ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings: Dec 14 – Phone | details (2020 Dates added)

Emotional Support Group Meetings (Los Angeles, Sacramento, Phone)

ACSOL NewsCalifornia

CA: City of Lompoc to Repeal Residency Restrictions

[ACSOL]

The City of Lompoc, located in Santa Barbara County, is expected to finalize repeal of its residency restrictions during a City Council meeting on August 20. The City Council took the first step toward repeal on August 6.

“Residency restrictions in the City of Lompoc prohibit individuals convicted of a sex offense from staying overnight for even one night,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci. “This prohibition includes staying in the home of a friend or a relative as well as hotels and motels and even camping.”

Lompoc’s repeal of its residency restrictions is the result of a lawsuit filed in state court on February 14, 2019, based upon an alleged violation of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution as well as preemption of state law. The city and the plaintiff have entered into a settlement agreement which provides for repeal of the residency restrictions as well as payment of attorneys’ fees and costs.

The lawsuit filed against the City of Lompoc is the thirty-third lawsuit filed challenging residency restrictions in the state of California. Subsequent to filing of that lawsuit, an additional four lawsuits have been filed for a total of 37 lawsuits. Of that total, there are five cases still pending. Of the lawsuits that have already been resolved, the cities have either completely repealed or significantly revised their residency restrictions.

The oldest lawsuit challenging residency restrictions that is still pending was filed against the City of San Diego on August 7, 2017, in federal district court. The City of San Diego filed a Motion to Dismiss that case, however, the court denied that motion in January 2019. Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment in the case on June 27, 2019, however the court has not yet ruled on that motion.

The California Supreme Court ruled in 2015 that residency restrictions in the County of San Diego (not the City of San Diego) violated both the federal and state constitutions. In that case, the Court found that registrants were prohibited from living in 97 percent of the county’s housing. In its decision the Court ruled that registrants in California “retain certain basic rights and liberty interests, and enjoy a measure of constitutional protection against arbitrary, oppressive and unreasonable curtailment of ‘the core values of unqualified liberty….'” The Court also ruled that blanket enforcement of residency restrictions “cannot survive rational basis scrutiny because because it has hampered efforts to monitor, supervise, and rehabilitate such parolees in the interests of public safety…”

The California Supreme Court also stated that residency restrictions impermissibly “impact the ability of some petitioners to live and associate with family members” because “if the family members’ residence is not in a compliant location, they [i.e., Registrants] cannot live there.” Finally, the Court stated that residency restrictions are “disruptive in a way that hinders” Registrants’ access to reasonably opportunities for employment, medical treatment, psychological counseling, drug and alcohol dependency services, other rehabilitative and social services.”

Because the population density in the City of San Diego is far greater than the population density in the County of San Diego, the plaintiffs in the case challenging the city’s residency restrictions are ultimately expected to be successful. A trial date for that case has not yet been set, however, the next hearing in the case is scheduled for September 3, 2019, in order to discuss potential settlement.

Related documents:

List of Cities Sued – Aug 2019

Motion – Partial Sum Judg – CONFORMED

Order – Deny Motion to Dismiss – Jan 2019

Complaint – CONFORMED – Aug 2017

In re Taylor – CA Sup Ct – March 2015

Join the discussion

  1. G4Change

    Thank you again, Janice, and all at ACSOL for restoring humane conditions for registrants and their families throughout California.

  2. pgm

    Go for the throat Janice! Do not give an inch to those assholes. Who knows, I may need to sleep on the beach down there one of these days.

  3. Eric

    In San Diego so far we don’t have a residency restriction, but under the registry restrictions I am still not allowed to stay over at another residence, even for one night, without registering that address as my own residence. I found a really nice woman, but this caused so much friction between us that we had to go our separate ways. So the registry destroyed an intimate relationship, the very thing that is supposed to prevent the risk of reoffending. This is item 13 in the California registration requirements and it is so vague that you could basically be violated for playing cards at someone’s house. It needs to be addressed.

    Congratulations Janice, you Rock!!!

    • Janice Bellucci

      @Eric – Please read the entire article above. The CITY of San Diego has residency restrictions which limit where most registrants can reside. That is why we sued the city. The COUNTY of San Diego does not have residency restrictions. These statements, of course, apply only to registrants who are not on parole or probation as those who are on either parole or probation may have conditions that restrict where they can live. As for registrants spending the night at another person’s home, I have never seen such a restriction. Some registrants can trigger a requirement to register at a second address if they “regularly” visit there. That is called concurrent registration. Anyone with questions about this can contact me at 818-305-5984 or JMBellucci@aol.com.

      • Will Allen

        No one can thank you and your colleagues enough. You are real, decent Americans.

        Residency “restrictions” are 100% unacceptable. Personally, I view anyone who supports them as an immoral, anti-factual, anti-American terrorist. Someone who is little capable of minding their own business or leaving families alone. I’m going to wage literal war on those people.

        I really do believe that the smarter, more educated, and more successful that a person is, the less likely it is that they will support the Registries at all. The majority of people who support the Registries and certainly anti-American “restrictions” are dregs. They are already dragging the bottom. The majority of them. The ones that are not are mostly just immoral opportunists who are completely using and exploiting the majority dregs. Ron and Laureen Book/Crook come to mind. That is the business model all across Amerika today.

        The dregs can ill-afford to be suppressed and alienated more, but that is exactly what I am purposely doing. I’m also going to make the Book/Crooks of the country suffer as well. They will suffer because of their Registries. Many people don’t agree with that. But I am going to continue to fight their little fires with an inferno.

      • Aero1

        @Janice so my question is ..does the concurrent address show up on Megan’s Law ??????????????????

        • Janice Bellucci

          @Aero1 – Yes, if you are required to register concurrently at two or more addresses, all addresses will be listed on your profile on the Megan’s Law website.

  4. James

    Great job Janice and team! I’m proud to be a supporter of ACSOL!

  5. TS

    This is great news! They can go back to worrying about the flowers and rocket launches for their money instead of trying to worry about who stays where. Having lived there for 9 mos 20 years ago at another time in life when things were different, no, not the Fed pen there, it is a bucolic little place that can stand to not have a dark mark against it for something like this.

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 *

Please answer this question to prove that you are not a robot *

.