ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings: Jan 16 Recording Uplaoded Details / Recordings

Emotional Support Group Meetings


CA: City of San Diego Asserts that SB 145 Will Allow Cities to Adopt Residency Restrictions for All Registrants

[ACSOL – 7/2/19]

In a motion filed today in federal district court, the City of San Diego asserted that the current language of SB 145 would allow cities to adopt new residency restrictions that apply to all registrants, not just registrants currently on parole. The City’s motion was filed in response to a motion filed last week by the plaintiffs for partial summary judgement.

The plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment was based upon a state appellate court ruling that limits the application of residency restrictions to registrants while they are on parole. If the Court grant’s plaintiffs’ motion, most of the City’s residency restrictions would be eliminated.

“The City of San Diego has already demonstrated one of the significant dangers of the current language of SB 145,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci. “If the current language of SB 145 becomes law, we can expect dozens of cities to pass residency restrictions that would prohibit registrants from living in most, if not all, of those cities.”

A lawsuit was filed in federal court challenging residency restrictions in the City of San Diego in August 2017. The City filed a Motion to Dismiss the lawsuit in October 2017, however, the Court denied the City’s motion in January 2019.

In its decision denying the City’s Motion to Dismiss, the Court ruled that Plaintiffs adequately pled violations of substantive rights in all three of their claims — violations of the U.S. Constitution (14th Amendment and ex post facto clause) as well as the California Constitution (Article XI, Section 7). The Court’s ruling in Plaintiffs’ favor is not a final ruling in the case, but it does allow the legal challenge to continue.

According to the complaint, registrants are prohibited from living in virtually all of the City of San Diego. This prohibition is even greater than residency restrictions adopted by the County of San Diego which were successfully challenged in the case, In re Taylor, decided by the California Supreme Court in 2015.

The complaint includes quotations from San Diego City Council members about the residency restrictions made during a council meeting on April 1, 2017. One Council member stated that “I don’t have a lot of sympathy in my heart for sex offenders” and justified the City’s banishment of Registrants referring to unnamed studies that allegedly demonstrated that registrants cannot be rehabilitated. However, another Council member at the same meeting predicted that the City’s refusal to repeal residency restrictions was futile because “we will wind up….being told by a court to repeal our ordinance anyway.”

Click  here to download the motion:

City of San Diego Motion to Vacate – re Residency Restrictions, SB 145 – July 2019

Join the discussion

  1. Eric

    The part of this that is most unsettling is that I live in San Diego and follow the news daily, and I rarely hear about registrants doing terrible violations. I do hear about teachers, doctors, police officers, parents, uncles, cousins, and siblings committing sex offenses, but I seldom hear that any of them are registered, and you know darn well that if they were that would be the headline. So is there some evidence that this is necessary? Is there a rash of sex crimes by registrants that warrants this? The city council member said registrants can’t be rehabilitated. What the hell is he/she talking about. I did a non-contact offense 15 years ago, and I haven’t done another since. I suppose there are thousands just like me, probably tens of thousands, in fact, how many of the 108,000 registrants in California have done another sex crime after being released. I would say most have not, which would prove unequivocally that residency restrictions aren’t necessary and registrants don’t reoffend often. And unless a person has a history of offenses I would say they don’t even need rehabilitation. A person who makes a terrible decision in life doesn’t necessarily have some deep psychological flaw that needs to be rehabilitated. Maybe they just fell into temptation and used poor judgment. How many congress people do we have that have committed criminal offenses? We have several in San Diego’s legacy. A few real doozies, too. I don’t recall any of them needing rehabilitation.

    So far the courts have ruled against residency restrictions, I pray to God and to all things good and sensible that the courts will strike this down and put it to rest once and for all. I have fully rebuilt my life in the 15 years since my conviction. Losing my home would be devastating and would spiral me down into an abyss I don’t know if I would have the strength to climb out of again.

    • Will Allen

      If Registered People have not been committing crimes then the Registries have been working, I guess. Good thing we have Registries.

      You are right about that “rehabilitated” nonsense. I don’t give a flip about that. We just need for people to not commit crimes. Then, presto, they are rehabilitated as far as I’m concerned. I think there are millions upon millions of people who have been convicted of a crime and then decide all that was no good and they aren’t interested in playing that game again. Those people don’t need rehabilitation.

      And “therapy”? Please. Huge money grab. Make no mistake though, I do think maybe a good 95% of people could benefit from some good, legitimate therapy. But surely only a tiny percentage of people who commit a $EX offense need therapy any more than does anyone else. Most people know damn good and well IF what they did was wrong or not. No therapy needed. Just don’t do it.

      • Bob

        I wonder what the sex crime clearance rates are in San Diego? I’ll post in the general comments later. My guess is they are aggressive with registrants while clearing less than 30% of sex crimes.

  2. David

    OH IT GETS WORSE…. Eric, I am afraid you may not be understanding San Diego’s motion. The City is basically asking the Court to put this matter on hold until SB 145 is voted upon. If SB 145 is approved by the California legislature and signed into law by the Governor, it will make the lawsuit moot because SB 145 will institute mandatory 2,000 foot residency restrictions throughout California for anyone EVER convicted of a sex offense or EVER required to register. Even if you are relieved of the requirement to register, the 2,000 foot residency restrictions would still apply to you for the rest of your life.
    Make calls! Write letters! Send emails!
    Have friends call, write letters, show up in person!
    SHOW UP!
    This is the biggest battle we have faced.
    This could wipe out all the progress that ACSOL and Janice have made in all previous years and all previous lawsuits! Let me repeat it so everyone understands:
    ➡️ SB 145 will impose 2,000 foot Residency Restrictions throughout California for everyone ever convicted of a sex offense. ⬅️

  3. Bill

    Election time and the worthless morons who are looking to keep their seats.

  4. The Persecuted

    I’ve been on the registry since i was 19. I’m 42 now. Never had another offense. So how can they make a claim that we re-offend often or can’t be “rehabilitated”? The people at risk of reoffending are people that have nothing to lose because they’ve already lost everything like housing, right to travel, employment, etc.
    People are going to behave like they are treated. If you treat them like animals or a piece of trash like our governments do then that’s how they will tend to behave. Making more restrictions makes people more in danger. Not less.

    • Will Allen

      “So how can they make a claim that we re-offend often or can’t be “rehabilitated”?”

      Who do you mean by “we”? I don’t think that anyone has ever claimed that all Registered People re-offend. Whether or not one person (you!) has is not relevant to the claims I’ve heard (like “most re-offend!”).

      But anyway, yeah, agree with what you are saying. I was a good person a few decades ago. I helped my community a lot and even support law enforcement! I’m still a good person for my family and friends. But today I don’t worry about other people.

      I’ve been told for decades that I’m a monster. So I became a monster. I’ve been told for decades that I shouldn’t be around decent people. So I’ve adopted every anti-social behavior that I can think of. Unlike the Registries, that actually matters. In my case, the Registries have without doubt protected no one. But they’ve harmed thousands and that will continue.

  5. Eric

    Yeah, I wonder how the governor feels about adding another 100,000 homeless people to the already overcrowded tent cities in the streets.

  6. Bob

    Nvm, found it. Of 578 rape cases opened in 2016, the department cleared 154 cases, or 27%.

    51 of those cleared cases, or 9%, led to an arrest. The remaining 103 cases, 18%, were cleared by exceptional means.

    So, San Diego in 2016, on made arrests is 9% of rape cases, my response to harsher registered offender treatment is why arent the police solving actual rape cases. Maybe because resources are placed on following people that reoffend less than 1% of the time.

  7. mike r

    I am wanting to know if I can restate my claim against Jessica’s Law since they are all of a sudden stating that it can include all registrants not just those on parole as the court and AG in my case has stated.
    The court,
    “(3) Jessica’s Law (Cal. Penal Code $
    3003.5), which restricts where sex offenders may reside while they are on parole, Plaintiff
    ultimately dropped his challenge to Jessica’s Law. ECF No. 24 at 2, n. 1 ,”
    “To the extent Claims One through Five implicate Jessica’s Law, plaintiff has already
    formally abandoned those claims. ECF No. 24 at 2, n. 1. His abandonment applies fully to this
    case, including Claims One through Five. For this reason, defendant’s motion must be granted as
    to claims involving Jessica’s Law.”

    The court also stated in the oral hearing that Jessica’s Law and residency restrictions only apply to parolees. This AB 145 is basically part of Jessica’s Law as far as I can tell. Nothing in the language has changed really, it is that these locals are monopolizing on exactly what I have been stating they would do for years now ever since all the residency restrictions were being challenged by ACSOL. This is still in the parole section.

  8. mike r

    I really hope ACSOL post this this time around,
    The CA AG,
    “In 2006, California voters passed Proposition 83, the “Sexual Predatory Punishment and
    Control Act: Jessica’s Law.” People v. Lynch,2 Cal.App.5th 524, 527 (2016). Among other
    provisions, Jessica’s Law places residency restrictions on registered sex offenders. Id.; Penal
    Code $ 3003.5(b). However, its application is limited to sex offenders who are currently on
    parole. Lynch,l Cal. App. 5 at 527-529; 3 WITKIN, CAL. Crim. Law, Ch. IX, $ 133 (4th ed.
    2012); see also Murtishaw v. Woodford, 255 F .3 d 926,964-65 (9th Cir. 2001) (a federal court
    will look to state court precedent to determine the meaning of a challenged state statute); Jensen
    v. Hernandez, 864 F. Supp. 2d 869 (E.D. Cal. 2012) (holding prisoner’s claim not ripe where no evidence suggested that the residency requirement of section 3003 .5 would be a condition of his parole).”
    “Penal Code section 3003, which is also part of Jessica’s Law, prescribes the parole process for sex offenders and Plaintiff is not on parole.”

    Although it is local govs that are going to be applying the restrictions it should be a instant slap down citing case law and the CA AG that 3003 as a whole only applies to parolees.

  9. mike r

    These local entities cannot just pull shit out of context and attempt to re-write law to their own benefit. Unless they pull these residency laws out of section 3003 of the penal code there is no argument to be made that it applies to all sex offenders. Although the CA SC did not state specifically that it does not apply to all registrants it did state unarguably that 3003 is in the parole section, done deal.

  10. mike r

    People v Lynch,
    “(1) Our Supreme Court, in In re E.J. (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1258, 1271 [104 Cal. Rptr. 3d 165, 223 P. 3d 31], noted: “[A]s the section’s language reflects, it [2 Cal.App.5th 528] provisions are obviously intended to apply to `person[s] … released on parole.'” (Original italics.)

    Yeah this shit is stupid, the language has no significant changes and it is still embedded in the parole code sections. These legislators are reaching for fantasies and wishing for horses that are not there. I do not think the CA SC has to specifically state that the law does not apply to non-parolees when the CA SC In re E.J. states in no uncertain terms that it ONLY applies to PAROLEES. Case cited, sue into oblivion any locals that try and enforce any restrictions.

  11. David

    @ mike r: Here’s what SB-145 says under Section 6, SebSectn 3003.6:.
    “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, it is unlawful for any person for whom registration is required pursuant to Section 290 290, or who has been convicted of a felony violation of an offense described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 290, to reside within 2000 2,000 feet of any public or private school, or park where children regularly gather.

    (c) Nothing in this section shall prohibit municipal jurisdictions from enacting local ordinances that further restrict the residency of any person for whom registration is required pursuant to Section 290. 290 or who has been convicted of a felony violation of an offense described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 290.”

    • SR @ David

      David, nothing major changed from what the current language states and that of the amendment language you listed. The only change is to also include “felony”. The whole thing about cities not being limited to do what they please of Section C are in the current law as well. But the entire 3003 section itself is a parole section. Them adding language to it to effect EVERYONE doesn’t make sense. It’s like having a section with rules applying to cats, but them including portions within it to also regulate hamsters.

      • mike r

        SR is exactly right, nothing i changed except to add felony to the language. This is the exact same statute and is in the parole section as stated. Nothing has changed. Now if San Diego wants to claim they are going off of 3003 (c) then so be it, but this amendment does not authorize it anymore than the original text. And the CA SC did already address this exact issue so it is not even a argument. It applies to parolees only, the CA SC Lords have spoke. Cite it and sue the hell out of them if they do not abide by In re E. J. and Lynch, and Mosely, and Taylor and and and…. This is the stupidest thing I have seen in a while. Getting everyone up in arms over BS that has no relevance unless you are on parole. Instant injunction if they do not stop enacting or attempting to enforce any residency restrictions beyond parole UNLESS they enact a completely different statute in some place besides the parole sections. I really do not see why any attorney is having a problem with this at all. Cite,
        People v Lynch,
        “(1) Our Supreme Court, in In re E.J. (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1258, 1271 [104 Cal. Rptr. 3d 165, 223 P. 3d 31], noted: “[A]s the section’s language reflects, it [2 Cal.App.5th 528] provisions are obviously intended to apply to `person[s] … released on parole.’” (Original italics.)

        and be done with it.

        • SR @ Mike R

          My guess is that if this does somehow gets signed into law, the end result will be what you’re saying. But, ACSOL is likely concerned with the courts potentially allowing this to go into effect while they look at it, resulting in a huge amount of issues for thousands of people. It’s much easier to kill it though the current method, than having to kill it once it goes live. With law, you never know what technicalities might allow it to live, and have the courts tell us “let’s see how bad it really is before we do anything”, just like they did with IML. I honestly don’t trust the courts to rule that the world is round and revolves around the Sun. I have extremely little faith in our courts to do what’s right versus what’s technically allowed.

  12. mike r

    Why the legislature decided to put Jessica’s Law in section 3003 is beyond me though as the intent of the people when they enacted Prop 83 was to create predator free zones and was surely not intended to be limited only to parolees, but to all of us.

    • mike r

      This intent of the voters is irrelevant now as the CA SC has spoke to this exact issue, and as is, it applies only to parolees.

  13. Eric

    One year I AM allowed to live in my home, two years later I am NOT allowed to live in my home, the next year I AM allowed to live in my home, next year I may NOT be allowed to live in my home. These retroactive laws are haphazard, inhumane, totally irrelevant to my continued law abiding behavior, and obviously unconstitutional. This must stop. These overzealous, agenda driven political hacks can’t keep readjusting the punishment and sentences of over 100,000 people on a whim.

    • lighterguy

      I’m with you on your comment.
      I have spent nearly 20 years in a state hospital, 12 years on con rep, had criminal proceedings reinstated in 2004, sentenced to time served and have been CRIME FREE ever since and fully employed. I also own a house.
      What the Hell is wrong with these law makers!!!
      When is enough, enough!

  14. Nondescript

    In the Bills Analysis Addendum from May 16th it reads:
    “Author Amendments: Replace the petition process by specifying that a person would not be required to register for offenses that are the subject of this measure if certain age conditions apply but would maintain the GPS monitoring and residency restriction requirements for persons convicted of these offenses as felonies”

    I thought the whole point of this bill was to somewhat decriminalize certain crimes, but aside from not having to register, those that are found guilty are still going to be subject to imprisonment, have a tracking devise slapped on their ankle and have restrictions on where they can live.

    So, ehm, what is the point of this bill 145 ?

    Also, when a portion of a law is found unconstitutional, as was the blanket residency restrictions a few years ago, why is the text still written in the penal code? It seems like they should have to remove it.

    After reading their analysis however, I do think the amendments of this bill were added to pertain to paroles.

  15. AERO1

    The Anxiety and Paranoia after reading this is crazy…but i was
    watching the news the outher day about califorina homeless population and how bad it is all over the state and the cost of liveing in califorina is so high people have a hard time finding affordable places to live so to put regstery restrictions on all sexofenders is stupidity they tryd this all ready with Jessica’s law and we all know how that went Law Enforcement has a verry hard time tracking transient sexofenders it’s practically impossible San Diego County is just mad about the the new sexofender laws that are taking place and are comeing in the future and the sad part is San Diego has way more serious problems they should be dealing with like IMMIGRATION then to be worried about law abiding registered citizens

  16. G4Change

    Nice try, San Diego. See you in court!!!

    • JOHN DOE 2

      HAHA Losers in SD… good try… we will delay it to see if 145 goes through…. Guess what SD your back on the hotseat !!! Hope you get 3rd degree burns ! maybe you should be focusing on all of the ILLEGALS coming across the border… after all that is your county line !!! SD GOVT=LAME

  17. David

    They have a 2,000 foot residency restriction in Duval County, Florida. Will ACSOL file suit in Duval County?

Leave a Reply

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.  

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *