The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) has agreed to permanently eliminate on a statewide basis its requirement that registrants post a sign on their residences on Halloween. This agreement is the result of a lawsuit filed in 2015 by California RSOL and two individual plaintiffs in San Diego and Los Angeles.
“In the past, CDCR placed registrants they supervised and their loved ones in danger of significant harm, even death, by their requirement that registrants post a sign on their residence on Halloween,” stated ACSOL president Janice Bellucci. “This requirement applied not only to individuals who lived in houses and apartments, but also to individuals who lived in cars, tents and sleeping bags.”
As a result of CDCR’s agreement and two prior lawsuits, there is no requirement in the state of California that registrants post a Halloween sign on their residence. The prior lawsuits were filed against the City of Simi Valley in 2012 and the City of Orange in 2013.
“Past Halloween sign requirements were based upon the myth that registrants pose a danger to children on Halloween,” stated ACSOL vice president Chance Oberstein. “This myth has been debunked by several social scientists, who determined that no child has ever been harmed by a registrant on Halloween while trick-or-treating at a registrant’s residence.”
In the Simi Valley case, U.S. District Court Judge Percy Anderson granted a Temporary Restraining Order that stopped the city’s enforcement of its Halloween sign requirement. In his decision, Judge Anderson stated, “The public interest is not served — indeed, it is undermined — by enforcement of an unconstitutional law singling out a discrete, outcast group to speak in such a way that their persons, property, and loved ones may be endangered.
Judge Anderson also ruled, “Because the impact on the public of enjoining this section of the Halloween Ordinance (sign requirement) is likely to be negligible, the Court finds that a temporary restraining order is in the public interest.”
Although CDCR has agreed to drop its Halloween sign requirement, CDCR will continue other aspects of Operation Boo which prohibit registrants on parole from decorating the exterior of their homes, answering the door or handing out “treats” to trick-or-treaters.
these are the kind of wins that makes janice and team true heroes in the eyes of many..and despite the fact that I criticize her incremental tactics and question why her and her team will not file suit on the real issues doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate everything she and her team have done in this state….way to go janice and I still believe you and your team are intelligent enough and articulate enough to bring down the registry or at the least make the legislators completely overhaul the current scheme….that being said I want to know what your desired goals are and why you and your team will not file suit challenging validity of the smith v doe case in which the decision was based on lies and myths…right to reputation,right to travel and association, right to be free from unreasonable arbitrary oppressive official actions, right to equal protection, ex post facto as well as cruel and unusual punishment, these are all fundamental rights that almost all if not all the legal scholars claim are the real issues and which any reasonable mind would conclude….there’s no way that the government can justify keeping someone especially someone like Frank Lindsey on a registry so he would make the perfect plaintiff….so im still asking????????????????why??????
thank you so much for your answer Janice I really truly appreciate it and everything you do for us….
Beware of the clowns!
I hope these others that janice is talking about are effective intelligent and as articulate as Janice’s team is or the attorney’s that won the residency restrictions case in Taylor here in cali and I hope they bring up the real issues and don’t screwww us for any future arguments..
at least I finally got some kind of answer from janice it’s a start in the right direction…
Operation Boo is just a huge joke IMO. My boyfriend, up until 3 yrs ago, was a subject of CDCR’S Operation Boo clown circus. On one occasion during my BF’S parole, CDCR actually had the nerve to bring a news camera crew to our home. They interviewed me and I had some not so nice things to say about the scam CDCR was playing. Of course the news media did not air my interview, as it did not fit the pro law enforcement narrative of the segment. Moral of story: don’t trust the media.
As always, as usual, Janice et al are behind this further restoration of our rights as human beings. Much love Janice and Team.
I believe the judge’s conclusion compares to our IML very well! it brings forth many of the conclusions we seek in IML.
1. We’ve been assigned a class: the outcast group (also referred to in the recent 6th circuit decision as marginal and fringe).
2. compelled speech: the entire argument around the unique identifier on passports
3. As in the 6th decision there is no public interest served, alternatively it is undermined, as in the 6th re: the reversed effects to recidivism by exclusion zones.
4. Loved ones, innocent bystanders, citizens and family members of registrants being placed in harms way as well. Now that’s people never convicted of a crime having their rights stripped away just by virtue of being related or married to a registrant!
Says Judge:
“The public interest is not served — indeed, it is undermined — by enforcement of an unconstitutional law singling out a discrete, outcast group to speak in such a way that their persons, property, and loved ones may be endangered.”
Thank YOU Janice & Team and The Board.
That Judge Andersen had stated so coverall, that we hope Janice can use in future cases why or how
the Court may see us not as destitute but Human and ALWAYS singled out. They wonder why we are
always paranoid. May be to long term RC’s this will never be the case again in Cali PERIOD now with the TRO in place.
Thanks for the updates!
My new P.O. has banned me from Craigslist because , in his words ” there is the possibility of picking up underage girls advertising in the personals”. Is this the biggest crock of shot ever. I was convicted of c.p. and I have been on probation for 1.5 yrs. with two previous P.O..s not having a single issue. This wasn’t even on my probation orders. Can they do this. It affects my ability to look for work and put my resume out. Maybe this is a way to catch me in a violation? Anyone got opinions I would appreciate.
Rialto still has there Ordinance that all sex offenders on or off parole must not open the door and pass out candy and can not have decorations out. I told them last year they could not in force this because I was not on any parole and they say yes its it for everyone.
What i want to know is. Living in Santa Clara. The task force told my girlfriend that she can’t hand out candy. Even though i personally stay in bedroom watching TV. Can they so this. Conviction occured in the early 80’s
CDCR = California Department of Corruption and Retribution
I was under the impression we aren’t able to decorate or pass out candy. Is that no longer the case and we’re free to do so? I live in Anaheim Hills and my probation ended in 2001.