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: Superior Court Judges Limits Residency Restrictions to Parolees

A California Superior Court judge has ruled that residency restrictions may only be applied to registrants while they are on parole. This ruling, issued in Norwalk Superior Court yesterday, is consistent with a ruling made by a federal judge in late 2017.

“These court decisions are important because they clarify that cities may not impose residency restrictions against registrants who are not on parole,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci. “In addition to limiting the application of residency restrictions to parolees, we are also claiming that the restrictions violate the state and federal constitutions.”

A total of 31 lawsuits have been filed in state and federal court challenging residency restrictions in the same number of cities. As a result of the challenges, most cities have completely eliminated the restrictions. The remaining cities have significantly revised their restrictions.

“It is unfortunate that some cities in California continue to enforce residency restrictions which often break up families,” stated ACSOL President Chance Oberstein.

The issue of residency restrictions, as applied both in and outside California, will be discussed during the ACSOL conference to be held on June 15 and June 16 in a panel led by ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci. The panel discussion will include a handout listing all 31 lawsuits filed in California as well as residency restrictions in other states.

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

10 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I didn’t even know this issue was being decided. Why is this the first we’re hearing about it?

This is great news for registrants! 🤗

Janice great work, you are a great lawyer protecting the rights of all people. thank you.

This is great news for California registrants! 😊

Congratulations!

What is the practical Impact? I assume it’s getting appealed? Yay for Janice and Chance et al.

Way to go, and thank you so much for your hard work, Janice, Chance and anyone else involved. What a blessing you are to so many of us and our families!

The big question still remains, What about presence restrictions??? Many municipalities still have them and no courts have addressed the issue. CA law still allows other municipalities to conjure up any presence restrictions they wish I believe. That “where children congregate” is an issue.

loitering about any school or public place where children
congregate after being asked to leave by a school or law enforcement official (§ 653b,
subd. (b))

Here are two examples of CA loitering laws.

Apple Valley Chapter 11.54.030: “A sex offender is prohibited from loitering on or within five hundred feet (500’) of a public or private school for children, a center or facility that provides day care or children’s services, a video arcade, a playground, park, amusement center, library or museum.” http://www.applevalley.org/government/municipal-code/title-11-peace-morals-and-safety [visited on May 10, 2018].

Bellflower Municipal Code 9.40.020: “A registered sex offender shall be prohibited from loitering in or about any school or public place at or near which children attend or normally congregate. (Ord. 1187 § 1, 1/14/10; Ord. 1282 § 4, 9/8/14)” 9.40.030. “A registered sex offender shall be prohibited from becoming a permanent or temporary resident in any residential exclusion zone. (Ord. 1187 § 1, 1/14/10)” https://qcode.us/codes/bellflower/ [visited on April 13, 2018].

How and why is Fla getting away with this?

While residency restrictions exist for parolees, we were told by our son’s CDCR agent that it did not apply to those whose “victims” were over 18 at the time of the charge, based on the San Diego decision. Otherwise, our son would not be living with us based on our proximity to a park. Is anyone else hearing differently? We want to be prepared if this policy changes.

Now if we could eliminate the public registry so that vigilantes can’t hunt me down and possibly harm my family, I might be able to have a home again!

10
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x
.