ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (11/20 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings



CA: Federal Court Voids San Diego Residency Restrictions [NEW LINKS]

[New related links added] [ACSOL]


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 invalidates city ordinance limiting where sex offenders can live [ – 2019-11-20]

Judge Rules Against San Diego Sex Offender Ordinance [ – 11/20/19]


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
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. 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.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. 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.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email 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.  
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Great news! Why cannot other states and jurisdictions see the wisdom of this?

@ pgm111: Because no one has jabbed them with the sharp end of a lawsuit!

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.

Really, R M, really?? You believe money drives ACSOL?? Do you drive around the entire state of California, all year long like Janice and Chance do to hold meetings with Registrants and their families? Do you file lawsuit after lawsuit to fight for registrants rights?? Don’t you realize that every time ACSOL wins it brings us a step closer to defeating all these unfair laws and restrictions?? ACSOL operates on a shoestring budget yet, thanks to Janice, it keeps on fighting for us!

If you’re worried about the money needed to file these lawsuits fighting for individuals rights, then yes you can argue these orgs are driven by money, but otherwise I think you are mistaken as pointed out by David.

I’d guess that you’re largely worried about donating money and it being used for a lawsuit that is lost because a judge or a court is afraid to go against the status quo on our issue. To that there is only only answer. We must change the status quo, educate about the truth around the RSO issue, and things will change. Look to other movements like the LGBTQA, Womens rights, Black lives, etc.

@R M,

Just because things are not going your way does not mean that ACSOL is not doing their job. I, for one, am thankful for ACSOL because of them my family can live in LA with no residency restriction. On top of their great work, they have fought for a Tiered Registry and we finally get one. It may not be perfect, but it’s a start. They have done so many good things for us RSO and they will continue to do so. ACSOL is not asking for your donation nor are they forcing you. I will continue to support ACSOL and so will others.

For ACSOL, ignore R M and his negative comment. You all are doing a fantastic job.

San Diego County still reaching .. you would think they have bigger fish to fry like immigration drug trafficking human trafficking being so close to the border you would think

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

Parole and probation are not the same. Proposition 83, also known as Jessica’s Law, applies only to registrants while on parole. Therefore the City of San Diego ordinance can only be applied to those on parole, not those on probation or those who have completed parole.

And Janice, that makes sense how?

@R M

LOL! You should know by now that lawmakers sometime creates law that makes no sense. Nothing new.

We are not saying Jessica’s Law makes sense. We are merely interpreting what the law actually says. And remember this is a law directly passed by the public in a ballot proposition and not a decision made by elected officials.

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.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x