CA Supreme Court Hears Challenge To Residency Restrictions

The California Supreme Court heard a challenge to the state's sex offender residency restriction law. The plaintiffs in the case are four sex offenders who were found living within 2,000 feet of place where children gather (such as a park, school, or day care center) and who were told that they must move within 45 days. The Contra Costa Times has more. A decision is expected within 90 days. From the San Jose Mercury News:

The state Supreme Court on Tuesday is considering whether the residency restriction contained in Proposition 83 is so broad and intrusive that it violates the constitutional rights of registered sex offenders. Under the law, critics say, many sex offenders cannot find a place to live in urban areas across the state and are effectively forced into homelessness.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a strong backer of Proposition 83, is defending the law, along with the state Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, which has largely been responsible for enforcement through its parole units. The administration's lawyer declined to comment but in court papers has defended the law's constitutionality.

Jessica's Law, however, has been openly questioned for its effectiveness, even in the law enforcement community, and also for its legality. More than 20 states have adopted similar provisions, with courts taking a mixed view of whether they pass legal muster. Most courts, including two federal courts in California, have found the laws cannot be applied retroactively to sex offenders who committed their crimes and were released from prison before the laws were passed.

Earlier this year, California's Sex Offender Management Board, which includes many law enforcement officials, urged changes in Jessica's Law and found that the residency restrictions were counterproductive, particularly because of a surge in offenders declaring themselves transients, making it even harder to track their whereabouts.

I think the California case could be important in the overall scheme of residency restriction law. While some courts have found problems with residency restrictions, most of the rulings have been quite limited (either by being based upon statutory grounds or constitutional issues that did not invalidate the entire statutes). California will certainly be the most high profile state that has had its highest court review such laws. If the court issues a definitive ruling against the restrictions, it might have a wider effect.

Comments

[Ted BROOKS]

my situation beats the 4 men currently in the supreme court. my offense indecent a+b,was from 20 years ago, in ma., now in ca.,incarcerated on a theft charge i'm told to register upon release, oh and that house you own, you can't live there, because of that school.my crime didn't involve a child, and it was before j. law, ex post facto issue right. to make it even more ridiculous, ind. a+b, was taken off the list in ca., reg. offences in 2005. now i sleep in my truck every night, hey arnold, do you really believe i'm not still being punished for the 1989 offense someone please help! ted

[Ted BROOKS]

If there's an attoney who see's the help i need, please call ted 7075417115 ted brooks

[Ted]

I'd like to add another twist to my story,I'm Ted who had the previous comment.My PAROLE officer who is irritated because I've voiced my opinion, has recently told me to leave my girlfriend of six years house by 10:00pm every night and don't return until 6:00am, or risk being violated.The've already had me sent to san quentin two times for ridiculous reasons where I was quickly released by a commissioner who saw the pettiness of the complaint.(you wonder why the prisons are full)?The recent so called violation was a low battery signal from my bracelot, not a dead battery but a low battery. I was arrested brought to quentin, the whole thing took 2-weeks before I was released. Tax $ well spent huh.

[Just Me]

Hey Ted,

You are so right about this. My husbands offense was with his 1st wife while they were going through a messy separation in 2005, long before Jessica's Law and since he served time in prison for a probation violation technicality, he is now stranded in the county of his arrest. He CAN go to a park or a school he just cannot sleep near one. We have children that he is allowed to be around but he cannot come home because he cannot cross county lines and we have a park within 2000 feet of our home. He is staying with a relative and when I go see him with our kids, he cannot spend the night at a compliant hotel with us because he has to sleep at the home that has been approved as his residence yet he has no curfew.
This law makes no sense to anyone I have spoken to and we are all keeping our fingers crossed that the judges will see how this is a punitive and retroactive and is destroying families and lives. I see you posted your number so do expect a phone call from me.