ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings: Jan 16 Recording Uplaoded Details / Recordings

Emotional Support Group Meetings


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

The Senate Public Safety Committee will consider Assembly Bill 514 during a hearing on June 26. If passed, the bill would prohibit some people convicted of a sex offense involving a minor age from living within 1,000 feet from a day care center or a family day care home. The bill is the result of significant changes to a previous bill focused on medical waste that was introduced by Assemblyman Rudy Salas, a Democrat from Bakersfield.

“This bill would not achieve its stated purpose of increasing public safety,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci. “Instead, the bill would reduce public safety by significantly increasing the number of homeless registrants.”

The bill is also inconsistent with the findings of both the California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) and academic research. CASOMB concluded in a recent report that restricting where a registrant may live is “likely to have the unintended effect of increasing the likelihood of sexual re-offense.” A recent report issued by Dr. Jill S. Levenson determined that limitations on where a registrant may live often hinder that person’s ability to successfully reintegrate into society.

“We urge registrants, their loved ones and others who support them to call the Senate Public Safety Committee to voice their opposition to this unfortunate bill as soon as possible,” stated ACSOL President Chance Oberstein. The Committee can be reached by phone at (916) 651-4118.

The Senate Public Safety Committee hearing on June 26 is scheduled to begin at 8:30 a.m. in Room 3191 of the State Capitol.

AB 514 – Letter to Sen Public Safety – June 2018

AB 514

Join the discussion

  1. cool CA RC

    Didn’t they try to pass this couple months ago?

    At 1st I was confused but when I saw

    ” a sex offense involving a minor age”

    Didn’t the Judge said this was not legal…

    and who is sponsoring this bill?

  2. AO

    Would these restrictions apply to those still on paper, or anyone in general? And didn’t the CA courts already ruled this to be unconstitutional on several occasions? Why would this stand over any of the previous tries?

    • cool CA RC

      it the wordsmith “”a sex offense involving a minor age”

  3. American Detained in America

    Just as I’ve said many times, people need to quit looking to the Democrat Party for help on this, you won’t get it. This is all the proof we need that a Democrat wants to take things backwards!

    • AO

      It’s election season and both parties want to get the easy votes with fake “I’m looking out for you” policies. I’m adding his name to my list of people to automatically vote against should it ever appear on my ballot.

  4. TS

    Votes, all about the votes and nothing more.

    Shows effort, blames the court when it doesn’t go through, still gets political good will, starts a judge recall (well maybe not, but given recent history…)

  5. David

    More knee-jerk, hysterical, moral panic, do-nothing legislation! 😡
    You can be damn sure I’m gonna be writing letters and making phone calls!!
    Should we plan to show up in Sacramento?

    • Janice Bellucci

      @David – Because the chances of this bill’s approval by the Senate Public Safety Committee are small and we didn’t get much advance notice, we are not asking people who register or their loves ones to join us at the hearing on June 26. The committee has several letters including from ACSOL and ACLU opposing the bill. In addition, both organizations will also testify against it. By the way, this is the final bill hearing for the Senate Public Safety Committee during this session of the two-year legislative session. If the bill is not approved on June 26, it will die a quick death.

  6. PR

    Cant they think of anything better to do with their time? I too will be writing my letters and making phone calls!

  7. Pissed

    When does it end? It seems to just keep coming. From fu**ed up legislation to Karl Hanson’s always changing Static 99 “sciences” imposed on us, it never seems to end.

  8. Paul

    Even scarier is that this bill is authorizing cities and counties to enact their own restrictions against ANY registered citizen.

  9. Paul

    Here’s the REAL reason this bill is being pushed. This allows ANY city or county to pass ANY restriction they like and apply to ANY and ALL registered citizens.

    (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.

  10. TG

    Janice said the law would affect “some” RCs. I am hoping that she or another legal professional can give us a more in depth analysis soon. Because the bill is confusing.

  11. AO

    @Paul, I don’t think that’s correct. Anything in black is original text and has been in effect since 2006. Anything in blue is new. The only amendment to this part is shifting it down to another subsection due to its previous position being the new part about day cares, and a slight reverbage of the opening line. When CA Supreme Court struck down residency restrictions, it simply meant the law couldn’t be enforced. But it remained on the books as it wasn’t repealed either.

    I’m not exactly sure what they aim to accomplish here as even if this passes, it’ll be challenged in court and likely struct down before taking effect due to previous rulings. This really does feel like an election year law. I don’t buy the reason being one woman’s worry about her daycare as the inspiration. RC’s are allowed to live literally next door to a school and have been for years. This isn’t a sudden revelation or unique. Even if enacted, it would mean you can live next door to a kindergarten but not within 1000 feet of a daycare. It doesn’t make sense.

  12. David

    The website for the CA Senate Public Safety Committee notes that letters in support or opposition are due 7 days before the Hearing date. It also notes the Committee does not accept emails. So, folks, please start phoning!!

  13. David

    ☎ Simple message: “I am calling in opposition to AB-514 (regarding residency restrictions for registered sex offenders.)”

    Sen. Nancy Skinner: 916-651-4009
    Sen. Joel Anderson: 916-651-4038
    Sen. Steven Bradford: 916-651-4035
    Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson: 916-651-4019
    Sen. Holly Mitchell: 916-651-4030
    Sen. Jeff Stone: 916-651-4028
    Sen. Scott Wiener: 916-651-4011

    Please call them A.S.A.P. 👍

  14. Warren

    Thanks “David” for the simple message to give them when calling. When I called, most of the Senate Public Safety Members did ask for my name (first and last) and if I was from their district. No problems making the calls as all were professional and courteous. Hopefully the bill dies a quick death.

  15. cool CA RC

    I am wondering if Senate Public Safety Committee are tried of this being brought up every year.
    They already know it is illegal in the 1st place. But yet, Congress keep bringing them on.

    • Ao

      “[A]s I recall my esteemed former colleague, Thurgood Marshall, remarking on numerous occasions: ‘The Constitution does not prohibit legislatures from enacting stupid laws.'” – John Paul Stevens

  16. Gwen

    When I called they asked for street address and city. I felt like saying “I don’t have an address due to these types of laws..but instead I just answered the question politely.

  17. Eric

    I don’t understand how this can be as in San Diego the Superior court ruled residency restrictions were unconstitutional as did the federal court. Unless on a case by case bass there is some reason the individual person shows some reason they shouldn’t be living there.

  18. James

    Thanks David for posting. It was so quick and easy that I even called LOL.

  19. Nicholas Maietta

    It’s time these laws are ruled Unconstitutional. It is also well past time that lawmakers be punished for writing bad laws that get overturned on constitutional grounds. This reincarnation of a bad law is indeed cruel due devastation it causes for people who like me, were not able to find housing. It is also unusual because no other criminal offender gets this king of treatment. You’d think drug dealers, gang members and murderers would all first get this kind of treatment, then sex offenders added to that list. That is not what happens, as we all know. This NEVER was about public safety. It is meant to continue to daemonize sex offenders like pond scum and ensure this class of people will never succeed in reintegrating back into society where most will never commit another crime again.

  20. Tim Moore

    OMG, here we go again. Our state necromancers are once again calling up the legally dead spirit of Jessica’s law. Forth all rational people to the phones. Fight black magic and superstition!

  21. mike r

    Yeah, you see since Taylor did not address those off of parole apparently these lawmakers srem to believe that this law applies to any registered sex offender. So what the hell, does it apply or not? The damn AG got me to drop this challenge in my suit by claiming this law only applies to parolees. I think I am going to reintroduce this challenge just for clarity by the courts and not just depend on the word of the AG.

    Existing law, as amended by Proposition 83 of the November 7, 2006, statewide general election, prohibits a person who is required to register pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act from residing within 2,000 feet of any public or private school, or park where children regularly gather.

  22. mike r

    Which is it? Either it does or it doesn’t….Here is what the AG stated:

    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.

    • mike r

      This is out of Taylor:
      The further question whether section 3003.5(b) also creates a separate
      misdemeanor offense subject to violation by registered sex offenders who are not on
      parole was not before us in E.J. (E.J., supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 1282, fn. 10) and is likewise
      not before us here.

  23. mike r

    According to the CA AG, any section outlined in 3003.5 only applies to parolees although I am not sure how her statement actually effects the interpretation of the law. Is her statement correct? Does her statement nullify the law as applied to non-parolees? Apparently from the cases that Janice et el have prevailed on the cities sued agree that state laws trump local laws and they did not interpret the law to give local municipalities free reign to enact whatever residency restrictions the wanted which is stated in 3003.5 that they are allowed to do. This needs clarification and I am not sure that I ca just depend on the AG’s statements or the logical conclusion based on local lawsuits. I doubt if this question will be answered but Janice and team, can Jessica’s law be applied to non-parolees? I understand you say no in your suits and have prevailed but those cases did not go to go to appeals or anything.

  24. mike r

    I guess I will have to straight ask the judge when I get in front of them again. Even then I really think I want a court decision regarding this as applied to non-parolees.

  25. mike r

    Also, can any person just cite the AGs statement in that brief to quash any attempts to apply Jessica’s law provisions in any sections to non parolees? That is where the section at issue is placed still.

    • AJ

      @mike r:
      can any person just cite the AGs statement in that brief to quash any attempts to apply Jessica’s law provisions in any sections to non parolees?
      No. The brief is merely the AG’s opinion, interpretation, and assertions. Just as the AG previously, and incorrectly, maintained immunity from suit and Young not applying, his position on Jessica’s Law applicability is a non-binding opinion. Same thing with the AG’s claim, quickly dropped, that CA is required to comply with SORNA. Once “educated” about the 10th Amdt, the AG dropped that assertion.

      From what I recall reading in Taylor, blanket residency restrictions were struck down, even under rational basis review (which is a very rare event and win!). The States needs to have particular, individualized reasons for such restrictions of liberty.

      • mike r

        Yes AJ, but only as-applied to parolee. In a footnote the court specifically stated in the opinion the following:
        “The further question whether section 3003.5(b) also creates a separate
        misdemeanor offense subject to violation by registered sex offenders who are not on
        parole was not before us in E.J. (E.J., supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 1282, fn. 10) and is likewise
        not before us here.”

  26. mike r

    I think that I can reassert my claim against Jessica’s Law since I only conceded because the AG stated it does not apply to me since I am not on parole and because the state has not applied to any non-parolees at that time. That was very stupid on my part as I should have let it play out.

  27. bob jones

    I rememeber about a year ago or close to some BIG politician (cant recall who) in or near LA got a BOX full of dog shit delivered (not usps) to his FRONT GATE…. funny thing is was the police said it was NOT ILLEGAL.. maybe same thing neeeds to be done to this lame politician !… ROAD TRIP anyone ? since it isnt illegal its a good idea !!!!! Think about it ! If this gets done more often they will fear writing lame laws !!!

  28. David

    If you have not called yet, please call today! Here are the phone numbers (below).

    Simple message: “I am calling in opposition to AB-514 (regarding residency restrictions for registered sex offenders.)”

    Sen. Nancy Skinner: 916-651-4009
    Sen. Joel Anderson: 916-651-4038
    Sen. Steven Bradford: 916-651-4035
    Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson: 916-651-4019
    Sen. Holly Mitchell: 916-651-4030
    Sen. Jeff Stone: 916-651-4028
    Sen. Scott Wiener: 916-651-4011

    Please call them A.S.A.P. 

    • Ellen Johnson

      Is there any plan for a group to meet and go together to tomorrow’s public safety mtg? Janice-are you going?

      • Janice Bellucci

        @Ellen – Yes, I will testify at the hearing tomorrow. You are welcome to join me there. We will not meet at Starbucks before the hearing.

        • James

          Janice et al. Good luck! I’ve already called all the numbers that Dave posted. Hopefully more will follow. It was really easy. Some asked for name, others asked for zip/city. One didn’t ask at all.

        • Roger

          I will be there, and I’ll be proud to speak out with all of you who come to make their voices heard!

  29. Ellen Johnson

    I called all the numbers. The ones who answered only asked for name and zip code. Not sure where I’ll be in the am, because 1437 is also being heard but I’m not sure which committee. Gotta find out.

  30. Ellen

    So, 1437 is being heard in the Assembly p&s committee. Anybody know that room number?

  31. Tim Moore

    I called and they told me they are getting a lot of calls today.

  32. David

    Any news yet?? Was 514 voted down? (I think it was the 3rd Bill listed on the agenda.)

    • Janice Bellucci

      ACSOL and two other organizations (ACLU and CA Public Defenders Association) testified in opposition to AB 514 this morning. No vote was taken because there weren’t enough committee members present at the time. A vote on this bill and others is expected later today and will be reported upon as soon as we have the information. During the hearing, a possible amendment was discussed which would significantly weaken the bill and require it to be considered by the Appropriations Committee. The amendment would require local law enforcement to send notices out to day care facilities within 1,000 feet of the location where a registrant resides when the registrant initially registers at that location and if the registrant moves to a new home if that home is also within 1,000 feet of a day care. It would not, however, prohibit registrants from living near a day care.

      • Joe

        I caught the tail end of the bill presentation around 9 am.

        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?

        Any chance you can provide some more information on that? As well as any vote taken? The archived video is not available yet.

        Thank you, and the lady from the ACLU for your efforts. As well as to the person from the public who spoke in opposition. Full name, on video, on the record. @Roger from this forum – if that is you… your courage and efforts are commendable. I tip my cap, good sir.

        • AO

          The “problem” was in an article that was linked somewhere on here. Basically, a woman running a day care center freaked out when an RC moved close to her daycare center. His conviction was from 25 years ago. She went to this senator with this “problem”. That’s it. He didn’t do anything or say anything. She just freaked out due to his very old history. It’s crap and an absolute perfect example of the registry and it’s supporters continuously trying to solve problems that never actually happened.

      • jd

        This is incredibly frightening. So would the day cares then notify all the parents who send their children to those facilities? My husband and I live next door to a daycare, so do we now have to worry about some crazy posting his picture all over the place?

      • mike r

        Janice you stated the bill applies across the board to non-parolees. I posted this on the other section but I want to address this as soon as possible so. What makes you think that this applies to non-parolees if the other sections supposedly do not ??????
        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)…..

      • jd

        Janice, what do you mean by “where a registrant resides when the registrant initially registers at that location and if the registrant moves to a new home if that home is also within 1,000 feet of a day care”? So is this bill retroactive and applicable to anyone who lives 1000 feet of a day care prior to the law’s passing (assuming it passes, which I’m now assuming because there just doesn’t seem to be any end to this)?

  33. Adam

    I’m with David. Any updates at all??? I’ve searched EVERYWHERE online and there is zero information regarding the outcome. I’m sure it has been voted on by now, right?? Thanks!

  34. David

    Any news??

Leave a Reply

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  • We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  • 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.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • 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.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues 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.  

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *