PARENT CHALLENGES SCHOOL DISTRICT POLICY ON REGISTERED SEX OFFENDERS IN CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT

2-21-17 California:

A California resident who is required to register as a sex offender due to an offense committed more than 27 years ago and who is also the parent of an elementary school student, filed a lawsuit on February 15th in the California Supreme Court challenging a Ventura School District policy that prohibits him from transporting his child to and from the classroom, as well as from participating in any school activities such as parent-teacher conferences, plays, concerts, and graduation ceremonies.

“The school district policy at issue violates the state and federal Constitutions on numerous counts and is inconsistent with existing state law,” stated attorneys Dennis Riordan and Janice Bellucci. “In addition, the policy harms a child who is being denied parental support at academic and athletic events.”

The petition for writ of mandamus was filed in the California Supreme Court because it raises issues of great public importance that should be resolved promptly. The writ alleges that the school district policy violates the petitioner’s substantive and procedural due process rights provided by the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article 1, Section 7, of the California Constitution.

In addition, the writ alleges that the school district policy is inconsistent with several existing state laws, including CA Education Code Section 51101(a) which allows parents to visit schools for many reasons, including participation in school activities.

Another existing state law (CA Penal Code Section 626.81) allows parents who are required to register as
sex offenders to visit a school provided they have a lawful purpose and obtain written permission in advance. The petitioner in this case sought such permission, but has been arbitrarily denied entry onto his child’s campus for any reason. As a result of the District’s ban, the petitioner must maintain such a distance from the school that his young child must walk alone a dangerous distance on a public thoroughfare to get to school. Source: Press Release
Alliance for Constitutional Sex Offense Laws
Janice M. Bellucci, Executive Director
ACLU Building – 1313 W. 8th Street
Los Angeles, CA 90017
(805) 896-7854

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Child Sex Offenders Will Get Warning Stamp On Passport

A child is a person who is under 18 according to federal law (AWA).

9-28-16 California:

A federal judge said the rights of registered sex offenders are not violated because of a stamp on their passports that alert foreign governments of the offender's past crimes.

Seven registered sex offenders sued he federal government over the stamp issue, but U.S. District Court Judge Phyllis Hamilton of Oakland said the group hadn't proven they would be hurt by the practice, which is a result of the International Megan's Law, which warns foreign governments of registered sex offenders entering their countries.

"The court finds that plaintiffs have failed to establish standing, because they have not alleged a certainly impending injury fairly traceable to the International Megan's Law provisions that they challenge, or which is redressable by the relief sought in the first amended complaint," Hamilton wrote, according to Courthouse News Service. "Because the passport provisions are not yet in effect (and the procedures have not been finalized), plaintiffs cannot show a certainly impending injury."

Hamilton added: "Plaintiffs speculate regarding the possible impact of a passport identifier, suggesting that individuals carrying such passports will be at risk of harm from unknown third parties. Such speculation cannot provide a basis for challenging the statute when the identifier provisions have not even been implemented. Because it is unknown what form the identifier will take, or any of the other details previously discussed, plaintiffs cannot show that they will suffer hardship if the court withholds review."

Janice Bellucci, an attorney for the plaintiffs, all of whom filed anonymously, said her clients would be put in danger when traveling to foreign countries.

“Our U.S. federal government is telling other countries that the person they’ve just marked on the passport is likely to engage in child sex trafficking or child sex tourism,” Bellucci said, according to SF Gate.

One of the plaintiffs said he needed to travel to Iran to claim an inheritance, but the stamp could put his life in danger. And Bellucci said she believes the court's ruling is essentially waiting for that to happen before reconsidering the protocol.

"You have to wait until somebody travels to Iran and they're murdered because their passport has been stamped," she said.

But Hamilton said a factual statement is not an opinion of character and shouldn't necessarily be considered a disparaging remark of that person.

"It is not the speech of the passport holder that is at issue, any more than the speech of the holder of a government-issued identification card is at issue with regard to identifiers such as name, date of birth, height, weight, or eye color,” the judge wrote. ..Source.. by Ray Brown

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Judge rules against sex offenders in challenge to new federal law

9-26-16 California:

A Bay Area federal judge says the rights of registered sex offenders will not be violated by a new U.S. law that will stamp their legal status on their passports to notify the governments of countries they visit.

The statute, known as the International Megan’s Law and signed by President Obama in February, was largely directed at sex traffickers. It requires the State Department to mark the passports of all registered offenders who have been convicted of sex crimes involving minors.

If sex traffickers is the real focus of the law, then the application to ALL convicted of crimes related to minors, including romeo and juliet type offenses, is misdirected; typical political way of further punishing former offenders!

Seven unnamed sex offenders challenged the law, saying it would place them on an international “blacklist” and expose them to harassment and physical harm for past offenses that had nothing to do with sex trafficking. One man said he would probably be killed when he returns to his native Iran to receive an inheritance if his passport bears a sex-offender stamp.

On Friday, Chief U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton of Oakland said the offenders’ lawsuit was premature because the State Department has not yet adopted regulations to implement the law. But Hamilton also said the law, when it takes effect, will be a legitimate measure to protect children from sexual exploitation.

The government has an interest in “preventing U.S. persons from committing acts of sexual abuse or exploitation in other countries and in facilitating cooperation with and reciprocal notifications from other countries” whose residents travel to the United States, Hamilton said.

She noted that the U.S. government already notifies any foreign country where a registered child sex offender plans to travel, and issued 2,100 such notifications last year. Stamps on passports lets host countries know when an offender changes previous travel plans, Hamilton said.

The plaintiffs also argued that the law unfairly stigmatizes offenders whose crimes may have been committed decades ago. While California requires most convicted sex offenders to register for life, most other states drop the requirement if an offender can show rehabilitation after a certain number of years. The federal law, however, would require passport stamps for those offenders as well.

But Hamilton said the U.S. Supreme Court “has already found that any stigma associated with convictions for sex offenses is a product of the sex offenders’ prior conviction and cannot be attributed to sex offender registration and notification laws.” ..Source.. by Bob Egelko

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Judge dismisses lawsuit over sex offender passport marker

Clearly the mark violates U.S. Supreme court precedent set in Wooley v Maynard 430 U.S. 705 (1997) which held that the government cannot force someone to PHYSICALLY carry the government's message. Passports will be carried by the person they are issued to, which have the "unique identifier" on them.

UPDATE 9-23-16: See message from Janice Bellucci

UPDATE 11-15-16: Notice of Appeal Filed in IML Case

9-23-16 Washington DC:

A lawsuit challenging a law that requires a marker to be placed in the passports of people convicted of sex offenses against children is premature because the marker provision is not yet in effect, a federal judge said Friday in a ruling dismissing the suit.

U.S. District Court Judge Phyllis Hamilton said it was also not clear yet who would be subject to the passport identifier and what form the identifier would take.

The Department of Justice has said the passport identifier provision of the International Megan's Law will not go into effect until officials have developed a process for implementing it, submitted a report to Congress and taken other steps.

President Barack Obama signed the legislation in February. It also requires that other countries are notified that registered sex offenders are traveling there.

The DOJ says the law attempts to address cases where people evade such notifications by traveling to an intermediate country before going to their final destination.

Opponents of the marker have called it a "Scarlet Letter" that would wrongly imply that passport holders had engaged in child sex trafficking or child sex tourism and subject them to danger.

Janice Bellucci, the attorney challenging the law, said she plans to file another lawsuit in a different district court.

"It really is our goal to prevent anybody's passport from being marked with a conspicuous, unique identifier," she said. ..Source.. by SFGate

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Obama Just Signed a Really Bad Criminal Justice Law

2-9-16 National:

After months of hype about the historic bipartisan consensus that we must make the American criminal justice system less harsh, President Obama finally signed a justice reform bill into law Monday. There’s only one problem: Instead of making the justice system more fair and less punitive, the new law will make it more vindictive and petty. Specifically, it will require people who have been convicted of sex crimes against minors to carry special passports in which their status as registered sex offenders will be marked with conspicuous identifying marks.

The point of International Megan’s Law, in the words of its House sponsor Chris Smith of New Jersey, is to prevent “sex tourism” by making it harder for people to “hop on planes and go to places for a week or two and abuse little children.” In addition to the passport stamp, this goal is supposed to be achieved through the formation of a new federal unit inside of Immigration and Customs Enforcement called the “Angel Watch Center,” which will inform foreign governments when American sex offenders have made plans to visit their countries.

You might be thinking that sounds like a good idea—a wise precaution that promises to prevent confirmed perverts from victimizing more people. But like the domestic sex offender registry it’s based on, the law is premised on a profound and consequential misunderstanding of how sex crimes against minors are usually perpetrated. Though it’s understandable that parents are concerned about “stranger danger,” the most recent data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics indicates that the vast majority of sex abuse victims are attacked not by strangers hunting for prey, but by family members and other acquaintances.

Chart in Original:

The other myth the new law perpetuates is that people who commit sex crimes are much more likely than other types of criminals to recidivate and find new victims after they’ve been released. A BJS report shows that insofar as that’s true, we’re still talking about a tiny percentage of people: According to the findings, just 5.3 percent of the 9,691 released sex offenders in the study sample were rearrested for a sex crime within three years of their release. Among male child molesters specifically, recidivism appears to be even lower: of the 4,295 male child molesters in the sample, just 3.3 percent were rearrested for another sex crime against a child within three years of their release.

It’s difficult to understand, in light of these findings, how making it harder for sex offenders to travel internationally is going to help reduce the frequency of child sex abuse. What will the new law achieve instead? Further marginalization of a group of people that Democrats and Republicans alike apparently consider to be deserving of permanent social exile and never-ending suspicion.

To state the obvious, it's hard for many people to summon much sympathy for sex offenders, and that is perfectly understandable. However, it’s crucial to remember that the category includes all sorts of people, including those who were placed on the registry when they themselves were children. Here’s how Rep. Bobby Scott put it in a statement on the House floor in which he expressed his opposition to the idea of marking sex offenders’ passports with a special indicator:

The failure of this provision to allow for the individualized consideration of the facts and circumstances surrounding the traveler’s criminal history, including how much time has elapsed since his last offense, underscores how this provision is overbroad. Details such as whether the traveler is a serial child rapist versus someone with a decades-old conviction from when he was 19-years-old and his girlfriend was 14 … are significant, and would allow law enforcement to more appropriately prioritize their finite resources.

Scott also argued that “it is simply bad policy to single out one category of offenses for this type of treatment,” noting that “we do not subject those who murder, who defraud the government or our fellow citizens of millions and billions, or who commit acts of terrorism to these restrictions.” ..Continued.. by Leon Neyfakh

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

SEX OFFENDERS FILE LAWSUIT CHALLENGING INTERNATIONAL MEGAN’S LAW

2-9-16 National:

A lawsuit was filed today in U.S. District Court, Northern District, San Francisco Division, challenging International Megan’s Law, which requires the Secretary of State to add “unique identifiers” to the passports of American citizens. The law requires federal agencies to notify foreign countries that American citizens will be traveling to their country.

“For the first time in the history of our country, a Scarlet letter will be added to the passports of American citizens,” stated CA RSOL President Janice Bellucci. “Today the Scarlet Letter will be used to punish sex offenders. Tomorrow the same or a similar letter could be used to punish Muslims, gays and/or drunk drivers.”

President Obama signed the International Megan’s Law bill into law on February 8, only four days after the White House received it. Congress passed the bill on February 1.

“Congress failed to provide adequate attention to this historic legislation when it passed the law by voice vote and without substantive discussion or debate,” stated Bellucci. “The process used for the vote – suspension of the rules – was an abuse of a Congressional rule that is supposed to be limited to noncontroversial bills, not historically significant bills like International Megan’s Law.”

The original version of HR 515 was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives on January 26, 2015. The U.S. Senate amended the bill on the Senate floor on December 17, 2015, by adding the passport provisions.

“The citizens of this nation should be afraid, very afraid, that a unique identifier will be added to their passports,” stated Bellucci. “Only Nazi Germany and Communist Russia have marked the passports of their citizens in this way and that was done decades ago. “

Passports today are used as a primary form of identification as well for entry into a foreign country. A passport symbol that identifies an individual as a registered sex offender could place at significant risk that person as well as others traveling with them, including family members and business colleagues.

“The notification provisions of International Megan’s Law will harm thousands of Americans who have been declared by a state to be rehabilitated and are no longer required to register as sex offenders,” stated Bellucci. “The federal government in such cases will substitute its judgment, which will not be based upon an investigation of an individual, for the judgment of a state government that has conducted such an investigation.” by Press Release

CONTACT:
California Reform Sex Offender Laws
Janice Bellucci, President
ACLU Building – 1313 W. 8th Street
Los Angeles, CA 90017
(805) 896-7854

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Editorial, Feb. 4, 2016: Passport marking for sex offenders would achieve nothing

2-4-2016 National:

There’s a lot that Congress is unwilling or unable to do, but it still can achieve one thing — finding a heavy-handed solution in search of a problem.

Republicans and Democrats have sent a measure to President Obama’s desk calling for special marks to be placed on the passports of sexual offenders against juveniles so that, maybe, somehow, it will allow other countries to do something — maybe turn travelers away. So then what happens? They come back home, probably.

There’s so much wrong with this intrusion into civil liberties that it’s hard to know where to start.

Some advocates have suggested that this scarlet letter on a passport will somehow curtail sex trafficking, but we’ve seem no statistical backup to support the theory.

It’s almost impossible for an immigration official of another country to determine what kind of offense the traveler has committed. That’s because some prosecutors have sought convictions with so much zeal that they have classified, say, a 19-year-old who had sexual relations with a 16-year-old in the same category as a serious, multi-timer offender who may be truly dangerous.

We agree that sexual offenders against juveniles should be punished for their crimes, but that doesn’t mean that they should forever be hounded and harassed. What’s next, marking passports for those with drug convictions? Burglaries?

Not every person convicted with a sex crime is the same. That’s why we have public trials, parole and probation. And we hardly trust a far-off government agency at the passport office to make decisions on who gets the special passport marking and who doesn’t.

Similar bills have been proposed in the past and have been widely rejected. President Obama should veto it this time.

Like other crimes, there’s a wide difference among offenders. We agree that there are some sexual predators who should be watched by probation officials even after they’re released from custody

But there are those whose likelihood of committing another crime is quite low. Law enforcement officials will tell you that they watch some registered sex offenders a lot more closely than others.

That’s the problem with one-size-fits all government actions like this passport gambit. We see no result of this policy that would protect anyone in any way. Does Congress really think that putting a mark on a passport would stop even one case of sexual assault?

We have no sympathy with those who prey on children. We agree that offenses should be aggressively prosecuted. But that doesn’t mean that a permanent black mark on every offender’s passport would achieve anything. ..Source.. by Monterey County Herald

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Bill to mark sex offender passports raises ire of criminal justice advocacy group

2-4-16 National:

Critics threaten to sue if made law

A criminal justice advocacy group is prepared to sue the federal government if President Obama signs into law a measure requiring child-sex offenders to be identified as such on their passports — a move they say is as hypocritical for a president pushing for broad criminal justice reform.

The House and Senate this week resolved differences in versions of the bill, known as the “International Megan’s Law,” which is meant to make it harder for pedophiles to travel abroad. The final version requires that individuals convicted of sex offenses involving minors obtain a “unique identifier” on their passports that would alert immigration authorities in other countries of their prior convictions.

“This is the first time in the history of our country that any American citizen will have a unique identifier on their passport,” said lawyer Janice Bellucci, who as the president of the group California Reform Sex Offender Laws has brought prior lawsuits challenging sex offender laws. “Who is the next group? Is it going to be Muslims if Donald Trump becomes president?”

Though the White House has not yet indicated whether Mr. Obama intends to sign or veto the law, Ms. Bellucci said her organization is preparing to mount a legal challenge if it is adopted.

“We believe it violates so many constitutional rights of our citizens, we just cannot ignore it,” she said.

The measure was sponsored by Rep. Chris Smith, New Jersey Republican, who has been pushing for the legislation for eight years. If signed into law by Mr. Obama, the legislation would also require any registered sex offender planning to travel abroad to inform law enforcement officials at least 21 days in advance; authorize a division of Immigration and Customs Enforcement to notify destination countries of those offenders’ intended travel; and to allow for information sharing with other countries to identify foreign nationals who are sex offenders planning to travel to the U.S.

“It is imperative and long overdue that the United States take the child protection lessons it has learned domestically with the successful notification systems first created by Megan’s Laws and expand them globally to prevent convicted U.S. sex offenders from harming children abroad,” said Mr. Smith in a statement released Monday following the passage of the law.

The law is named for Megan Kanka, a 7-year-old New Jersey girl who in 1994 was sexually assaulted and killed by a convicted sex offender who lived across the street from her family.

Over the last decade, lawmakers and courts have had a mixed take on sex offender laws. Several states, including Florida, Oklahoma and Louisiana require sex offenders to obtain a special driver’s license that identifies them as such. Meanwhile restrictions on where offenders could live have been struck down by courts in California, Massachusetts and New York.

Given the commitment that both Congress and the president have professed over the last year for criminal justice reform, advocates see the passage of the federal sex offender law as backsliding.

For 29-year-old Josh Gravens, who said he was placed on the Texas sex offender registry for an incident that occurred when he was 13, the stigma has already led to bouts of homelessness and trouble keeping a job. He fears that a “scarlet letter” on his passport will only marginalize him further when he travels.

“I believe that if the president really means what he says about criminal justice, he will veto the bill,” said Mr. Gravens, who through his advocacy group Organize Justice, has pushed for broad criminal justice reform. “And I’m watching with anticipation that he keeps his promises.”

An official from the State Department, which would oversee the passport demarcation, declined to comment Wednesday on the legislation.

But according to a 2010 Government Accountability Office, the State Department in 2008 issued 4,500 passports to sex offenders of all categories. The State Department noted at the time however that there was “no evidence that the offenders used their passports to commit sex offenses abroad.” ..Source.. by Andrea Noble is a crime and public safety reporter for The Washington Times. She can be reached at anoble@washingtontimes.com

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Bill Would Make It Harder for Sex Offenders to Travel Abroad

Clearly this violates U.S. Supreme court precedent set in Wooley v Maynard 430 U.S. 705 (1997) which held that the government cannot force someone to PHYSICALLY carry the government's message. Passports will be carried by the person they are issued to which have the "unique identifier."

2-1-16 Washington DC:

Registered sex offenders who have committed crimes against children will have a harder time traveling internationally under legislation Congress has sent to the president's desk.

The House passed the legislation by voice vote Monday after Senate passage in December. If signed by the president, the U.S. would let other countries know when a registered sex offender is traveling abroad. The United States would work with countries to receive information about sex offenders traveling here.

The State Department would also develop a way for U.S. passports to identify that a person is a sex offender.

Republican Rep. Chris Smith of New Jersey sponsored the legislation and has been pushing for it for eight years. It expands on a law that requires public notification of sex offenders in the United States. ..Source.. by Mary Clare Jalonick

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

The yellow star, the scarlet letter, and ‘International Megan’s Law’

See also: Labeling sex offenders’ passports is overkill

1-7-2016 National:

When I was growing up, in a Jewish family in Brooklyn in the 1950s, Hitler and the Holocaust were common subjects of conversation in my household. Though at the time it all seemed like ancient history — along with the Civil War, the Black Death, the fall of Rome, and everything else that had ever happened before I was born — I realized, when I became an adult, that to my parents and their generation it must have seemed as though it had happened the day before yesterday.

I remember asking my dad, when he had been talking about the roundup of the Jews and the infamous “yellow star,” a simple question that deeply puzzled my 7-year-old brain: How did the Germans know who to round up? How did they know who was, and who wasn’t, Jewish? My own family wasn’t observant in the least — we didn’t go to synagogue, or celebrate the Jewish holidays, I didn’t go to Hebrew School, etc.; so if they were rounding up all the Jews in Brooklyn, how would they know about us?

And I vividly remember his reply: They knew it because in Germany, they recorded your religion on your birth certificate, and on all your other important government documents (ID card, passport, etc.). [I’m not sure that that was entirely accurate — but it does capture the substance of the matter***]. And, he reassured me, we — here in the United States — don’t allow that sort of thing.

I was reminded of all that by a provision in a statute that recently sailed through the House and Senate: “International Megan’s Law” (IML for short), ostensibly designed to “prevent child exploitation and other sexual crimes through advanced notification of traveling sex offenders.”

The statute (full text here) requires the secretary of state to affix a “unique identifier” on all passports issued to “covered sex offenders” — a “visual designation affixed to a conspicuous location on the passport indicating that the individual is a covered sex offender.” A “covered sex offender” is anyone previously convicted, at any point in his/her life, for a sex offense involving a minor.

It is, as far as I can determine, the first time in U.S. history that any such special designation will appear on the passports of any U.S. citizens, and I think it should send at least a small chill down all of our spines. Not to overdo the analogy, but it does call to mind Martin Niemoller’s famous dictum (“First they came for the communists . . .”). It is part and parcel of a dispiriting and disheartening campaign (on which I have commented a number of times in the past — see e.g. here, here and here) piling punitive disability upon punitive disability — not just public shaming, but also restrictions on residency locations, employment, Internet use, etc. — on this particularly despised class. ..Continued and worth reading.. by David G. Post is a Sr. Fellow at the New America Foundation's Open Technology Institute. He taught intellectual property/Internet law at Georgetown and Temple Universities, and is the author of In Search of Jefferson's Moose: Notes on the State of Cyberspace. Views expressed are his own and should not be attributed to his affiliated institutions.

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Janice’s Journal: Tenacity Results in Victory in Carson

12-4-15 California:

Our tenacity paid off! More than 18 months, 3 lawsuits and 2 protests later, the City of Carson has repealed its presence restrictions.

In a vote of 3 to 0, the City Council decided to rid the City of Carson of its presence restrictions which both violated state law and denied the civil rights of more than 100,000 individuals.
This important vote was taken despite a proclamation in 2014 by a member of the City Council to “declare war” upon registered citizens.

This important vote was taken because we did not give up. Instead, we showed up, we stood up and we spoke up – in the courts and in the streets of Carson.

First, we challenged the city’s ordinance in federal court alleging that the ordinance violated the U.S. Constitution and was preempted by state law. In good faith, we later entered into a Settlement Agreement with the City that specified the City would revise its restrictions and we would dismiss the lawsuit. We dismissed the lawsuit, however, the City reneged and refused to revise its restrictions.

The City Council attempted to justify its position by claiming that the City Manager lacked authority to bind the City despite a provision in the agreement stating that he had such authority. The City Council subsequently fired the City Manager.

Members of the City Council replied to the second lawsuit in state court as well as in the court of public opinion. That is, they postured before city residents during Council meetings by speaking out loudly and angrily about the lawsuit as well as about appellate court decisions which determined that similar laws adopted by other local governments were preempted. During those meetings, Council members acknowledged they were aware of the courts’ decisions and proclaimed they would not abide by them because they disagreed. ..Continued.. by CA-RSOL

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Suit alleges California database violates law, prompted attacks

See earlier story: Registrants sue CA DOJ — Demand improvements to, or end of, Megan's Law Website

11-16-15 California:

An advocacy group is challenging California in a controversial lawsuit over a public sex offender database, claiming the state’s inaction has led to the fatal attacks of four individuals.

The lawsuit, filed on Nov. 10 by a pair of registered sex offenders and the advocacy group California Reform Sex Offender Laws, alleges that Attorney General Kamala Harris and the state’s Department of Justice have repeatedly failed to adequately update a website established to publish the names and locations of offenders, in violation of state and federal law. Now, they’re asking that a judge compel the state to fully revise the site, or shut down the database until the changes can be made.

The complaint charges that roughly 92 percent of offender profiles on the site “lack either the year of conviction or the year of release, or both, among other errors and omissions,” even though the department already has the necessary information to update the profiles.

The suit claims that the incomplete profiles prompted attacks on offenders by providing their exact locations without accurate information about the nature and recency of their convictions. It also argues the deficiency is in violation of a 2006 state law that stipulated that the site be completely updated by 2010. Additionally, the plaintiffs allege that the department is violating federal law by accepting federal funds to overhaul the database and then failing to do so.

The suit also claims that the department has “expended substantial taxpayer funds to modify and change the format of the website in trivial ways” yet still failed to address the outdated offender information.

“The real irony or the stupidity or extreme sadness of the situation is they have the information,” Janice Bellucci, president of the advocacy group, told StateScoop. “For whatever reason, one part of the agency can’t seem to communicate that information to the other part, which, quite frankly, is not our problem. Except they’ve made it our problem.”

Bellucci noted that her group wrote a letter to the department about these issues back in October 2013 and engaged in “informal talks” with state workers, but those efforts ultimately led nowhere.

“They never even bothered to reply to our letter,” Bellucci said. “At that point they were three years late, now they’re five years late, and it was just the time to take action.”

A department spokeswoman didn’t return multiple requests for comment on the suit’s claims.

As evidence of the detrimental effects of the website’s “incomplete and erroneous” information on offenders, the suit cites the cases of seven different people attacked based on their profiles on the database, including the two plaintiffs. The complaints includes descriptions of one offender who was killed after he was “stabbed 58 times” and another who died after he “was attacked by a stranger lying in wait who stabbed him more than 70 times.” The suit alleges that a lack of information about their release dates were factors in seven attacks, including four that were fatal.

Roy Matagora and Frank Lindsay, the plaintiffs in the suit, charge that they’ve not only been attacked as result of similar incomplete information on their profiles, but that it’s also made it incredibly difficult for them to find housing or employment.

Mark McBride, a defense attorney and certified criminal law specialist in California, believes the approach of drawing a direct line between the attacks and the database is a unique one.

“I don’t see them asking for any money, which makes it unique,” McBride said. “You have people taking a principled approach who are considered sex offenders.”

He questioned whether there was enough evidence for the complaint to hold, suggesting the state would likely argue, ” ‘Even if we didn’t do it correctly, we didn’t know it would lead to vigilantism.’”

Beyond the question of connecting vigilante violence to the site’s deficiencies, McBride said the suit’s claims present an “interesting double jeopardy” conundrum for the court to consider.

“These people have served hard time, and then their punishment continues,” McBride said. “They’re functionally banished from our society. We lock them up, and then when they get out, apparently that’s not good enough.”

Bellucci hopes to see the situation resolved as quickly possible for that exact reason. While the filing of the suit could spur the department into action, she expects not to see any results until a judge weighs in.

“They’ve haven’t been doing what they should be doing for so long that it’s hard to be optimistic that they’re going to, all of a sudden, wake up and say ‘Wow, we should do the right thing,’” Bellucci said. ..Source.. by Alex Koma

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Registrants sue CA DOJ — Demand improvements to, or end of, Megan's Law Website

There is more to this story: See Lawsuit: California breaks the law on sex offender website

11-10-15 California:

California Reform Sex Offender Laws (CA RSOL) and two registrants today will file a lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court requesting immediate changes to, or in the alternative, the ending of, the state’s Megan’s Law website. The request is based upon the failure of the California Department of Justice (CA DOJ) to comply with a state law that required the agency to add conviction and release dates to individuals’ profiles on that website by 2010.

“The California Department of Justice continues to act illegally and in violation of state law,” stated CA RSOL president and attorney Janice Bellucci. “The agency has failed to meet a legislative mandate to correct the Megan’s Law website and that failure has resulted in several deaths as well as homelessness and unemployment for thousands of California residents.”

Roy Matagora, a plaintiff in the case, is one person who has suffered and continues to suffer due to the agency’s failure to comply with state law. Matagora is a recent victim of vigilante violence who was shot twice on September 21 by a neighbor who told police that he shot Matagora because he is a “sex offender”. The Megan’s Law website profile of Matagora lacks both the date of his conviction and the date of his release.

“The combination of an individual’s current photo and home address as well a lack of information regarding when he was convicted can be lethal,” stated attorney Chance Oberstein. “Unfortunately, the public often jumps to the conclusion that the conviction took place recently even though it may have occurred decades ago.”

About 92 percent of the profiles on the Megan’s Law website lack the year of conviction and year of release, according to the lawsuit. In fact, the older the conviction is, the less likely it is that the date of conviction appears on an individual’s profile.

“California DOJ is acting unlawfully and irresponsibly,” stated Bellucci. “They have put, and continue to put, at risk of significant harm, the lives of more than 50,000 individuals. The lack of this information disguises the fact that these individuals are unlikely to commit a subsequent offense. According to the Outcome Evaluation Report released by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) in July 2015, the rate of re-offense is less than one percent.”[1]

And according to Dr. Karl Hanson, a renowned international expert regarding the re-offense rate of registrants, a registrant who has not committed a subsequent offense in 17 years is no more likely to commit an offense than an individual who has never done so.[2]

[1] See CDCR Outcome Evaluation Report, page 30.
[2] See California Sex Offender Management Board report, “A Better Path to Community Safety”, dated April 2014, page 16. ..Source.. by CARSOL

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Court Strikes Down Residency Restrictions for Some Sex Offenders

A much clearer explanation of In re Taylor. Also California justices void blanket ban on where sex offenders can live which construes both of Monday's decision. and CourtHouse News Sex-Offender Housing Limits in CA Overturned and Jurist California Supreme Court finds blanket sex offender residential limits unconstitutional and latest Mercury News editorial: Sex offender decision by California court is right

3-3-15 California:

The California Supreme Court ruled today that a voter-approved ban that bars paroled sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a school or park is unconstitutional when applied to areas where it is virtually impossible to find housing that meets the requirement.

The restrictions were part of an initiative approved by state voters in 2006 as Proposition 83, sometimes known as Jessica’s Law in memory of a Florida girl who was raped and murdered by a convicted sex offender.

The unanimous ruling by the high court in San Francisco applies specifically to San Diego County, but the reasoning is expected to extend to other urban counties, including some in the Bay Area, where there is little rental housing not within 2,000 feet of a school or park.

“It definitely will apply in other counties,” said attorney Donald Specter of the Prison Law Office in Berkeley.

“The problem (of finding housing that met the restrictions) is prevalent in many counties throughout California. The court has found that the law places an unreasonable burden on parolees and actually hinders rather than promotes public safety,” Specter said.

The state Supreme Court ruled in a lawsuit filed by a group of registered sex offenders in San Diego County. It upheld similar decisions by a Superior Court trial judge and state appeals court.

Justice Marvin Baxter wrote that the trial judge found the restrictions barred paroled sex offenders from 97 percent of the rental apartments and low-cost residential hotels that would otherwise be available to them, and that the remaining 3 percent was not necessarily available for reasons such as high rents and reluctant landlords.

As a result, the law has led to greatly increased homelessness among sex offenders in San Diego County and greater difficulty for authorities in supervising them, Baxter said.

“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 services,” Baxter wrote.

At the same time, the enforcement has hampered “the efforts of parole authorities and law enforcement officials to monitor, supervise and rehabilitate them in the interests of public safety,” he said.

“It has thus infringed their liberty and privacy rights, however limited, while bearing no rational relationship to advancing the state’s legitimate goal of protecting children from sexual predators,” the court said.

The decision strikes down “across the board” application of the restrictions to all paroled registered sex offenders in San Diego, but notes that parole authorities have the power to impose special conditions, including residential restrictions, on individual parolees.

Other state laws not affected by the ruling prohibit paroled sex offenders from entering a school or day care facility without permission or entering any park where children regularly gather if the offender’s victim was under 14, the court said.

Proposition 83 co-author and former state Sen. George Runner, who is now a member of the state Board of Equalization, criticized the decision.

“Today’s California Supreme Court decision could allow a child molester to live across the street from a school or park where children gather. It puts San Diego families at risk and sets a dangerous precedent for the rest of the state,” Runner said.

Runner, then a Republican state senator from Antelope Valley, and his wife Sharon, then a Republican assemblywoman, co-authored Proposition 83, entitled the Sexual Predator and Control Act.

In addition to establishing the residency restriction, the law increased penalties for sex offenders, extended parole for some offenses and prohibited probation for others. ..Source.. by Julia Cheever

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

California Sex Offender Residency Restrictions Decision

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 live

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?

3-2-15 California:

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

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Sex offender laws loosened

1-10-2015 California:

Man convicted of lewd conduct sued cities across the state

Three cities in San Diego County repealed their laws restricting sex offender access to city parks and schools last year, and one is still working to resolve a lawsuit filed over the now defunct rules.

La Mesa, Santee, National City and more than 70 other cities across the state received letters last Spring warning them they could be sued if they didn’t rescind their rules barring registered sex offenders from certain city spaces.

The warnings came from registered sex offender Frank Lindsay, of San Luis Obispo County, and his attorney, Janice Bellucci, after two decisions by the 4th District Court of Appeal said such local rules are pre-empted by state laws.

National City — the only local city actually sued — was the last of the three to repeal its ordinance, and did so unanimously on Dec. 2. Bellucci said she is trying to recover $12,000 of Lindsay’s legal fees from the city.

Both National City and La Mesa’s rules prohibited sex offenders “from being on or within three hundred feet of a public or private school for children, a center or facility that provides day care or children’s services, a video arcade, a playground, park, or an amusement center.”

The La Mesa City Council unanimously repealed its ordinance in August.

Santee’s rules, repealed in June, banned loitering within 300 feet of those same places, but said incidental proximity was OK.

“Those ordinances were out there and it really had a chilling effect on those on the registry,” Bellucci said. “Unfortunately we had a bunch of over zealous elected officials saying, ‘No you can’t go to the dog park. No you can’t walk on the pier. There weren’t any signs there, so people who were trying to comply with the law couldn’t, so they just didn’t go anywhere.”

National City Mayor Ron Morrison said repealing the ordinance “was done with great reluctance and they (council members) wished we could leave it on the books. We were just given no choice.”

“The more tools my law enforcement has in its toolbox, the safer I feel,” Morrison said. “If law enforcement is aware of an individual who has a history of being predatory toward children, and they recognize him and see him in the middle of our park right now, they can’t do anything, even though he has no business there.”

Bellucci ended up suing 26 cities and counties statewide after the appeals court rulings.

Twenty-one agencies have settled — including the cities of Santa Ana, Orange and Westminster — each repealing or amending its ordinance. Bellucci said they have each paid $2,500 to $25,000 in Lindsay's attorney fees.

Up next: Morrison said city officials are now working to find a legislator to sponsor a new law that gives cities more leeway to regulate serious offenders.

Meanwhile, Bellucci is working to get new state Legislation drafted to create a new tiered registry system that allows some offenders to exit the registry after 10 or 20 years of good behavior, also taking into account how serious the offense was.

Lindsay, 62, was convicted in 1979 of lewd and lascivious acts with a child under 14. ..Source.. by Ashly McGlone

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

December Oral Arguments Related to Residency Laws

11-8-2014 California:

Two CA cases will hold Oral Arguments in December, related to residency laws, they are:

People v. Mosley(Steven Lloyd), S187965 (justice pro tempore to be assigned)#11-07 People v. Mosley (Steven Lloyd), S187965. (G038379; 188 Cal.App.4th 1090; Superior Court of Orange County; 05NF4105.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal modified and affirmed a judgment of conviction of a criminal offense.

This case presents the following issue: Does the discretionary imposition of lifetime sex offender registration, which includes residency restrictions that prohibit registered sex offenders from living “within 2000 feet of any public or private school, or park where children regularly gather” (Pen. Code, § 3003.5, subd. (b)), increase the “penalty” for the offense within the meaning of Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466, and require that the facts supporting the trial court’s imposition of the registration requirement be found true by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt?

Taylor (William) on Habeas Corpus, S206143 (justice pro tempore to be assigned)
#13-04 Taylor (William) on Habeas Corpus, S206143. (D059574; 209 Cal.App.4th 210; Superior Court of San Diego County; HC19612, HC19731, HC19742, HC19743.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed orders granting relief on petitions for writ of habeas corpus.

The court limited review to the following issue: Does the residency restriction of Penal Code section 3003.5, subdivision (b), when enforced as a mandatory parole condition against registered sex offenders paroled to San Diego County, constitute an unreasonable statutory parole condition that infringes on their constitutional rights? (See In re E.J. (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1258, 1282, fn. 10.)

Thanks to HeadsUp from CA-RSOL Janice

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Sex-crimes convict says registration has ruined his career, endangered his life

10-12-2014 California:

Frank Lindsay lives a relatively quiet life in the San Luis Obispo County city of Grover Beach. For 35 years he’s kept out of trouble, but his one conviction in 1979 for lewd and lascivious acts with a child under the age of 14 continues to haunt him: He is required to register as a sex offender in California for the rest of his life, which has permanently branded him. He is limited in where he can live and where he can go due to restrictive state and local laws, which Lindsay said have also endangered his life.

“We stopped burning witches a long time ago, but this is very similar to that,” said Lindsay, 62, who co-authored a book titled “We’re All In This Together” about his challenges and experiences as a registered sex offender.

Today, Lindsay is the public face of a crusade to reform sex-offender laws throughout California. He and Santa Maria-based attorney Janice Bellucci have forced dozens of cities, through litigation, to repeal or revise ordinances restricting the movement of registers sex offenders in the community in the wake of an appellate court ruling that determined ordinances in Orange County and the city of Irvine cannot be more stringent than state law.

Bellucci is president of California Reform Sex Offender Laws, an affiliate of the national organization. Lindsay serves on the nonprofit’s board of directors.

“I, as a registrant, can’t travel anywhere without being in fear of being in violation of some city’s ordinance,” Lindsay said. “It makes it virtually impossible for me to go anywhere in the state and be comfortable knowing I’m not going to be arrested for some city’s obscure law on where I’m supposed to be.”

In their battle for the civil rights of convicted sex offenders, Bellucci and Lindsay are also trying to get California’s lifetime registration requirement for sex offenders changed to a tiered-registry system like those in 46 other states, which allow some offenders to be removed from the registry over time, depending on the severity of their offense.

In April 2010, a man trolling the Megan’s Law database, later identified by police as 24-year-old David Jordan Griffin, obtained the home addresses of Lindsay and another sex offender off the Megan’s Law website and paid a visit to their homes, according to Lindsay and published news reports.

Lindsay said he returned home to find Griffin standing in his dining room, a framing hammer in one hand and a 3-pound sledge hammer in the other.

Griffin attacked Lindsay, who backed out his front door and tumbled backward over a stair railing during the struggle. Lindsay said he shielded Griffin’s blows with his hand until a neighbor came to his aid and scared Griffin off.

Police arrested Griffin later the same day after he robbed a Chevron gas station and led police on a foot pursuit before a pursuing officer shot him in the leg. Both Lindsay and the other unnamed sex offender identified Griffin as their assailant, according to Lindsay and published news reports.

If any convicted sex offender deserves a second chance at life, it is Lindsay, said Bellucci, who read Lindsay’s book and was so moved by his story that she became a staunch advocate for the rights of sex offenders, forming the California chapter of Reform Sex Offender Laws three years ago and asking Lindsay to serve on its board of directors.

“He’s had a clean record for 35 years now; it doesn’t seem to make any difference because he keeps being punished,” Bellucci said.

San Bernardino County Supervisor Gary Ovitt, a strong supporter of strict laws governing the residency and movement of convicted sex offenders and who was pivotal in the shaping and evolving of his county’s sex offender ordinance, said the various laws in place in California, including Megan’s Law, are beneficial despite their unintended consequences, which he said should also be addressed.

“I think we still need to have Megan’s Law and have that information online to protect families and children,” said Ovitt. “And if a person uses that information for illegal purposes, that person should be prosecuted.”

In cases like Lindsay’s, Ovitt said he was open to re-examining the lifetime registration requirement.

“If someone has gone three decades without offending, I think we need to look at that again,” Ovitt said. “Perhaps they should not be subject to the same, rigid structure that we place on other predators.” ..Source.. by Joe Nelson

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

SPECIAL REPORT: Pair seeks repeal of sex-offender laws in California

10-12-2014 California:

A crusading civil rights attorney and a registered sex offender have partnered in a legal battle that has prompted dozens of California cities to repeal or revise what the pair believe are unconstitutional ordinances restricting the activities of sex offenders.

Since March, Santa Maria attorney Janice Bellucci and Frank Lindsay, a 62-year-old water-treatment specialist from Grover Beach and registered sex offender for 35 years, have filed 18 lawsuits in federal court challenging ordinances in cities from Stockton down to National City.

To date, Bellucci has settled 15 of the lawsuits, while 38 other cities have avoided litigation by agreeing to repeal their ordinances. Six other cities have voluntarily suspended enforcement of their ordinances, while ordinances in another 18 cities are still under review.

“The way I look at it is that I’m protecting the Constitution of the United States as well as the state of California,” said Bellucci, president of California Reform Sex Offender Laws, a nonprofit she launched three years ago as an affiliate to the national Reform Sex Offender Laws organization.

While Bellucci believes she’s fighting for the rights of oppressed sex offenders, others say she’s endangering the state’s youth.

“As an elected official and as a mother, I’m concerned about the health and safety of our young people who don’t have a voice,” said Carson Councilwoman Lulu Davis-Holmes. Carson is one city sued by Bellucci that plans to fight the lawsuit.

“Our kids did not make the choice to be molested,” Davis-Holmes said. “I personally think we need to do more to protect those who cannot protect themselves,”

Bellucci’s flurry of lawsuits was prompted by a 4th District Court of Appeal’s decision in January that found sex offender ordinances in Orange County and the city of Irvine cannot impose restrictions more stringent than state law, which only restricts sex offenders who are on parole and whose victims were under the age of 14 from visiting public parks without the express permission of their parole agent.

In addition to the suits she filed with Lindsay, Bellucci has filed two lawsuits on her own, challenging ordinances in Canyon Lake and Commerce. Those complaints do not name Lindsay as a plaintiff because ordinances in those cities do not apply to sex offenders whose convictions are as old as Lindsay’s.

In April, the state Supreme Court declined a petition by the Orange County District Attorney’s Office to review the appellate court ruling, leaving it intact.

The appellate court ruling, coupled with the spate of litigation initiated by Bellucci, could have a major impact on the lives of California’s 107,913 registered sex offenders, roughly 14 percent of the nation’s 774,600, as cities and counties are forced to either repeal their ordinances or make them uniform with state law.

“It has had a tremendous chilling effect on all registered sex offenders within the state of California and their families,” Bellucci said of the ..Continued.. by Joe Nelson

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Civil rights activist group sues South Pasadena over ‘arbitrary and discriminatory’ sex offender ordinance

9-11-2014 California:

SOUTH PASADENA >> A civil rights activist group filed a lawsuit against South Pasadena this week, alleging the city’s sex offender ordinance strips “a socially outcast minority” of their First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

Attorney Janice Bellucci, president of the California Reform Sex Offender Laws organization, called South Pasadena’s Title 20E-1 through 20E-10 municipal code arbitrary and discriminatory. The regulation was passed in 2009.

“It doesn’t make sense at all,” she said. “It gives people a false sense of security. Over 90 percent of sexual assaults upon children are committed by family members, teachers, coaches, members of the clergy and also the Boy Scouts.

“People need to get over the emotional reaction they may have to the label of sex offender and start thinking calmly about, one, who are the sex offenders and, two, that they’re not the people of primary concern for your children. You need to be looking in a different direction.”

The lawsuit, filed Tuesday in federal district court, opposes a South Pasadena ordinance that prohibits registered sex offenders from being present or living within 300 feet of public libraries, parks, bus stops, schools and commercial establishments that have a children’s playground. Violators may be arrested for up to six months or fined up to $1,000.

The lawsuit alleges South Pasadena’s sex offender ordinances apply only to sex offenders registered in California; out-of-state visitors are exempt from compliance. It says the city doesn’t have signs stating where sex offenders can’t go or reside, so there is no due process. Finally, it accuses South Pasadena of forcing non-sex offenders from abiding by the same regulations as sex offenders if they travel with or live with those individuals.

South Pasadena hasn’t been served with the lawsuit yet, but City Attorney Teresa Highsmith said she received a courtesy copy of it. Highsmith said she must consult the City Council before any decisions are made.

Since March 24, the California Reform Sex Offender Laws nonprofit has filed 17 similar lawsuits against places such as Pomona, Ontario, Santa Ana and Sacramento County, Bellucci said. About half of the cases have been settled with the governmental bodies either repealing their ordinances or significantly revising them, Bellucci said.

“By virtue of prohibiting registrants from residing within 2,000 feet and physically being anywhere in public within 300 feet of numerous current and future ‘protected locations’ throughout the City of South Pasadena, the ordinances effectively render the city off limits to registrants without reason or cause,” the complaint says. “The ordinances therefore accomplish a traditionally recognized but unconstitutional goal of banishment and do not serve any legitimate government purpose.”

In a letter dated Feb. 24, City Manager Sergio Gonzalez told Bellucci South Pasadena would not enforce the city’s sex offender ordinance, yet on Monday Randy Allen Wolf, a 37-year-old registered sex offender who lives in Los Angeles, was arrested for loitering in Garfield Park.

Tipsters called South Pasadena police to report a suspicious man who was taking photos in the park. Police didn’t find pictures of children on Wolf’s cell phone, yet he was still jailed and bail was set at $500.

Gonzalez declined to comment because of pending litigation.

Although Wolf spurred the lawsuit, he isn’t the plaintiff. The real issue is how sex offenders are treated by the City of South Pasadena, Bellucci said.

Less than 1.8 percent of registered sex offenders return to prison because they committed a new sex crime, according to a 2013 California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation report.

There are some dangerous people on the sex offender registry, but Bellucci said a person who was caught streaking in high school, a teenager who took a nude selfie or someone who relieved himself on the side of a freeway because of a bladder problem — all these people would also be included in the sex offender registry.

The California Penal Code places restrictions on registered sex offenders but allows local ordinances to further restrict these individuals’ residency. ..Source.. by Zen Vuong

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...