well………..if (b) only applies to parolees then (c) only applies to parolees. IF (c) applies to everyone then (b) and (d) apply to everyone…..

Repeating my question – to Janice please – from the older post:

In discussion, the Senators made reference to a “problem” in Sen. Salas’ district, which this bill was attempting to “fix”. Did he provide any details as to what the “problem” was, exactly? Was it truly a case of sex abuse in a day care by a registrant who lived less than 1,000 from the day care location? If so, that would be a first. Or was the “problem” a day care provider objecting to the presence of an otherwise law abiding citizen?

I missed the beginning of the morning session.

My thought on this amendment is that this would be the first time that there will be legally required active notification – of a person not on parole / probation or considered SVP, or individually deemed a danger. I would imagine that is huge. The more crap they add the clearer it becomes that this turned the corner to full blown punishment. Merely listing a historical conviction my arse.

Although this puts the onus on law enforcement and would cut into their donut time. I doubt this will fly.

Isn’t the whole point of the idiotic draconian registry to give paranoid, uneducated parents a way to find out what predator will snatch and rape their child? If they care so much, they should just look that information up before sending their kid to the day care in the first place. Why is the onus on law enforcement to notify anyone?

So even though a registrant is all ready on Megan’s list (and every other fu===king website) with picture and address showing where they live – now i guess somehow by the police notification everyone at the daycare is safer??? Like the daycare doesn’t know who lives or doesn’t live in the area. This is a complete joke. I can not believe the safety committee approve this. It does nothing.

What I don’t get is registry information via Megan’s law requires you to click on things stating you understand you can’t use the information for this or that. If letters are sent no one is seeking info like some courts state. Instead information is there is not being sought for they can use the website on their own.

I can only hope I survive this draconian nightmare.

I am so sick of this. It is like trying to convince a bunch of scared kids that the Beast is just a dead paratrooper hanging from a tree. It may smell bad and the wind may frighten you but come on grow up.

Everything is going be okay. This bill will sink.

The law says when someone “moves” within 1000 feet. If you are already there they aren’t going ro do anything. IMO.

I want to know WHY anyone thinks this applies to everyone and not just parolees ?? It is in section 3003.5 with the exact same verbiage as residency restrictions in that same section. This makes no sense at all….

Im glad to see that LE is starting to see the light on this. This add a burden to the local police and sheriff department. Where their resources can be use else where.

First off, the word “victim” needs to be changed to “Survived”. My God, victim is such a permanent label. and frankly, I am tired of it and it should be permanently replaced with a word that states this person who was hurt and survived and is gone on to live his/her life……..successfully

Maybe then, things won’t look so grim- no one will be running around crying “victims” “victims”

Parents and caregivers are the most dangerous to these kids. Case in point, There is a child day care on my best route to my jobsite, I now avoid the route because, I have seen mothers parked on both side on this narrow street with all the doors open with little pups running around in the street with their backs to them. it will not surprise me to hear that some kid will be killed there.

Let me make sure I am perfectly clear about this as we know how attorneys are when it comes to clarity.
How can P.C. 3003.5 subsection (c) apply to everyone (as stated by Janice) if subsection (b) does not? I understand they watered it down to just notification but that is irrelevant to my question.

(b) Notwithstanding any other law, it is unlawful for a person for whom registration is required pursuant to Section 290 to reside within 2,000 feet of any a public or private school, or park where children regularly gather.

(c) Notwithstanding any other law, it is unlawful for a person for whom registration is required pursuant to Section 290 to reside within 1,000 feet of a day care center or family day care home, as defined in Sections 1596.76 and 1596.78 of the Health and Safety Code, respectively, if one or more of the victims of the crimes for which the person is required to register was 14 years of age or younger at the time the crime was committed.

???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Understood, so this is going to bring this issue to a head. We need a high court to make a decision on Jessica’s law to put any confusion to rest. I will be reinserting this in my case. Thank you for your response, I extremely appreciate it.

So I guess I need to supplement my RFA with the question as well as figure out how to reinsert that claim in my suit. Anyone knows how to do that I am all ears as I am swamped with school…..

So can you use what the AG stated in my case???

“Plaintiff has failed to state a claim that the residency restrictions in Jessica’s Law, as applied to him, would violate the Ex Post Facto Clause. This is simply because Jessica’s Law does not apply to him at all. Jessica’s Law applies only to sex offenders who are currently on parole. People v. Lynch, 2 Cal.App.5th 524, 527 (2016); see also Jensen v. Hernandez, 86419 P.Supp.2d 869 (ED. C211. 2012); Penal Code § 3003.5(b). Plaintiff expressly alleges in the complaint that he has already completed his parole term. 21 Compl. At 13. Any declaratory relief or injunction prohibiting application of the law would be moot and is therefore not proper. See ACLU ofNev. v. Masto, 670 F.3d 1046, 1061-62 (case 23 rendered moot and court lacked jurisdiction where Nevada admitted that it did not intend to attempt to enforce sex offender residency statute retroactively). As a result, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim challenging Jessica’s Law’s application to him under the Ex Post Facto Clause.”

@ Janice, do you know that this bill doesn’t apply to people on parole as currently written? If you do could you please explain how?

I have no idea if the statement by the CA AG in my case stating Jessica’s Law only applies to parolees holds water. I am not sure if Janice will answer that question or if she even knows. I hope if she does have an opinion on that she will voice it on here.
Either way I am reinstating my claim against it in my case regardless…At least I am going to give it my best shot to get it back in my complaint…I want an answer from a high court, or any court for that matter just to begin with until it gets to CA SC or SCOTUS………..This unanswered question needs to be put to rest once and for all…………..

I apologize to all you intelligent posters that do research, and know so much about the law, but I am confused.

Are we saying that Jessica’s law, completely and entirely, only applies to those on parole, or is it only the residency restrictions portion of Jessica’s law that only applies to parolees?

Does anyone have a link to where I can see the details and requirements of Jessica’s law, so I can determine what applies to me and what might not?

Thanks in advance!

As stated above, there are two recent court decisions which limit Jessica’s Law to registrants while on parole. The state case (in Norwalk Superior Court) is a challenge to residency restrictions in the City of Maywood and that decision was made on May 31. The case name is Weiss v. City of Maywood and the case number is VC066407. We will add a copy of this court’s decision to the article above. The federal case (in U.S. District Court, Central District, CA) was a challenge to residency restrictions in the City of Adelanto and that decision was made on Dec. 18, 2017. The name of the case is Doe v. City of Adelanto and the case number is 5:16-cv-02535. We will also add a copy of this court’s decision to the article above. Look for a blue link.

Well the issue was won on summary judgement so it is pretty plain that according to at least the federal court it is so obviously preempted by state law that summary judgement was proper. Nice use of judicial notice btw. Well if state law preempts residency restriction then the notification is obviously preempted by state law and only applies to parolees as well and I do not know why that was not brought up during hearings. There is nothing set in stone since it was only a lower court decision. I am not going to worry about it much I have to much going on right now and will address it when I get a chance

I would like to see the RFAs served in that federal case though. I also I find it interesting that the court took judicial notice of the city counsel hearing. I guess it is a indisputable adjudacative fact that the members stated what they stated though.

This legislative process is getting more ridiculous. It doesn’t even take a single tragic isolated crime like the Poway teen rape murder to bring them in to write new sex offense laws that affect all former offenders. Now all it takes is a scared parent with an over active imagination, fueled by late night viewings of SCI, phoning a legislator, and the legislators spending all this time to come up with a law, that even if the crime was likely, the solution would be ineffective. Wow.

BTW, re 290.03, which states, “The Legislature finds and declares that a comprehensive system of risk assessment, supervision, monitoring and containment for registered sex offenders residing in California communities is necessary to enhance public safety and reduce the risk of recidivism posed by these offenders…”

The writers of that section made a major mistake, if they wanted to continue to obfuscate on whether 290 is punishment. They gave us the ability to challenge retroactivity.

Containment is as within prison walls, but not even that, it is as in the lack of ability to exercise your freedom, which is what the prison walls do, and that could pretty well free everyone from registration as no one has been “sentenced” to registration to this date. Until that error of that word in there, the state had contended registrants’ freedom was NOT contained — that is what the argument on the point was about, although not using the word “containment” but saying the same thing — so it was not punishment. That is what they were arguing about, whether you were contained from exercising your full freedom.

The court ruled that going in shortly once a year to register was not sufficient to be a restriction your freedom. However, when the state now has the law itself saying that its purpose is to “contain” registrants, they made the huge mistake of tipping their hand, pulled the rug out from under their previous denials, and now they can no longer argue the law is not punishment — since that word “containment” was added, the previous rulings on punishment are moot. If it is intended to contain our freedom, that has a long history of court rulings saying that is punishment, can even be sufficient to bring a habeas corpus action since that containment is a matter of holding you. Gee, that was even the specific point of a ruling on a habeas corpus challenge to registration about 30 years ago!

When they screwed up and included that word “containment,” they stated the intent and purpose, and they proved our arguments of this being punishment. And as punishment it cannot be applied retroactively. And since no one has been “sentenced” to registration, no one registering now would have to register.

But I don’t know why I waste my fingers typing these challenges here, no one here listens, this group is too meek to actually go after the foundation of registration. We all know the entire concept of registration is corrupt, but we refuse to go after it. I don’t even get the impression this group so much as knows how things have progressed over the decades, or understand how much that tier plan got the prosecutors everything they have been trying to get for decades but were blocked, such as increasing the registration time for three misdemeanors from 7 years to at least 10 years, and how this idiotic group cheered on giving them exactly that! This group shows little understanding of what is going on, it appears to lack any sort of comprehensive overview, so it doesn’t even understand the strategies we are up against, it misses the details at every turn. And as such, we just keep getting more and more bills to make registration ever worse.

Also, all is now lost in the courts at the federal level. Nothing far reaching we want will ever get through SCOTUS, we might as well forget any court action on that stuff. The only possibility is legislative. That is not possible at the moment at the federal level, but that is the only thing we can work on, and the political action there now can’t be overlooked just because of certain failure for now — legislators need to hear this arguments over and over for years, it needs to be made part of the conversation, before they finally come around.

It will now take longer than the rest of our lives to change SCOTUS to our benefit, but politics is flexible. But this group is not run by political pros, clearly does not understand that (as in when I warned that we would get only one chance at tiers, there will be no tinkering after that or advance from it, so we have to get it right, and we have to fight hard to get it changed to be right — but we didn’t, we cheerleaded instead, we showed no clue that that was it, now or never, we were co-opted by political pros from the prosecutors, we sided with them as if they were our friends. And we blew it, PRESUMING we could tinker later to make it right — and expressing dismay and surprise that we were told NO, in no uncertain terms.

Again, no one would listen. All we got was denials of what that tier plan does. Gee, under that tier plan, someone convicted of misdemeanor indecent exposure say 35 years ago will have to register for life if they have moved out of California without first registering here for at least 10 years — you cannot even apply without showing 10 years of registration IN CALIFORNIA, in fact I think it requires CURRENT registration in California.

And registration for ANY misdemeanor is not acceptable, 10 years is not bearable for a misdemeanor, 10 years is life destructive, completely undermines your entire lifetime career trajectory and life trajectory — even this group is passing off 10 years as if it is nothing. 10 years for a low level felony is not acceptable, it completely undermines your lifetime career and life trajectory. Five years is the standard mark for rehabilitation, even for major felonies, so how can 10 years be a minimum for registration!? Of course, we cheerleaded a tier proposal making the standard 30 years of clean record for old offenses to be eliminated without having to go through the entire process (but still open to challenge, not AUTOMATIC), not 10 years. So why do I even bother typing anything here.

The new changes have been posted on this bill. It talks about NEW RESIDENCE within 1,000 feet of the facility.

SECTION 1. Section 3003.7 is added to the Penal Code, to read:
3003.7. A law enforcement agency shall notify a child day care facility, as defined in Section 1596.750 of the Health and Safety Code, when a person for whom registration with that law enforcement agency is required pursuant to Section 290 registers a new residence within 1,000 feet of the facility, if one or more of the victims of the crimes for which the person is required to register was 14 years of age or younger at the time the crime was committed. Law enforcement shall only notify facilities of persons as to whom information may be available to the public pursuant to the Internet Web site as provided in Section 290.46.
SEC. 2. If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.

67
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x
.