A lawsuit was filed today in U.S. District Court challenging the Halloween ordinance adopted by the City of Orange which requires “sex offenders” to post a sign on the front door of their residence. Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that the city ordinance violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and places “sex offenders” as well as anyone living with a “sex offender” at risk for physical and emotional harm.
“The City of Orange is the only city in California that requires registered citizens to post a sign on the front door of their residence,” stated California Reform Sex Offender Laws (CA RSOL) President Janice Bellucci. “A similar ordinance in the City of Simi Valley was successfully challenged in federal court last year.”
Federal District Court Judge Percy Anderson found in the Simi Valley case that “sex offenders” who were required to post a sign on the front door of their residence on Halloween, “are likely to suffer irreparable harm absent issuance of a temporary restraining order” (TRO).Judge Anderson issued a TRO in this case on October 29, 2012, which prohibited the City of Simi Valley from enforcing its sign requirement. The case was subsequently settled.
According to the City of Orange ordinance, any “sex offender” who refuses to post a sign on the front door of their residence is subject to a fine up to $1,000 and/or six months in jail. Imprisonment for violation of this ordinance would violate the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution which protects citizens from unreasonable seizures.
“Instead of protecting the residents of the City of Orange, this ordinance harms hundreds of citizens in that City,” stated Frank Lindsay, a CA RSOL board member.
“There are about 100 residents of the City of Orange that have been convicted of a sex-related crime and this ordinance violates their constitutional rights as well as the constitutional rights of their family members.”
There are no known sexual assaults upon children who trick or treat on Halloween. “Those convicted of sex-related crimes are notlikely to assault a child on Halloween or at any other time,” Bellucci added. According to a report issued by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation in October 2012, the rate of re-offense for a person convicted of a sex-related crime while on parole is only 1.9 percent.
The California Reform Sex Offender Laws organization is a non-profit organization dedicated to restoring the civil rights of individuals convicted of sex-related offenses. There are more than 100,000 people in the state of California who are registered as sex offenders and have been convicted of a wide range of offenses, including public urination,sexting, possession of pornographyand rape.
Current state law requires that those listed on the state’s registry will remain on the registry for theirlifetime. California is only 1 of 4 states in the U.S. that require lifetime registration for those convicted of a sex-related offense.
# # #
Note: The case number for the Simi Valley case is CV 12-8377 PA (VBKx) and copies of the TRO decision is available upon request.
It is very scary to think that my son (registered sex offender) who lives with me would have to post a sign on my property. I believe this is just asking for trouble. My son was 18 the victim 19. He is now 35 & no other “so” crimes since. He was at a party given by the victims mother. Mother supplied a keg of beer for these under aged kids. My son was “plastered”. The “victim” knowing this left the party with my son. Him driving. funny thevictims Mother was never at the trial. They had intercourse & 30 min later again when in the middle of it she said stop. He did not. And for the rest of his life will pay for it. Jobs are not as available for him. And the only places he can find to live are dumps. So he lives with me. My son got 10 years probabtion & 400 hours community service. He has never been the same since. He is judged by people, even in church. Very hard life. For me as well & his children. I just found this website & am thankful for all you do. God Bless you all.
As always, God Speed to you, Janice, and anyone else fighting these ludicrous laws!!!
Cynicism is the studied refusal to hope. So many RSO’s look at the onslaught of these laws (particularly in the election years) and become cynical. I refuse. These laws are wrong, unjust and un-American. I am hopeful that we can turn all of this around and return to sanity. That hope seems naive right now, but the only alternative is cynicism, and I won’t go there. RSOL gives me hope that we can take effective action.
These ordinances are so wrong on so many levels. It targets everyone who lives with a person who is registered. They are all put at risk of vigilante hostility.
Most disturbing and devastating are the children who are forced to live like this. Imagine for a minute that you are that child. Why should they have to endure this? What happens when they must face this at school, with their peers and in in their own neighborhood. Just thinking about this makes me sick to my stomach.
How can they have a normal life? They say these laws are designed to protect children, when they themselves damage thousands. Do our children not count?
I would rather go to prison than to put a sign on my door announcing to the world that my whole family wears the scarlet letter.
We have to fight these laws if not for the registrants themselves, but for all those children who are at risk of unknown consequences.
Surreal. I honestly forgot about this law. OMG, why would anyone be required to post a sign at their door? Lets be real. What if the murderer, gang member or drug dealer lived at the home your child was trigger treating? Geez. Unbelievable and totally stupid. Whats next? Marked sex offender cars? You have to have a computer chip implanted in you? Or, maybe paint your home a certain color? Who knows?
“are likely to suffer irreparable harm”
Well, isn’t just being on the list?
Good job, CA RSOL!
Does this suit challenge just the sign requirement or the other Halloween restrictions as well – like no decorations, no lights, no opening the door to kids, etc.?
I’m beginning to wonder who thinks of these laws? San Diego has been known to have done of the most stringent ordinances for sex offenders! Well, look what just happened to their mayor? So, let me get this straight? Certain sex offenders can’t travel unless first notifying law enforcement, some must post signs in front of their homes, some have posters plastered around the city warning people, some sex offenders are banned from livingvin certain areas of cities, the names and addresses of certain sex offenders are posted online for all to see, some sex offenders are prohibited from visiting libraries, parks, certain beaches and now we have city officials prohibiting sex offenders from participating in Halloween? Is this real? Furthermore, certain states require sex offenders to provide their email addresses/domains and they are either prohibited from having a facebook page or required to post they are a sex offender! If you read all of the above and really think, this is sick? I mean, it’s surreal! What’s next? Oh, some sex offenders even have sex offender printed on their licenses? This is crazy. You just get to a point and say, when is enough enough? I’m still in shock. Sex offenders are now being killed, beat up and their families are even targeted! How could anyone get a job with a sex offender license? The laws are wayyyyyyyy out of hand! What’s next! Computer chips? I believe that some sex offenders even have GPS ankle brackets for life? How can they travel? This is something out of a movie. What’s next? I mean, how far can you push someone. We now have homeless sex offenders! Omg! What’s next. You can’t visit a mall? Movie theater? Skate park? Think about it. A sex offender can’t visit the beach? What about McDonslds? Maybe you won’t be able to go out at night? Drive a car? Have children? Own a home? Must be tattooed? Shave head? Marry? You can’t visit a library? Omg. What about visit a bar? What if? What if? I no longer view city officials of police in the same manner! It’s really out of hand!
I would prefer thee case be decided on the federal Constitution, as it is being challenged. However, another point here is that this local ordinance would seem to be in violation of 290 itself!
290 specifically protects/exempts many lesser offenders, including all misdemeanants, from being revealed to the public (they are not posted on the Web or otherwise revealed) — this ordinance violates that. 290 also specifically bars notice to the local area of a particular registrant and specific location — absent some substantial and very serious concern of reoffense — which in the tiered system proposal certainly would have to be only someone in tier 3; this ordinance violates that section by revealing the specific location of everyone regardless.
I read all of your stories folks. In a few words I can say I am in a piece of all of them. except I am a life time criminal,frauds and general menace to society.But the lable I got is sexoffender. one offence, so long ago I don’t even remember that guy I was. I have been retired from all bad things since december 19,2005. thank you for your time.greg scot
Oh and I appoligize the topic. Great Job RSOL on the TRO. smart folks get smart Judges.Thank you. greg scott
HI, we are trying to obtain the court documents for this case and the other case in Orange County relating to the signage conditions. We have filed a similar case here in Northern Nevada and we would like to use these as precedent if possible.
We do have access to pacer, however, the case number does not come up as listed above.
Would you please refer us to the proper case numbers or send all copies of documents to the email listed for Nevadans for Civil Liberties.
Thank you very much. Great job and keep up the good work on all our behalf.