CA: Sex offender challenges Commerce residency restrictions

LOS ANGELES (CNS) – An admitted sex offender who is not on parole is suing the city of Commerce, alleging its local regulations regarding where registrants can temporarily or permanently live in the city are so restrictive that he cannot find any affordable housing in the community. Full Article

Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of

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 and a**
  4. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Use person-first language.
  5. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  6. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  7. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  8. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  9. 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 that are not personally identifiable.
  10. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  11. Please do not post in all Caps.
  12. 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. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  13. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  14. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  15. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  16. Please do not solicit funds
  17. No discussions about weapons
  18. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  19. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  20. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  21. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
  22. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
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.  
 

14 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

another city bite the dust.

I thought the California Supreme Court struck down all residency restrictions. Or was that only for parolees? If so, how would it make sense to allow parolee registrants to live in any given place, but not a registrant off supervision?

Disgusting exclusionary rules

Retarded! Maybe we need to register our bicycles? What if I visit my parents and drive their car? I have access to it! What if I own a used car lot and have access to 50 cars? Shouldn’t we have special pubic restrooms? Airline registered seats? Carpool? We should be labeled handicapped? I could have shot someone and had more rights then an expunged misdemeanor with summary probation!

Wow

Four years ago I actually had to stay in a hotel for several months in Commerce while on parole because of residency restrictions. I don’t know when this ordinance was passed, but that was literally my only option back then, and if I didn’t have that, I would have had to sleep iny car.

9.10.020 – Registered sex offender prohibition/residential exclusion zone.
A registered sex offender shall be prohibited from becoming a permanent or temporary resident in any residential exclusion zone.

(Ord. No. 664, § 1, 11-4-2014)

Looks like the city ord was adopted on Nov. 4, 2014. In light of all the court rulings since then, this ord seems unenforceable. What’s odd too is that a lot of the city is in the medium to heavy industrial zone. So maybe this is the city’s knee jerk reaction to the attempts by surrounding cities to establish “child safety zones” and prevent Commerce from becoming a dumping ground from those cities? Residency restrictions = NIMBY mentality = banishment, which courts have ruled as unconstitutional.

AJ, my minor is in Psych/Soc. I really think you should look in the mirror, rather then scrutinize other individuals online. I doubt you would want people to know the real you. Feel better?

I admire the courage of this warrior for going through with this. Everyone of these courageous people help our cause. I hope he wins and the city loses.

He can win !!
if you are kind of a figher for him in his fight or we can write letters to the judge.