Fresno County Board of Supervisors unanimously voted this week to repeal an ordinance that restricts how close convicted sex offenders can live near schools and parks — a policy California’s Supreme Court found unconstitutional.
The move by Fresno County also includes a settlement with a Sacramento-based attorney who sued over the law.
The county has joined other localities across the state who have lifted the 2,000-foot or greater buffer many municipalities required of sex offenders for more than a decade.
About 40 localities, like Santa Clarita, Lompoc and several cities in Los Angeles County, have repealed their housing measures in recent years following litigation from Janice Bellucci, who is the executive director of the Alliance for Constitutional Sex Offense Laws.
That’s great! Thank you for your continued hard work and efforts in combating these nonsensical laws. Thanks Janice and team
Great news! Thank you ACSOL for all your continued work!
Another one bites the dust!!!
Thank you, Janice and everyone at ACSOL!
@Fresno here: here it is for you after I left a comment with the link to it…
YAY now I Can sleep comfortably.
I’ve live next door to school for 4 years now and never ask to leave now they can’t haha
This is indeed great news! I only wish it had happened years ago so we wouldn’t have had to buy our house way out in the sticks.
Great job, Janice and team!
Residency restriction is unconstitutional now via re:Taylor 2015.
On a tangent, that means the application of this unconstitutional law was being implemented between 2007 and 2015 (or current against counties still imposing blanket residency restriction).
In the DISCUSSION section of the case, on page 22, it cites, “Such enforcement has imposed harsh and severe restrictions and disabilities on the affected parolees’ liberty and privacy rights, however limited,… ”
Link to case: https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/2015/s206143.html
Two points here is that residency restriction has been identified as a disability. That disability affects liberty and privacy rights.
Query: Why can’t those who earned 1203.4 between 2006 and 2015, be able to utilize re:Taylor 2015 to de-register?
History of 1203.4 and de-registration: Before 2006/07, iirc, anyone who earned 1203.4 were able to get off the registry because in-person reporting was a disability as it was quasi-criminal. Then in 2006/07 was then new laws were passed that changed everything such as 290.007 negating the benefits of 1203.4 and you need a 1203.4 to apply for the CoR to try to get off the registry, increasing the time from probationary period to 10 years minimum.
Three benefits of 1203.4:
1) the court shall set aside the verdict of guilty;
2) and the court shall thereupon dismiss the accusations or information against the defendant
3) and except as noted below, he or she shall thereafter be released from all penalties and disabilities resulting from the offense of which he or she has been convicted,
re:Taylor court cites residency restrictions were a disability and affected privacy rights. Disability fits benefit 3) of 1023.4. Privacy rights belongs to benefit 2) of 1203.4, which is huge as the courts cites that privacy rights are being affected. The continued dissemination of the conviction that initializes being on the registry infringes on privacy rights as Kelly v Municipal stated that a person on probation is convicted only during the period of conviction and since there are there are sex convictions that cannot qualify for 1203.4, then PC 290 cannot supersede 1203.4 as a special law.
In essence, Kelly v Municipal permitted one to de-register once you earned a 1203.4 because in-person registration was a disability and quasi-criminal. In 2006/07, new laws re-wrote the registry to where in-person reporting was no longer a disability. This rendered Kelly v Municipal impotent. Yet, with re:Taylor, the court admitted the mistake of the 2006 laws were unconstitutional in 2015. That would imply that Kelly v Municipal has standing once again from 2006 – 2015 with the ruling residency restriction was unconstitutional.
If between 1958 to 2006, those who earned the 1203.4 were able to de-register because in-person reporting was ruled a disability, then it should be similar that between 2006 and 2015, those who earned the 1203.4 should be able to de-register because residency restriction was ruled unconstitutional.
Thus, those who earned the 1203.4 were wrongfully denied de-registration due to an unconstitutional law being passed and should make 290.007 as well as the updated 290.5 requirement of CoR for de-registration unconstitutional between 2006-2015.
After earning the 1203.4 during that time period, 2006-2015, I have lost job opportunities because of the registry. It doesn’t seem right for the Supreme Court of California to rule residency restrictions due to the passing of Jessica’s Law in 2006 be unconstitutional and California gets off free. It really doesn’t seem right that Kelly v Municipal was a pathway to de-register b/c a disability existed before the new laws were passed in 2006/07. And when new laws were passed removed that pathway because that disability (in-person reporting) was no longer considered a disability. Yet fast forward to March of 2015, the Supreme Court of California ruled the law passed in 2006/07 was not only a disability, but unconstitutional. There should be reparations to all those who earned the 1203.4 during 2006-2015 as they were all denied to de-register once they earned the 1203.4!
Jessica’s law being ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of California should invalidate PC 290.007 as well as PC 290.5 that requires a 10-year wait CoR and a 1203.4 to de-register. Both of those subsequent laws targeted 1203.4 registrants! The 2006 laws moved the goal posts on registrants who earned the 1203.4. If the Supreme Court of California ruled the 2006 law was unconstitutional and a disability in 2015, then why can’t 1203.4 registrants benefit from that ruling as 1203.4 relieves one “from all penalties and disabilities resulting from the offense” between 2006-2015?
De-registration under Kelly v Municipal was automatic.
Can I sue the state of California for robbing me of living a registration-free life once I earned my 1203.4 (between 2006 and 2015) once the Supreme Court of California ruled one of the laws being imposed upon me was unconstitutional and a disability in 2015 via re:Taylor? (Kelly v Municipal de-registered registrants automatically once they earned the 1203.4 until the new passing of laws in 2006 that rendered in-person registration as not a disability.)
I earned my PC 17B in 2000 and PC 1203.4 in 2002? I attempted a COR in 2009\OC, but denied. I’m waiting for the SB 384. The Judge in OC stated he could find no reason to deny my motion, but it wasn’t enough??? The DA was (original charges LA) dishonest, a liar and disturbing.
@JaniceB-WOW another one WAY TO GO JANICE & TEAM!
Is this number 43 Janice? NOW if they LOSE their stupid lawsuit against the new overturns.
DON’T THEY TAKE IN ACCOUNT THE CALI SUPREME Court findings resolution? FInal Word.
they still try. Dumb governments trying to appeal to their voters consti. They will lose and we will succeed!
New, I concur. This was 2010. I was in shock. What’s not enough? I would love to speak to the Judge to clarify, but I have no idea if he is still on the bench. The biggest hassle (my situation) with the COR was that the investigators in OC questioned my neighbors? (Any problems?). I was shocked by this. They couldn’t find anything, so they where trying everything. Expunged battery/summary probation
@Josh:
Well played (and retorted), sir!
One more step in the right direction! It’s good to see rational people still fighting the good fight and keep towing the line with all the chaos going on around them.
To all involved – please discontinue this discussion on this forum. Thanks. ***Moderator***