Law restricting where sex offenders can live is unconstitutional, L.A. judge rules

Before everyone jumps for joy, this is the trial court, and the decision will likely be appealed. With that said, the decision is very likely a solid one with all facts taken into consideration, and from comments below, the judge is very attuned to what makes the public safe, and what does not, and has made that his priority in the decision!

11-4-2010 California:

Saying sex offenders are being forced to choose between prison and homelessness, a Los Angeles judge issued an opinion this week blocking enforcement of provisions a state law restricting how close those offenders can live from parks or schools.

Superior Court Judge Peter Espinoza issued the 10-page ruling after four registered sex offenders petitioned the court, arguing that the legislation known as Jessica's Law was unconstitutional.

He said the court had received about 650 habeas corpus petitions raising similar legal issues, and that hundreds more were being prepared by the public defender's and alternate public defender's offices.

"The court is not a 'potted plant' and need not sit idly by in the face of immediate, ongoing and significant violations of parolee constitutional rights," Espinoza wrote.

Proposition 83, which is better known as Jessica's Law and was overwhelmingly passed by state voters in 2006, imposes strict residency requirements on sex offenders, including requirements forbidding them from residing within 2,000 feet of any public or private school or park where children regularly gather.

Before the law passed, those residency requirements were imposed only on offenders whose victims were children.

Civil rights attorneys have argued that provisions of the law make it impossible for some registered sex offenders to live in densely populated cities.

Nearly all of San Francisco, for example, is off-limits to sex offenders because of the number of parks and schools close to housing. Los Angeles officials also said that there are few places in the city where sex offenders can find housing that meets Jessica's Law requirements.

The California Supreme Court ruled in February that registered sex offenders could challenge residency requirements in the law if it proves impossible to avoid living near parks and schools.

State corrections officials said Wednesday that they could not comment on the specifics of Espinoza's ruling, but said they would continue to ensure residency restrictions are imposed in cases where there is a valid reason to continue enforcing them.

"There are other tools that the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation can and will continue to use to further public safety, including residency restrictions specific to each offender," said the agency spokesman Luis Patino.

In his opinion, Espinoza cited comments by Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck that the Jessica's Law restrictions had resulted in "a marked increase of homeless/transient registrants." The judge noted that in 2007, there were 30 sex offenders on active parole in the city of Los Angeles. By September of this year, that number had jumped to 259.

"Rather than protecting public safety, it appears that the sharp rise in homelessness rates in sex offenders on active parole in Los Angeles County actually undermines public safety." wrote Espinoza, who is the supervising judge of the Los Angeles County criminal courts. "The evidence presented suggests that despite lay belief, a sex offender parolee's residential proximity to a school or park where children regularly gather does not bear on the parolee's likelihood to commit a sexual offense against a child."

LAPD officials said they were reviewing the court decision and had no immediate comment on its specifics.

Last month, in a briefing for the Los Angeles Police Commission, Det. Diane Webb, who heads a unit responsible for tracking the whereabouts of sex offenders, said there are about 5,100 registered sex offenders living in the city.

Of those, about 20%, or approximately 1,020 people, are on parole for felony crimes and are prohibited by state law from living near a school or park where children gather, Webb said.

She said that some of the city's sex-offender population has come to Los Angeles from surrounding cities that have passed additional sex-offender laws that make it next to impossible for offenders to find a place to live and push them to look elsewhere, but that Los Angeles does not have any additional laws on its books, making it a feasible destination. ..Source.. by Andrew Blankstein

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

RI- Senate bill would ban sex offenders from venues used by children

Another hair-brain scheme to pigeon hole former sex offenders into Gerbil like runs to prevent seeing any child. Sorry folks, society was not made strictly for children, there and adults and they have the same rights as anyone else; violate them and the walls of Jericho (i.e., Megan's' laws) will come tumbling down. Its just a matter of time and these laws help the demise of Megan's law entirely.

5-26-2009 Rhode Island:

CRANSTON — So far there’s been no silver-bullet resolution of the controversy over housing convicted sex offenders at a local homeless shelter, but the public outcry has prompted one response — a possible change in state law.

Sen. Hanna M. Gallo, D-Cranston, has sponsored a bill that would make it a felony for anyone convicted of first- or second-degree child molestation to set foot in a playground, daycare center or school.

If adopted, the bill would amend a law the General Assembly adopted only last year, eliminating language that bars convicted sex offenders from living within 300 feet of a school because the restriction was recently found to be unconstitutional.

The 2008 law was challenged by former Central Falls City Council member Luis Gil, who pleaded guilty in February to two counts of third-degree sexual assault. Gil argued, among other things, that the restriction amounted to an unconstitutional taking of his property because he would have been forced to move. Superior Court Judge Joseph F. Rodgers Jr. agreed, writing in his decision that the residency restriction amounts to a taking “without just and adequate compensation.”

Gallo said her bill is not a solution to the issue of sex offenders staying at Harrington Hall — a homeless shelter that is about a quarter-mile from a playground and about a half-mile from the nearest school. But she said it at least sets limits that do not exist in the current law and should act as a deterrent.

“It will make it so that they really don’t want to because they will end up back in prison,” she said.

The bill calls for up to five years in prison and a fine of up to $5,000, if a convicted first- or second-degree child molester is found guilty of setting foot on one of the protected properties.

Word that sex offenders are staying at Harrington Hall, on Howard Avenue, spread last month as the police began notifying nearby residents and schools. But just how long sex offenders have been staying there remains something of a mystery.

Dennis B. Langley, president and CEO of the Urban League of Rhode Island, which runs the state-owned shelter, said in a recent interview that sex offenders have been there for years. But others, including City Council member Michelle Bergin-Andrews, have said it is their understanding that the number has gone up, from perhaps 2 or 3 to about 10. The police, meanwhile, decided recently that notifications were needed when offenders are staying at a homeless shelter, said Maj. Ronald T. Blackmar, but he was not sure what prompted the change.

Langley refused to answer follow-up questions about the shelter or another on Prairie Avenue, in Providence, which is also run by the Urban League and also known to house sex offenders.

A.T. Wall, director of the state Department of Corrections, said the Urban League is hired to provide “discharge services” for “high-risk” inmates who are being released, which means the agency deals with sex offenders.

“In most cases, they succeed in placing the sex offender with family, with a friend, or in some other arrangement,” he said. But when those options do not exist, the Urban League “may inform the offender that the option of a homeless shelter exists.”

While Langley refused to answer questions about Harrington Hall, he did stress that Urban League shelters are not the only ones that house sex offenders. Noreen Shawcross, head of the state office of Housing and Community Development, said homeless shelters, in fact, do not bar sex offenders, though appropriate precautions are taken at shelters that serve families with children.

“We don’t as a system exclude people, because we’re there to be the safety net,” she said. “So you will not find any wording anywhere that says we do not take sex offenders.”

Still, the presence of sex offenders at Harrington Hall has sparked an outcry, one that Jim Ryczek, director of the Rhode Island Coalition for the Homeless, said needs to be addressed through better community reentry programs for convicted offenders that provide treatment that minimizes the likelihood of repeat offenses.

The coalition has called on Governor Carcieri to address the matter through his Re-Entry Council.

“This issue is being painted as a homeless issue, but it’s not a homeless issue,” Ryczek said. “It’s a criminal justice reentry issue.”

Gallo’s bill is pending before the Senate Judiciary Committee. She has also sponsored a bill that requires the state to reimburse cities and towns for the cost of carrying out the state-required notifications when a sex offender lives in the area. That one is also pending before the Judiciary Committee. ..News Source.. by Randal Edgar, Journal Staff Writer

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

NY- State judge throws out Rockland's housing law for sex offenders

1-23-2009 New York:

A state Supreme Court judge sitting in Rockland today invalidated Rockland's law restricting where sex offenders can live.

Justice William Kelly, in an eight-page decision, found that state has specifically taken the responsibility for sex offenders.

Kelly also wrote the state law specifically empowers local probation officers to decide where sex offenders can live without any borders. He also cited a similar decision banning residency boundaries in New Jersey by a judge in the Garden State.

Kelly nullified Rockland's 2007 law. As the first decision on the pre-emption issue, Kelly's ruling becomes precedent and could nullify 80 similar laws across the state that establish some boundaries in which sex offenders cannot live.

In Rockland, for example, sex offenders were prohibited from living, working, and loitering within 1,000 feet of schools, day care centers, libraries or any facilities.

Kelly's decision would dismiss misdemeanor charges against up to 13 sex offenders living in prohibited areas.

Kelly ruled in a case involving Monsey residents Yoel Oberlander and Betzalel Dym, both of whom were charged in August 2007 with violating their probation and the county law.

Oberlander's lawyer, David Goldstein, raised the legal arguments. He said the 1,000 feet or any boundary is arbitrary and meaningless as far as protecting the public.

"The state law of letting probation officers use their discretion is more effective," Goldstein said. "The county law was an over-reaction with a nebulous 1,000-foot magical line."

He said Kelly's decision on the pre-emption issue has implications statewide and could overrule other residency laws.

County Executive C. Scott Vanderhoef said he would await County Attorney Patricia Zugibe's recommendation on whether to appeal. Vanderhoef said the county law is not workable and the state needs to take control of the issue and set standards.

The county has 30 days to file an appeal.

Zugibe said today she had not formulated a position yet and was reviewing Kelly's decision. She said that while Kelly's decision seems solid on the law, she said other judges could decide differently on similar cases before them.

"This is one court's decision," she said. "I can't be so presumptuous to know what other judges will be doing."

Rockland Legislature Ed Day, R-New City, who sponsored the county law, said today that he's disappointed in the decision but stands by the law. ..News Source.. by Steve Lieberman

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...