ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings: Nov 21 Recording Uploaded, Dec 19 – Details / Recordings

Emotional Support Group Meetings 2020 (Phone only)

ACSOL NewsCalifornia

CA: ACSOL Lawsuit alleges Irvine sex offender rule conflicts with state law

[ocregister.com – 11/6/20]

An Irvine resident who is on the state’s sex offender registry is challenging a city rule that prevents him from taking his own child to a public park, according to a lawsuit he filed and an attorney representing him.

Irvine’s municipal code requires people on the registry who were convicted of an offense involving a minor to get written permission from the police chief to enter any city park or recreation facility; violation of the rule is a misdemeanor that could carry a fine or jail time.

In a lawsuit filed in August, two plaintiffs – the Irvine resident, listed only as John Doe, and the Alliance for Constitutional Sex Offense Laws – allege that the city’s parks rule is preempted by a 2014 state appeals court ruling.

The appeals court found that state laws already govern sex offenders’ daily lives, including where they can live and how they are monitored, and those state laws supersede local rules. One of two cases addressed by the 2014 ruling involved a man who was arrested when he went to an Irvine park to play tennis.

On Friday, Irvine City Attorney Jeff Melching declined to comment because of the current litigation.

According to the suit, John Doe’s son “has a medical condition that requires constant parental supervision, particularly during recreational activity,” but Doe has avoided Irvine parks because of the city’s rule.

“He’s a taxpayer, so why shouldn’t he be able to use the parks for which he is paying, in part, from his taxes,” said attorney Janice Bellucci, the alliance’s executive director.

She added that Irvine’s rule doesn’t set up any process for getting the police chief’s permission to visit a park.

Read the full article

Related:

ACSOL Challenges Irvine’s Presence Restrictions in CA

Join the discussion

  1. AERO1

    Thats why i moved from lake forest/Irvine CA they were doing way to much out there.
    They were doing compliance checks at my house 3 times a year and would park in front of my apartment building randomly.
    They even sent a notification letter to my landlord (family friend) that a register sex offender lives in his condo/town home apartment unit.
    Orange County Sheriff’s Department are Petty as hell I remember a few years back i went into the Irvine police department to do my annual registration and they arested me for a 5 year old out standing speeding ticket this happened on a Thursday and i didn’t get to see a judge till Tuesday when I did he said what the hell and dropped the whole case I paid no fines or fees he told me you’ll be home tonight happy 4th of July. He knew why I was there and it didn’t have anything to do with a speeding ticket.

    Good luck

  2. Adude

    Same thing in my town even tho state law allows me to go wherever. How is that these ordinances get passed without any checks and balances? Is there any way to stop this before they ban folks from going to grocery stores or say the hospital? If a person has a conviction involving a adult, how do you justify blanket bans? So many questions and never a good answer!

    Btw the non city parks are way nicer so no loss there. The city parks around here are in the news for gangs fights and shootings.. maybe ban red shirts and blue shirts.. idk

    • David⚜️

      @ Adude: I may be wrong, but it seems they have a very simple process of “checks and balances”: they make up whatever restrictions they wish and all is well and good until someone (in this case, John Doe, Janice and ACSOL) files a lawsuit and takes them to court. That’s their “checks and balances” – they do what they want until a judge says they can’t.
      A really crappy way to run government in my opinion.

  3. norman

    Make the idiots pay Janice…make em pay..

  4. Berdoo

    Another instance where Janice will take them to task. It seems to me that presence restrictions are a form of incarceration. It restricts freedom of movement. And I wonder if any incident that would prompt such a code has ever occurred in Irvine? And it smacks of the presumption of guilt. The days where government just made any code, regulations and such without a legal challenge is OVER! : ) Go ACSOL!

  5. The Static-99R Is A Scam

    Attorney Jeff Melching sort of looks like a crackhead Wal-Mart version of Jeff Bezos.

  6. 1st Amendment, too?

    Wouldn’t this also be a First Amendment issue for its blanket ban on the plaintiff being present in a traditional public forum? The plaintiff’s Freedoms of Speech and Assembly are both impacted.

  7. Bluewall

    had a funny thought… why am I being taxed for services that I can’t use.. no parks, no schools, I say I should get a large tax refund on this…

    • Will Allen

      I’ve thought that for decades. But I’m not sure how moral/correct it is.

      I pay more in taxes than most people in America earn. Then I have big government telling me that I can’t go to a park? Doesn’t seem right.

      But the flip side is – IF you did something illegal and wrong, how much did you cost society/government? I did some things wrong and I cost them a lot. Should we make People Forced to Register (PFR) pay for all the extra they have cost America? I bet each one cost piles. How much? Surely hundreds of thousands, yes? Any guilty PFR should have to pay for all of the law enforcement that investigated/handled the initial crime, attorneys, the judge’s salary, all costs of incarceration, all costs of any probation or parole, and IF the Registries were legitimate, all the costs of them, every year. It’s a lot of money.

      So I don’t know that the taxes argument works out very well. From what I understand, in America, about half of the people in the country don’t even pay ANY significant taxes. Some people pay piles. I don’t know that we can direct services based on that.

      Now, having said all that, I absolutely should be able to use anything that government pays any part of. Without question. Even something like dumbass Facebook. If Facebook tries to keep me from using their services then absolutely no government that I help pay for should be allowed to use it. That should be illegal.

      • David⚜️

        @ Will Allen: But for those of us convicted before the public registry, wouldn’t that be “Ex Post Facto” taxation? Besides, our law enforcement shouldn’t need to pursue charges in the United States as fanatically as they do. Look at most the countries of Europe – they don’t seem to have an overwhelming sex offender problem that America has developed for itself. So all this extra b******* that has been put in place is unnecessary, costly, and often counterproductive. America needs to rethink this insanity. Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t 30% of incarcerated individuals in correctional facilities as a result of sex offense charges? Whatever that is costing the US taxpayers is the decision of those taxpayers and their elected representatives. It’s their problem to fix.

        • Will Allen

          Yep, for sure that would be “ex post facto” taxation.

          But the whole idea is fairly interesting. We could make our laws such that if you did something wrong and were convicted, you had to pay for the whole thing. That could include being required to be listed on a big government Hit List for the rest of your life and required to pay $100/month to support/pay for that, adjusted for inflation of course.

          But if we are going to do it like that, then surely people who have paid more taxes should get credits for that. So, all in all, it doesn’t seem like that would work so well.

          I cannot agree that a person who pays taxes can be restricted from things that they pay for. Which is why I should not be restricted from the things that I pay my governments to put on Facebook.

          When I think about those types of restrictions, I just can’t help but think about what a sad, pathetic joke they are. The “people” who support them are just morons. As if I should be restricted from being in a park and some lifelong gang banger should not. It’s just too stupid for words. Which is how we know that the Registries aren’t really for public safety, protecting children, or the rest of their lies. The Registries are for harassment. That’s all.

          Make them pay. Wage war.

        • jm from wi

          @ Will
          “registries are for harassment… that’s all.”
          Correction registries are for political and monetary gain … that’s all

    • @Bluewall

      The maxim is “no taxation without representation.” You do have representatives to Congress, so you’re eligible to be taxed. Your ability or inability to vote doesn’t matter, either, because your representation isn’t tied to your ability to vote or your use of a benefit. In other words, there’s no such thing as “no taxation without being able to vote” or “no taxation without being able to use benefit X.” It’s not a pay-per-use system.

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 *

.