ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (3/20 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings


CA: San Diego Federal Judge Denies City’s Motion to Dismiss Challenge to Residency Restrictions


A federal judge today denied a Motion to Dismiss filed by the City of San Diego that, if granted, would have ended a challenge to the city’s residency restrictions. In its decision, the Court found that the city’s residency restrictions were more restrictive than restrictions adopted by the county of San Diego which were overturned by the California Supreme Court in March 2015. Specifically, the Court found that “the Ordinance that Plaintiffs’ challenge is even more restrictive than the regulation in Taylor and thus likely unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause.”

“Today’s decision is a significant victory for registrants and their loved ones who wish to live in the City of San Diego,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci. “Although the challenge is not yet over, we will now ask the City of San Diego to settle this case by repealing its ordinance.”

In its decision, the Court also recognized vagueness as a potentially valid claim in the lawsuit because “the Court finds it plausible that the Ordinance does not give fair notice as to what compliance requires and exposes Registrants to arbitrary and discriminatory prosecutions.” In addition, the Court rejected the City’s argument that the plaintiffs in the case lack standing because the City has not enforced its restrictions. The Court ruled that plaintiffs were not required to “make an attempt to take up permanent residency in the City before they can challenge the Ordinance on constitutional grounds.” Instead, the Court found it sufficient that plaintiffs “have suffered an injury….because the Ordinance keeps Plaintiffs from moving to the City” due to the threat of fines and/or incarceration.

A lawsuit challenging residency restrictions adopted by the City of San Diego was filed in August 2017 and the City filed its Motion to Dismiss in October 2017. Final motion documents were filed in December 2017, however, the judge did not rule until today due to health challenges.


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.  
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Dear Janice and team;

Let me be the first to congratulate you on making a real difference in our lives. Presence restrictions strike at the very basis of how people live…you have saved all of us….saved out butts…lol

God be with you.

Best Wishes, James

People are being majorly misinformed by a political system that is rewarded by spouting a non existent fear of a particular offense. They don’t get information that will help all involved. They don’t understand that 95% of us just want to get on with our lives, provide for our families, and contribute to society in a beneficial manner. Does Hitler represent every German, Chapo represent every Mexican, or Trump represent every person of wealth? We are individuals. Persons of varied backgrounds, interests and needs. By creating “exclusion zones” for us, politicians are creating generational fear and mistrust that will only… Read more »

“We are individuals. Persons of varied backgrounds, interests and needs.”

Yet we’re all looked upon as expendable subhumans by society, cops, media and lawmakers.

Yes. Society needs to be reprogrammed and rebooted somehow. The current trend of pathologizing anyone with a sex offense needs to be corrected somehow in the public psyche. These small victories with the RRs are like chipping away at an iceberg with a plastic straw though.

The specious “public safety” argument needs to be constantly attacked on all fronts.

First, thank you Janice and Co. for fighting for us. Now, what is the driving force behind this city of San Diego? This residency restriction has been overruled by the superior court, the state supreme court, and the federal court, but these money wasting imbecilic “leaders” running (or is that ruining?) the city won’t give it up. They should be arrested and jailed for continually violating the rule of law, and for misappropriation of funds for wasting all the taxpayer money on this personal agenda that has clearly failed in court. Lock them up for being the criminals they are.

Seriously. Why are there no real consequences of politicians over, and over, and over again doing things against court orders? If nothing else, they’re wasting the peoples time and money.

Because it is the same legislators are who would define and determine the penalties for doing so. The only real consequence is to vote them out.

There should be folks in HI who should be watching this in action and becoming informed so the HI chapter can start to spin up in case the residential restrictions thinking passes the legislature where maybe it be can prevented in the first place.

I’d like to see residence restrictions challenged in the state supreme court and stricken down. Since there is tons of data showing they’re not effective, and not one shred showing they are, it should (though not necessarily is) be enough to show they’re not “reasonably related” (another standard that has been grossly misinterpreted over the years) to their stated purpose. The purported purpose of the registry is to notify of potential threats in the neighborhood, not to provide a means of preventing certain people from moving there or forcing them to leave. Those who are not comfortable with registrants living… Read more »

Thank you for all that your organization does. I’m grateful for your support of the registered offender community.

Every American knew SORNA was intended as deterrent, as punishment and retribution but lit it slide because it only applied to child molesters and child rapists. 1st or 2nd degree aggregated sexual assault of child under… in WI were the first stats included for participation. That is how the tyrants sold it but it now affects children as young as 9. SICK!

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x