The Santa Clarita City Council voted unanimously to repeal the city’s residency restrictions during its May 14 meeting. Because the issue was placed on the consent calendar, the vote took place without discussion or debate.
A lawsuit was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court on February 25, 2019, challenging the city’s residency restrictions which prohibited registrants from living within 2,000 feet from schools, parks, public libraries and child care centers. The effect of this restriction was to place off limits virtually all of the city, including hotels, on either a permanent of a temporary basis.
In addition, the city’s restrictions applied to all registrants regardless of whether they were on parole, on probation or beyond both parole and probation. The restrictions also applied to those convicted of non-contact, non-violent offenses.
“The City of Santa Clarita’s decision to repeal its residency restrictions is consistent with both recent California Supreme Court decisions as well as decisions by other cities that have repealed their restrictions,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci. “It is important to note that crime rates have not increased in cities that have repealed their residency restrictions.”
According to the terms of a Conditional Settlement Agreement reached between the parties,the lawsuit filed in state court will dismissed and the city will reimburse the plaintiff for attorneys’ fees and related court costs.
Video of City Council Meeting
http://santaclaritacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/SplitView.aspx?Mode=Video&MeetingID=2042&Format=Agenda
Related
https://all4consolaws.org/2019/05/ca-santa-clarita-city-council-to-consider-repeal-of-sex-offender-residency-restrictions/
Related Media
Janice you rock. What an incredible blessing you are. You are helping so many people find homes, find employment, find relationships and love. Without a home those simple things in life become almost impossible. Without employment, security, and relationships the risk of recidivism and other crimes increases. With those things people are happier, self esteem increases, productivity increases, and everybody is safer. Thank you.
That’s great news! Congratulations to the entire team!
“SCV Sheriff’s Capt. Robert Lewis said the station registers offenders every Thursday and provides biannual address verifications, although it’s not required by law. ”
Maybe this is something we should look into.
Don’t think there is anything to look into. It’s just the usual “compliance checks”. Heck, we were just talking here recently about Jamestown, ND, which apparently does them once per month!!
As we’ve all discussed before, I don’t think there is any good reason to allow compliance checks. I don’t think a person should allow law enforcement onto their property and certainly should not allow them to get near you. I just really don’t see anything to be gained by it.
And since Registries are not acceptable or legitimate, no one should be doing anything that could indicate that they are. That includes “compliance checks” of course.
It seems like if the criminal regimes thought they could get away with it, they would try to mandate “compliance checks”. But I don’t think they can. So f*ck them every day.
Your hard work is much appreciated.
So on the video of the hearing the police captain explained that the Santa Clarita PD / LA County Sheriff station is open for registration every Thursday afternoon for 4 hours, and Thursday afternoon for 4 hours only. How is that possible? So if your car breaks down on your way there and you do not make it in time, bingo, you just committed a felony. This cannot be, can it?
Showing up, being compelled to, is a trait of ” custody” even if it’s a timeframe as in this case. States tend to attempt to avoid calling it custody to dissolve themselves of unlawful right abridging.It helps distort the true effect of the regime and their own culpability in unlawful promulgation.
Absolutely correct.
The timeframes are unacceptably short also. In the state where I live, you must go to the criminal law enforcement office during the 72 hours prior to your birthday every year. Why is that timeframe so short? Why not allow 2 weeks prior to 2 weeks after? Why not? What possible difference would that make? Anyone have an idea? I’d really like to know.
There are many pointless things like that regarding the Registries that greatly increased the retaliation that I have delivered for the Registries. They are just stupid harassment and the retaliation for that must be much greater.
Same thing with the criminal regimes asking for more information than is required by law. Why can’t they just operate within the VERY clear law? Are they not capable? Why would anyone respect them if they can’t? They beg for disrespect. Again, greater retaliation.
I could be wrong, but I think back in ’94 when I first started registering (ah, the good ol’ days before Megan’s Law website went up) the window was 10 days prior or after one’s birthday. Now it’s 5 days either side…I think. I’m just careful to never miss it because I enjoy it sooooo much!
Thank you, again, Janice and everyone with ACSOL.