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)
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.
and this is not evidenced based?
https://all4consolaws.org/2018/06/ca-california-moving-to-evidenced-based-policies-for-sex-offenders/comment-page-1/#comment-210085
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.