A federal district court determined today that San Diego’s residency restrictions are void. As a result, the city cannot restrict where a registrant who is not on parole may reside.
“The court’s decision today settles plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, but does not settle the entire case,” explained civil rights attorney Janice Bellucci. “We will continue the case in order to protect the rights of all registrants who choose to reside in San Diego.”
Plaintiffs filed their motion on June 27 and oral arguments were heard on the motion yesterday. The basis for plaintiff’s motion is that the authority provided to cities and counties under ballot proposition 83, to restrict where registrants reside is limited to registrants while they are on parole.
In addition to today’s decision, the federal district court denied the city’s Motion to Dismiss the case in January 2019. The plaintiffs filed their lawsuit in August 2017 challenging the city’s residency restrictions which prohibit registrants from living within 2,000 feet of parks, schools, playgrounds, libraries, child care facilities, arcades and amusement centers.
Order – Partial Sum Judg – Nov 2019
Related links:
Judge Rules Against San Diego Sex Offender Ordinance [kpbs.org – 11/20/19]
Great news! Why cannot other states and jurisdictions see the wisdom of this?
This is great! Thank you very much for your continued work and support!
…and this is all Janice. If it wasn’t for her and ACSOL could you even imagine where we would be. We would all be in a homeless camp under 805 with no toilets just like they are in Florida. Instead, because of Janice I have a job, and apartment and can almost go about my life like a person who has paid their debt for and error I made. Thank you to all in ACSOL, now I hope this is a precedent for all the rest of the counties and cities across the country. Stop the abuse and the nonsense and let us live as members of society.
Great work on getting this decision! I love where it reads on p.11, the section under lines 12 and following in particular, where the defendant’s own Attorney General was cited as taking the plaintiff’s position.
I thank God for when courts issue consistent and reasonable judgments, particularly when they reveal the inconsistent, contradictory, and illogical arguments presented by states and municipalities seeking to keep registrants as a suppressed and “contained” class of individuals in free society. I think we have these keystone cops on their heels, grasping at any ridiculous argument in order to keep us from our cherished liberties.
I only wish the bankrupt notion of “frightening and high” recidivism rates would finally be smashed to bits in the courts, but I suspect this court purposely avoided addressing the issue, as many other have also done, to prevent the whole house of cards that is the registry from all crashing down at once. It’s day is coming, however.
Ahhh, I find it interesting that judicial notice is finally being applied. Excellent!!!!! Now use judicial notice, case law, and CASOMB reports to take down the registry as-applied to those without a risk determination hearing. Of course people might as well wait until the 9th issues an opinion in my case now just to see if the take judicial notice for one thing, and what they respond with for another.
I’ve got to tighten my belt and send my Christmas money to ACSOL (I would normally say Janice, but ACSOL continues to grow…so, my thanks needs to be broader).
Regardless…ACSOL is a life safer…I am still a little bitter over the IML and other restrictions we live under…they offend my sense of a just society…but without ACSOL we would all be massively worse off…with lives even more horrible.
So thanks…and a check is in the mail…Lawyers are saving us.
Best Wishes, James I
Congratulations and thank you Janice 🙏
“The basis for plaintiff’s motion is that the authority provided to cities and counties under ballot proposition 83, to restrict where registrants reside is limited to registrants while they are on parole.”
Why “limited to registrants while they are on parole”? People on parole, probation, any kind of supervision still have rights. Limited rights yes. Limits to the bill of rights (amendments to the constitution,) NO. I’m not on parole, I’m not on probation. I am on CSL… community supervision for life (reprieve can be obtained 15+ years later).
ACSOL, NARSOL, ACLU, SPLC wont get involved as money drives them and without a reasonable chance of winning, I’m not willing to fund it.
And great job Janice and team.
Kudos to you. One step at a time. This made no sense. I can possibly understand more stringent requirements on a parole, but this is ridiculous!
Way to go Janice!
It seems to me any citizen proven to have suffered residency restriction has claim to make in tort courts. If those local EXTRA- jurisdictional limits cannot be had except by movement of fed courts too much unauthorized authority exists on the community policing policy level. This type of jurisdiction enticement displays the constitutional incongruity in the OMNIBUS94 which originated the root of database use. WI actually had law prohibiting ” unauthorized disclosure ” by agents punishable under 90 days & 500$ 174.46(6) Act 98(93). OMNIBUS was full of community policing chapters. Community policing while sounding benevolent actually created a third level, and often unaccountable, of police government. Furthermore, this new level rarely gets struck by State circuit courts who focus primarily of local jurisdictional crimes. Thereby undermining oversight except by federal court. Combine that fact with the true nature of the database infrastructure’s ability to consolidate and centralize authority; you have a ticking time bomb of the anti social variety.
A truth about the affirmative restraint by local residents restriction being overturned is that it proves the true underlying extra-jurisdictional intent of the Wetterling Act and prodigy AND increases lawlessness in outcome as per the two part test. The jurisdiction of the database use carved out of plain liberty by firms engaged in rent seeking.
That’s a great win but has anyone asked the question of that also affects on the people on probation something to think about the only thing I saw was larole
Thank you and God Bless you, Janice et al for continuing to protect the human rights of registrants AND their families!!!
Great job! I look forward to the tier law (needs a few tweaks). 25 year old expunged battery with summary probation. I recommend getting your felonies reduced to misdemeanors and expunged ASAP!
It is still BS that CP and PC 288.2s are still included in tier three. Of course no one even addresses the 288.2 issue even though it is a non-contact, non-violent crime.