See Also: (Key: Note voice of CSOMB Member) Jessica’s Law sex offender buffer zone struck down and Housing Restrictions For Sex Offenders Unconstitutional, California Court Rules and California court rules San Diego sex offender law unconstitutional and California Supreme Court rules blanket sex-offender residency restriction fails rational basis review and State Supreme Court overturns sex offender housing rules in San Diego; law could affect Orange County, beyond and Court Nixes Key Part of Sex Offender Law; Authors Cite Danger and Court Rejects Blanket Sex Offender Restrictions and Housing limits on sex offenders rejected and California Supreme Court Overturns Sex Offender Residence Restrictions and California court rules against sex offender law application and Court: No blanket enforcement of sex offender law and California Supreme Court rejects blanket ban on where sex offenders can live3-2-15 California:
Another decision today by the same court People v Mosley, a very narrow decision on one specific question, is making this difficult to understand in the broader context. We need lawyers to construe the two decisions to make this all make sense.
CA-RSOL has this to say: The California Supreme Court has spoken but what have they said?
From the In re Taylor decision:
As will be explained, we agree that section 3003.5(b)‟s residency restrictions are unconstitutional as applied across the board to petitioners and similarly situated registered sex offenders on parole in San Diego County.
Blanket enforcement of the residency restrictions against these parolees has severely restricted their ability to find housing in compliance with the statute, greatly increased the incidence of homelessness among them, and hindered their access to medical treatment, drug and alcohol dependency services, psychological counseling and other rehabilitative social services available to all parolees, while further hampering the efforts of parole authorities and law enforcement officials to monitor, supervise, and rehabilitate them in the interests of public safety.
It thus has infringed their liberty and privacy interests, however limited, while bearing no rational relationship to advancing the state‟s legitimate goal of protecting children from sexual predators, and has violated their basic constitutional right to be free of unreasonable, arbitrary, and oppressive official action.
Nonetheless, as the lower courts made clear, CDCR retains the statutory authority, under provisions in the Penal Code separate from those found in section 3003.5(b), to impose special restrictions on registered sex offenders in the form of discretionary parole conditions, including residency restrictions that may be more or less restrictive than those found in section 3003.5(b), as long as they are based on, and supported by, the particularized circumstances of each individual parolee.
Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeal. ..Source.. In re Taylor 3-2-15