A sex offender ordinance adopted by the City of Orange is the subject of a lawsuit filed today in federal district
court. The lawsuit was filed after the City Council of Orange considered, but failed, to repeal its ordinance on June 10.
The City of Orange’s ordinance is broad and includes restrictions regarding where more than 105,000 individuals can be present. Specifically, the ordinance prohibits registered citizens from being present in or within 500 feet of a wide range of locations including the public library, schools, parks, swimming pools, bus stops and playgrounds. The Ordinance also prohibits registered citizens from staying in most hotels or motels within the city limits. A registered citizen who violates the ordinance is subject to incarceration for a period of one year and/or a fine of $1,000.
“The City Council members of Orange, with the exception of Mayor Smith, acted without courage or common sense when they failed to repeal an ordinance which violates both the federal and state constitutions,” stated CA RSOL President and attorney Janice Bellucci. “Those council members are wasting taxpayer dollars by ignoring recent relevant court decisions.”
The City of Orange ordinance is based upon the myth that the recidivism rate of convicted sex offenders is nearly half. The true rates of re-offense, according to state and federal government reports, are 1.8 percent for registrants on parole and 5.3 percent for registrants overall.
“The presence restrictions within the City of Orange’s ordinance are inconsistent with recent decisions of the California Court of Appeals which invalidated two ordinances – one by the City of Irvine and the other by the County of Orange – as being preempted by existing state law,” stated CA RSOL Vice President and attorney Chance Oberstein. “The court held that the state statutory scheme imposing restrictions on a sex offender’s daily life fully occupied the field.”
California SOL sent a series of letters to the City of Orange and more than 70 additional ciies in California starting on January 20 notifying them of the recent Court of Apeal decisions and that the sex offender ordinances the cities had adopted
were inconsistent with those decisions. California RSOL requested that the cities repeal their ordinances or face a potential legal challenge.
Subsequent to issuance of the California RSOL letters, a total of 26 cities have repealed or revised their sex offender ordinances. The cities include Anaheim, Costa Mesa, Galt, Laguna Hills, Santee and Tustin.
“Future legal challenges by sex offenders can be expected of cities that have fail to repeal or revise their sex offender ordinances,” stated Bellucci. “The lawsuit filed against Lompoc today is the twelfth in a series of such legal challenges.”
Following is a list of the first 11 lawsuits and the dates on which they were filed. All lawsuits have been filed in federal district court.
- Pomona – March 24
- South Lake Tahoe – March 31
- National City – April 8
- Carson – April 11
- Lompoc – April 21
- Sacramento County – April 30
- Santa Ana – May 7
- Wasco – May 15
- Ontario – May 21
- Stockton – May 27
- Taft – May 29
Related:
City of Orange’s Ban on Registered Sex Offenders in Parks Draws a Federal Lawsuit
Orange sued over sex-offender restrictions
Thank you !!!
The more laws that are remove the less stress RSO have!!
I was planning on going to a family function in Orange this Saturday and visiting with my 93 yo mother and family; but now I think I’ll stay away; it’s too uncomfortable and creepy knowing that one misstep in that town can land you in prison, and too many things can happen; like a flat tire close to a bus stop or one of the many other restricted locations, or getting pulled over because of the motorcycle I ride and the way I look next to a public library, school, parks, swimming pool, bus stops or playground. There’s too much at stake and I don’t have the time or desire to go to jail for a year. I don’t have $1,000 dollars either.
Thanks for your efforts Janice; it must be hard dealing with such ignorance and stupidity.
From the time I started parole, I avoided this city like the plague. They have the worst city in the worst county when it comes to how they deal with registrants.
I’m actually very shocked by this. I mean, a Judge has ruled against this prejudicial ordinance. I think that being the organization RSOL is, I would sue the City of Orange for damages. I would state or request $1,000 dollars for each day this ordinance remains in affect and use the proceeds for future endeavors. Lets send both a fair and respectful message to cities. They clearly believe they are above the court/legal system. We have to respect the laws! Why don’t they?
And then there are all the non SOs and those who support these ridiculous illegal “laws”, not realizing that their tax dollars are being spent. When they get sued, guess who will be paying. Hopefully, some people will realize that these so called laws do nothing but waste money and time that could be spent more wisely on much more important issues.
What a huge and costly legal blunder Tony orchestrated across virtually every jurisdiction in the county.
Thank goodness for the will and courage of Janice to take on this status quo network and bring sorely needed oxygen to the thousands of citizens gasping for at least a tinge of the air of freedom and justice.
Everyone needs to know that following Tony’s lead (and Runner’s) is a journey into the deep south of decades ago (if not centuries…)
One of the city councilmembers, Mike Alvarez, commented in the comments section (Facebook). I responded to him. I’m not sure if my own response was shown or has propagated yet.
Mike Alvarez
My response:
Eric Knight
Just a bit miffed at his cavalier attitude, I was.
*** link edited to full URL. No cloaked URLs, please. *** Moderator
We highly recommend that you listen to the Orange City Council discuss whether or not to repeal its ordinance. The discussion took only 10 minutes and included a statement by the City Attorney that the city was “legally bound to do so”. The council noted that they had already been threatened with a lawsuit if they didn’t change the ordinance. Most shocking was the council’s disregard for an appellate court decision in the same jurisdiction which determined that similar city ordinances are preempted by state law. Perhaps the council members didn’t learn in school about the separation of powers.