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
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?
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?
This might explain why he is pushing for it. I think this is his 2nd time.
https://hanfordsentinel.com/news/local/mendes-announces-bid-for-state-assembly/article_b0899629-825c-5d21-b783-fecf791ef355.html
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!
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…)
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?
Cant they think of anything better to do with their time? I too will be writing my letters and making phone calls!
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.
Even scarier is that this bill is authorizing cities and counties to enact their own restrictions against ANY registered citizen.
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.
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.
@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.
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!!
☎ Simple message: “I am calling in opposition to AB-514 (regarding residency restrictions for registered sex offenders.)”
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY MEMBERS
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. 👍
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.
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.
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.
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.
Thanks David for posting. It was so quick and easy that I even called LOL.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.