1-11-18 California:
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — A group representing sex offenders sued again Thursday to challenge a law that requires a marker to be placed in the passports of people convicted of sex offenses against children.
Attorney Janice Bellucci filed the lawsuit in federal court in Los Angeles on behalf of her nonprofit organization, the Alliance for Constitutional Sex Offense Laws, and two California sex offenders.
Opponents of the marker have called it a “Scarlet Letter.”
Former President Barack Obama signed the law in 2016 to comply with a provision of the International Megan’s Law, which seeks to curb child sex tourism and exploitation.
“Never before has this nation stigmatized a class of individuals on a document so foundational to U.S. citizenship,” reads the lawsuit.
A San Francisco-based federal judge dismissed an earlier version of the lawsuit in 2016 because the rules were not yet in place.
The State Department said in October it would start using a notice printed inside the back cover of the passport book that reads: “The bearer was convicted of a sex offense against a minor, and is a covered sex offender pursuant to (U.S. law).” ..Continued..
January 13, 2018
Group sues over passport marker for sex offenders
October 8, 2017
City fights complaint over sex offender residency restrictions
10-8-17 California:
A registered sex offender is claiming the city’s residency restrictions are unconstitutional.
Martin Weiss filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief on August 2 in the Central District Court of California. The 16-page complaint claims Claremont’s sex offender residency restrictions, which were adopted in January 2010, violate the Fourteenth Amendment and constitute banishment from the city. Mr. Weiss wants them declared null and void.
The city filed a response on September 29 seeking to dismiss the complaint with prejudice and demanding a jury trial.
The focus of the suit is Claremont municipal code title 9, chapter 9.82, which restricts sex offenders from residing within a “residential exclusion zone,” which means anywhere within 2,000 feet from a K-12 public or private school, park and/or child care center. According to the complaint, there is virtually no place for a sex offender registrant to live in Claremont, due to the city’s restrictions.
Additionally, the ordinance prohibits a registrant from “renting or otherwise occupying” a single-family home, multi-family home or a hotel anywhere in the city, if another registrant is also at the same dwelling, unless they’re related by blood, marriage or adoption.
“The exclusion zone basically says if you’re on a registry you can’t spend a single night in a hotel in Claremont,” Mr. Weiss’ attorney, Janice Bellucci, said in a phone interview. ..Continued..
August 8, 2017
Federal Lawsuit Challenges San Diego's Sex Offender Residency Restrictions
8-8-17 California:
A federal lawsuit was filed Monday saying San Diego's residency restrictions for convicted sex offenders are unconstitutional and in violation of state and federal laws.
The San Diego City Council voted 5-4 last week to keep the city's Child Protection Act despite the potential for a lawsuit.
Under the ordinance, a registered sex offender convicted after April 13, 2008, is not allowed to live within 2,000 feet of a school, park, playground, library, day care, amusement center or arcade.
The City Council was asked by San Diego City Attorney Mara Elliott to rescind the ordinance saying it could lead to a lawsuit against the city. Elliott said 97 percent of registered sex offenders in the area are unable to find a place to live because of the ordinance's restrictions. ..Continued..
July 24, 2017
Teacher convicted of having sex with her student suing teenage boy for defamation
7-23-17 California:
A 36-year-old teacher convicted of having sex with a person under the legal age of consent in California is suing the student she slept with for defamation.
Tara Stumph, who is currently serving a 180 day sentence for having sex with a 16-year-old student, says that statements made by the young man hurt her reputation and her career.
Her victim defamed her “to various classmates, family and other members of the community,” Stumph alleges in her lawsuit, local media reports say.
She started her sentence on 1 May.
Stumph was named alongside her former employer, the Lucia Mar School District, in the lawsuit brought against her by her victim’s family. She pleaded no contest to the charges in April. The next hearing in her civil case is scheduled for October.
Her teaching licence was revoked following her conviction, but she won’t have to register as a sex offender after leaving prison.
Her lawsuit is seeking indemnity — or protection against financial burden or judgements — from all charges related to the case. That includes any injuries she may receive from the school, financial burdens of the lawsuit, and any civil damages.
Stumps will be on probation for four years following her release from prison, during which time she will be subject to specialised counselling and periodic polygraph tests. ..Continued..
March 8, 2017
Sex offender sues Ventura school district
3-8-17 California:
A registered sex offender who committed his crime 27 years ago has sued the Ventura Unified School District over a district policy that forbids him from taking his child to and from her elementary school.
The Ventura man's lawyers said they took the unusual step of filing the suit directly with the California Supreme Court "because it raises issues of great public importance." The suit seeks a court order directing the school district to rescind the policy.
The district's general counsel, Anthony Ramos, did not respond to messages seeking comment.
But private attorneys representing the district in the case are asking the Supreme Court to deny the lawsuit on grounds that it should have been filed in Ventura County Superior Court.
"However important the issue may be to petitioner, he has not and cannot establish any statewide importance at this juncture so as to warrant immediate intervention by this (Supreme) Court," they wrote in their response to the lawsuit.
The plaintiff is identified in the suit only as John Doe for the protection of him and his young daughter, his lawyers said.
His suit, filed Feb. 15, says that the district's policy also prohibits him from participating in any school activities such as parent-teacher conferences, plays, concerts and graduation ceremonies.
Violates due process?
The suit alleges that the policy violates the plaintiff's due process rights under both the California Constitution and the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
"The due process clauses ... protect the fundamental right of association between parents and children, which includes the right of parents to participate in and to direct the education of their children," the suit states.
The policy is also inconsistent with state law, said the plaintiff's attorneys, Janice Bellucci, executive director of the Alliance for Constitutional Sex Offense Laws in Los Angeles, and Dennis Riordan, who is based in San Francisco.
The lawsuit notes that state Penal Code Section 626.81 makes it a misdemeanor for a parent who is a registered sex offender to enter school grounds without "lawful business" and "written permission" from the school.
But "that section does not grant authority to school officials to deny access to school grounds to parents" who are registered sex offenders, the suit states. ..Continued..
March 7, 2017
Sacramento hit with $5 million verdict in lawsuit saying wrong man was arrested for Internet child sex abuse
3-7-17 California:
A Los Angeles man charged in an Internet child-sex-abuse case in 2011 and held for six months before the charges were dismissed has won a $5 million civil suit against the city of Sacramento and its police department, the man’s attorney said Monday.
The jury verdict in federal court in Los Angeles came after a five-day trial in a case in which attorney Jeff Dominic Price accused the police of fabricating evidence, malicious prosecution and violating his client’s civil rights.
“I asked for $100,000 for the arrest and for the first few days in custody, and then I asked for them to award many, many times that for the rest of the incarceration,” said Price, a Santa Monica attorney who said the jury came back after about six hours with an award of $5,005,000.
Sacramento City Attorney James Sanchez said city officials disagreed with the verdict and might contest it in court.
“We are disappointed in the verdict and believe there is no reasonable basis for the size of the damage award,” Sanchez said. “We are reviewing all our options including appeal of the decision.”
Price said the case stemmed from a case of mistaken identity and actions by police that missed obvious signs there was a problem with their case.
The plaintiff, identified in court papers only as “J.N.,” was arrested after Sacramento police began an investigation into a 2011 complaint from the mother of a 12-year-old Sacramento girl who was being contacted by men on Facebook and being asked to disrobe in front of a webcam while one performed sex acts on himself.
The girl was using a laptop she had gotten for Christmas and communicating with the suspects in a “Tiny Chats” site associated with Facebook, court documents state.
One of the men had a Facebook page under the name “Pater Noster,” which is Latin for “Our Father,” court papers state.
Sacramento police Detective Heather Hendrickson ran the last name through police records and located a man with that name and a criminal history, court papers say.
Police obtained a photo of that suspect and presented it and five others in a photo lineup to the girl in March 2011. The girl pointed to the picture of the suspect and said “he is too skinny, the guy that I saw was much chunkier,” court papers say. After a few more seconds she added, “That kind of looks like him,” and Hendrickson told her to draw a circle around the picture, court papers say.
The lawsuit filed against the city said Hendrickson submitted a search warrant affidavit that omitted the fact that the girl said the suspect was “too skinny” to be the man she saw on camera.
Court papers also say Hendrickson went to the FBI for help on the case and an agent told her he would subpoena Facebook for information on the “Pater Noster” account. The FBI soon determined that the account was being logged into from a device in Vienna, Austria, but Hendrickson didn’t find that out because “she did not follow up with the FBI,” court papers say.
The suspect was arrested Aug. 15, 2011, in front of his Los Angeles home and brought to Sacramento, where he was charged with seven felony counts.
The suspect told Hendrickson he had not committed the crimes and that he was not on Facebook, the lawsuit said. Police seized his computer and later found “no Facebook account registered on the hard drive” and no evidence that there ever had been a Facebook account used on the computer, the lawsuit states.
In February 2012, the girl was brought in for an in-person lineup that included the suspect, but she did not recognize any of the men, the lawsuit said. A few days later, charges in Sacramento Superior Court were dismissed, online records show.
Price said in the lawsuit that his client “suffered pain, fright, fear, embarrassment, humiliation, loss of liberty, as well as mental, emotional and physical injuries.”
“He still has adverse effects from this because people are aware that he was charged with that offense,” Price added in a telephone interview Monday after the verdict. “He’s doing a lot better, he’s working.”
Price also said that the girl, now 17, “has been adversely affected by the whole situation,” and that the man who committed the crime has never been found. ..Source.. by Sam Stanton
January 14, 2017
Adelanto sued over sex offender residency rules
1-14-17 California
The city's 2006 ordinance, according to the suit, restricts sex offenders from living within a 2,000-foot radius of any child day care center, public park, school, bus stop or transit stop.
ADELANTO - A federal lawsuit challenges the city's residency restrictions for registered sex offenders, concluding that the local ordinance's exclusion zones "cover virtually all residential property within the city" and are more stringent than rules by similar municipalities.
Filed Dec. 8 in U.S. District Court by Sacramento-based attorney Janice Bellucci, the lawsuit claims Adelanto's local law violates the 14th Amendment, which ensures due process and equal protection of law, and is unconstitutionally vague.
The suit was filed on behalf of Kirk Clymer, a sex offender who "resides in geographic proximity to the City of Adelanto and is in search of a permanent residence."
Adelanto spokesman Michael Stevens said the city could not comment on litigation matters.
The city's 2006 ordinance, according to the suit, restricts sex offenders from living within a 2,000-foot radius of any child day care center, public park, school, bus stop or transit stop. Its effect, Bellucci said, is amplified because the city's inhabited areas are highly concentrated in comparison to its borders.
The ordinance's restrictions are an "arbitrary, politically motivated act imposed by a local government in response to popular sentiments," the lawsuit reads, "based upon misinformation, which seeks retribution against Registrants who constitute a socially outcast minority." ..Continued.. by Shea Johnson
October 13, 2016
Fontana School District’s “No Registrants” Policy Challenged in Court
10-13-16 California:
Today a lawsuit was filed in state court challenging a decision by the Fontana Unified School District to prohibit all registrants, including parents, from entering all 45 schools in that district. The five members of the school district board voted unanimously in favor of the “zero tolerance” policy on September 14 after several angry parents threatened to oust any board member who opposed it.
According to the lawsuit, the school board policy is preempted by state law and is inconsistent with other state laws which require schools to allow parents and guardians of school children to participate in the education of their children. The lawsuit requests that the court issue a writ of mandate requiring the school district to stop enforcement of the policy.
“The Fontana Unified School District is violating state law each and every day it enforces the unlawful policy of prohibiting all registrants from entering all schools in that district,” stated civil rights attorney Janice Bellucci.
The lawsuit also alleges that the school board is exceeding its authority by creating and then enforcing a policy that excludes registrants from school campuses. ..Source.. by ACSOL
February 9, 2016
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
December 4, 2015
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
November 16, 2015
Suit alleges California database violates law, prompted attacks
See earlier story: Registrants sue CA DOJ — Demand improvements to, or end of, Megan's Law Website11-16-15 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
October 15, 2015
Lawsuit Challenges CDCR's Halloween Sex Offender Policy
see also: Sex Offender Says Making Him Post Warning Signs on Halloween Violates His Rights10-15-15 California:
UPDATED 10-26: HALLOWEEN SEX OFFENDER LAW HEARING TO BE HELD OCT 26 (Press Release)
California’s “Operation Boo,” the state Corrections Department program that requires registered sex offenders to post signs on their front doors on Halloween, is being challenged in court.
The suit was filed by an advocacy group called California Reform Sex Offender Laws, which argues that Operation Boo makes registered sex offenders “sitting ducks” for predators.
“There are zero reported sexual assaults of children while trick-or-treating in California – zero,” says attorney Janice Bellucci, the group’s president, who's seeking a temporary restraining order before this year’s Halloween. ”So as far as we can tell, this is a solution without a problem.”
Bellucci says the state is applying the sign requirement to all sex offenders – even those whose victims weren’t children, and even if their crimes weren’t recent. The plaintiff in the suit is a registered San Diego County sex offender who committed his offense against an adult 30 years ago. He’s on parole now for a drug conviction.
The Corrections Department says it has yet to be served with the suit and therefore has no comment. ..Source.. by Ben Adler
CDCR Lawsuit Expanded, TRO Hearing Set October 26
A lawsuit challenging CDCR’s requirement that registered citizens post signs on the front door of their residences on Halloween has been expanded to include an individual in Los Angeles. Similar to the original plaintiff in the case who lives in San Diego County, the man in L.A. was told by his parole officer that he must post a sign on the front door of his home.
“Both plaintiffs believe their lives will be in danger if they post a sign on the front door of their homes,” stated CA RSOL president Janice Bellucci. “They also fear that members of their family could be harmed.”
The lawsuit, as amended on Oct. 19, alleges that CDCR is levying the sign requirement against registered citizens on parole as a blanket restriction regardless of when they were convicted, whether their offense involved a minor and their risk of re-offense. According to Dr. Karl Hanson, a PhD psychologist who has conducted re-offense research for decades, an individual convicted of a sex offense is very unlikely to commit another offense if he has not done so within 17 years.
“We have recently learned that in the recent past CDCR required registered citizens who were homeless to post Halloween signs on their sleeping bags, tents, vehicles and hotel rooms,” stated Bellucci.
According to PhD sociologist and author Emily Horowitz, “There is no research that sex offenses increase on Halloween, no evidence that sex offenders target children on Halloween and, in fact, no evidence that a child has ever been a victim of sexual abuse by a stranger while out trick-or-treating.”
An application for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) was filed in this case on Oct. 15. CDCR must respond to the TRO application by Oct. 21 and the plaintiffs may reply to that response on Oct. 22. A hearing on the TRO application is scheduled in San Diego for Oct. 26. by CA-RSOL
August 13, 2015
Sex Offender Sues Arcadia Over Residency Restrictions
8-13-15 California:
Despite revisions last year to an ordinance that severely limits housing options for potential residents convicted of sex crimes, a registered sex offender has filed a lawsuit against the city of Arcadia that seeks to repeal the law entirely.
Recent state court decisions have challenged similar ordinances in other California municipalities, as advocates for sex offenders’ constitutional rights have over the last several years filed lawsuits aimed at rolling back what they claim are unfairly restrictive and discriminatory enforcement actions by Arcadia and a number of other locales statewide.
Last September the Arcadia City Council voted unanimously to enact the following amendments to the city’s sex offender regulations:
Council members revised “the definition of a sex offender to include only those individuals who have committed offenses against children,” according to a city staff report. The council also removed “restrictions on where a sex offender may travel or loiter and … regulations involving the Child Safety Zone” in addition to rewording the ordinance to more closely reflect “existing State Penal Code provisions regulating sex offenders.”
These revisions were based on state appellate court decisions rendered last year, Chief of Police Bob Guthrie said at the Sept. 2 council meeting.
However, in March the California Supreme Court found that a San Diego County law, which is similar to Arcadia’s residency restrictions, violated sex offenders’ civil rights.
In its unanimous decision the court held that “blanket enforcement of … mandatory residency restrictions against registered sex offenders on parole in San Diego County impedes [their] basic, albeit limited, constitutional rights.”
The court also concluded that the San Diego residency restriction law “cannot survive rational basis scrutiny because it has hampered efforts to monitor, supervise, and rehabilitate [sex offenders] in the interests of public safety, and as such, bears no rational relationship to advancing the state’s legitimate goal of protecting children from sexual predators.”
Santa Maria-based attorney Janice Bellucci, president of the group California Reform Sex Offender Laws, said “ordinances like this within the city of Arcadia are in fact unconstitutional as defined by the sate supreme court.”
Bellucci filed a federal lawsuit July 29 against the city on behalf of an anonymous client who is referred to as “John Doe” in court documents.
She declined to elaborate on details about her client’s sex offense conviction, but did say he works in Los Angeles County and wants to move to Arcadia to reduce his work-related commute.
“What I’m talking about is constitutional rights, that’s why this lawsuit was filed,” Bellucci said. “It has nothing to do with somebody’s prurient interest in what offense was committed and how long ago it was committed.”
The lawsuit points out that the Arcadia ordinance “defines ‘Residential Exclusion Zones’ as areas ‘within … 2,000 feet of the closest property line of a child care center, public or private school grades K through 12, park, public library, swimming or wading pool,” playgrounds, school bus stops or locations that facilitate classes or group activities for children, according to a court document.
The lawsuit also claims that officials have not made publicly available “a list of the facilities or properties that establish the locations of the ‘Residential Exclusion Zones’ … nor otherwise made available to the public a map of the ‘Residential Exclusion Zones.'”
The plaintiff also alleges that more than 90 percent of Arcadia’s residential areas are in exclusion zones, “including virtually all affordable housing within the city.” The small percentage of properties outside of restricted areas are zoned for nonresidential use, effectively preventing registered sex offenders from establishing residency in Arcadia “because there is no residential real estate available to them.”
In an Aug. 5 story published in the Los Angeles Daily Journal, a newspaper that covers the local legal community, City Manager Dominic Lazzaretto said officials’ “intent has always been to ensure the safety of all of our residents while remaining within the bounds of the law and respecting applicable civil liberties.”
Lazzaretto declined to elaborate and told Arcadia Weekly city officials would meet in a closed session Aug. 18 to discuss the case.
Police Chief Guthrie and City Attorney Stephen Deitsch also declined to comment.
The lawsuit charges that “the Arcadia Residency Restrictions are arbitrary, politically motivated acts imposed by a local government in response to popular sentiments, based upon misinformation, which seeks retribution against Registrants who constitute a socially outcast minority. The Arcadia Residency Restrictions also lend themselves to discriminatory enforcement as well as the suppression of the constitutional rights of Registrants as well as individuals who travel with them, including spouses and family members.”
The plaintiff’s case hinges on alleged infractions of an assortment of sections of the U.S. Constitution, namely the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments, as well as the California Constitution’s Article I, Section 7 on “due process, equal protection and the right to travel” and Article XI, Section 7 that requires municipal ordinances not conflict with state law.
A statement from Bellucci’s advocacy group cites data indicating most registered offenders are not likely to commit additional sex crimes.
“The rate of re-offense for a registered citizen on parole is only 1.8 percent, according to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation,” the statement reports. “And a registered citizen who has not re-offended in 17 years is no more likely to commit a sex offense than someone who has never been convicted of a sex offense,” according to a report released in April by the California Sex Offender Management Board, or CASOMB.
“The [sex offender] registry itself and certainly residency restrictions directly related to that actually provide parents with a false sense of security,” said Bellucci, a mother of two daughters and wife of a minister who has practiced law since 1982. “If you’re looking at the people who are listed in the registry, and we have over 110,000 now in California, … the direction you’re not looking at is parents, family members, teachers, coaches and clergy.”
Citing CASOMB data, Bellucci added “those are the people who unfortunately are the most likely to assault your child” at a predominant rate of 93 percent.
She said other than court costs and attorney fees, her client doesn’t seek any additional financial redress and that his only intention with the lawsuit is to legally establish residence in Arcadia.
Bellucci filed a lawsuit in June against Grover Beach in San Luis Obispo County and said she intends to file additional suits challenging residency restrictions.
Last week the Grover Beach City Council agreed to a settlement that requires repeal of sex offender residency restrictions and payment of attorney fees, Bellucci said. ..Source.. by Joe Taglieri
June 22, 2015
Sex offender files lawsuit against Grover Beach
See also: For Registered Sex Offenders, An Uphill Civil Rights Battle6-22-15 California:
A registered sex offender filed a federal lawsuit last week against the city of Grover Beach challenging an ordinance that makes it a crime for sex offenders to set up residency in most of the city. The law suit is the first filed against a city since the California Supreme Court’s decision declared such restrictions unconstitutional.
Frank Lindsay owns a home in Grover Beach were he has resided for 18 years. In 1979, the then 26-year-old Lindsay was convicted of lewd lascivious acts against a child under 14 years of age and released from jail the same year. Since then, his record has remained clean.
In 2010, Lindsay was seriously wounded during a violent vigilante attack at his Grover Beach home. David Griffin, 24, broke into Lindsay’s home and punched him, hit him with a hammer and kicked him. Shortly before the attack, Griffin was unable to enter another registered sex offenders home.
Because of that attack, Lindsay, 63, wants to move from his current residence and establish a new residence in Grover Beach.
However, the city modified a 2007 ordinance in 2014 that currently prohibits registered sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of any school, park, or day care center. And because of the layout of the city, the restriction effectively bars Lindsay from buying another home in Grover Beach.
In the lawsuit, civil rights attorney Janice Bellucci says the city’s residency restrictions effectively banish registrants from Grover Beach and violate the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments, the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution.
Bellucci says the city used false data including that “sex offenders have recidivism rates as high as forty-five percent,” to justify the ordinance. The information, Bellucci says, “is inconsistent with state and federal government statistics which state that registrants on parole re-offend at a rate of only 1.8 percent and 5.3 percent overall.”
In addition, Dr. Karl Hanson, a preeminent researcher of sex offenses, says in a recently released report that a registered citizen who has not re-offended in 17 years is no more likely to commit a sex offense than someone who has never been convicted of a sex offense. In Lindsay’s case, it has been 37 years since he offended and 35 years since the former alcoholic has had a drink.
City officials have not responded to questions about the lawsuit.
Penalties for violating the Grover Beach ordinance include “a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 or by imprisonment for up to one year in jail or both.”
Nevertheless, on March 2, the California Supreme Court decided that residency restrictions could not be applied to all registered sex offenders on parole because their blanket application violated the U.S. Constitution. Primarily because the limitations made it impossible for sex-offenders on parole to obtain housing. As a result, many were living on the streets making them difficult to track.
Following the court’s decision, Riverside County and the cities of Downey and El Monte have begun the repeal of their residency restrictions.
Bellucci said that the California Supreme Court ruling should be applied to those on parole as well as registered offenders who are no longer on parole.
“People not on parole have fewer rights than people who are on parole, Bellucci said. “The Supreme Court ruled the restrictions are unconstitutional for people on parole. It is only logical the restrictions are also unconstitutional for people not on parole.”
In the lawsuit, Lindsay is asking the court to rule that Grover Beach’s ordinance is null and void, compensation for legal costs and for the recovery of such relief the court deems just and proper. ..Source.. by KAREN VELIE
March 6, 2015
Prostitution Ban Called Unconstitutional
3-6-15 California:
A prostitute and a man who would like to enjoy her services sued California on Wednesday, challenging the constitutionality of state laws against "private, consensual sexual activity ... as part of a voluntary commercial exchange between adults."
Plaintiff K.L.E.S. says she "has been licensed to provide sexual activity for hire to consenting adults in Nevada," and would like to work in Northern California, where she lives.
Plaintiffs C.V. and J.B. both worked as prostitutes in California, and would like to again, but fear criminal prosecution. Plaintiff John Doe, who has a disability, wants to hire a prostitute to "engage in this sexual activity consensually, respectfully, and in the privacy of his own residence."
The lead plaintiff is San Francisco-based Erotic Service Provider Legal, Education & Research Project (ESPLERP), an advocacy group.
They sued four counties' district attorneys and California Attorney General Kamala Harris on March 3, claiming that prosecuting sex that is "part of a voluntary commercial exchange between adults" violates the state and federal constitutions.
ESLERP describes itself as a nonprofit serving "erotic service providers, escorts or other types of workers in the human sexuality field."
The individual plaintiffs say they fear prosecution under California's prostitution and solicitation laws. Soliciting, agreeing to engage in, or engaging in prostitution is a misdemeanor in the state. ..Continued.. by ARVIN TEMKAR
January 10, 2015
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
September 11, 2014
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
March 28, 2014
Federal lawsuit calls for repeal of Pomona’s sex offender ordinance
3-28-2014 California:
A Santa Maria lawyer filed a federal lawsuit against Pomona this week calling for the repeal of a 2008 ordinance regulating the presence of sex offenders in the city.
According to the lawsuit, the city’s ordinance goes beyond what is contained in the ordinances of other cities by prohibiting sex offenders from being on private property, such as arcades or movie theaters.
Pomona’s ordinance is “one of the worst ordinances in our state,” said Janice Bellucci, who filed the lawsuit on behalf of Frank Lindsey of Grover Beach in San Luis Obispo County.
Bellucci said her client has not lived in Pomona but could be interested in visiting the city at some point.
Pomona’s ordinance is such that “we believe it violates the federal and state constitutions,” Bellucci said.
Deputy City Manager Mark Gluba said the City Council will be briefed on the lawsuit during the closed portion of a future meeting, and council members will give city staff direction on how to proceed.
The 2008 ordinance made it difficult for registered sex offenders to move into the city.
The ordinance was modeled after one adopted the same year in Long Beach and took advantage of wording in the voter-approved Proposition 83, referred to as Jessica’s Law, which allowed cities to adopt ordinances containing residency restrictions that went beyond those set in state regulations.
Jessica’s Law prohibits sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of schools and parks where children gather. Pomona’s ordinance barred registered sex offenders from living within 2,640 feet from sensitive uses such as child-care centers, community centers, museums, sports centers, tutoring and learning centers, youth centers, along with rail stations or bus stops.
Also included in the list of sensitive uses are arcades, children’s retail stores, cyber cafes and movie theaters.
“Most ordinances don’t include privately owned property,” said Bellucci, who is also president of California Reform Sex Offender Laws.
The organization’s website says sexual abuse is never acceptable and that sex offense laws and policies should be based on “sound research and common sense, not fear, panic or paranoia.”
Public sex offender registry and laws setting residency restrictions “do not protect children but instead ostracize and dehumanize individuals and their families,” the website said.
Pomona’s restrictions are such that every part of the city is within a residential exclusion zone, according to the lawsuit.
“The sex offender ordinance adopted by the City of Pomona violates both the federal and state constitutions,” said Bellucci in a statement.
Pomona’s ordinance is based on what Bellucci said are two myths.
One is that registrants have high rates for committing offences again, yet state and federal government reports indicate 1.8 percent of those on parole and 5.3 percent of registered sex offenders overall re-offend, the statement said.
The other myth is that strangers commit sexual assaults. In reality more than 90 percent of sexual assaults involving children are committed by family members and other people who the victims are familiar with such as teachers, coaches and clergy members, the statement said.
More than 70 cities across the state have restrictive ordinances and in January California Reform Sex Offender Laws notified them of a recent California Court of Appeal decision invalidating two ordinances, one of those being Irvine’s.
Costa Mesa and El Centro repealed their ordinances and other cities including Anaheim, Grand Terrace and South Pasadena have agreed in writing not to enforce their ordinances while they wait for the state Supreme Court to decide if it will review the Court of Appeal decision, Bellucci said in the statement.
Pomona is the first city to be sued but plans call for filing a lawsuit against another city as early as Monday, she said.
Assistant City Attorney Andrew Jared said the city does not comment on litigation.
Jared said for a period of about a year the ordinance was successful in keeping new registered sex offenders from moving into the city but after that time it was not enforced.
“The ordinance has not been actively enforced due to staffing issues,” Jared said.
The city registers those that are required to do so, he added.
When the ordinance was being enforced the city took several people who had violated the local law to court, Jared said.
A combination of factors including court rulings “caused us to evaluate the enforcement and at that time budget constraints that caused it to be de-prioritized,” he said.
Currently, conditions in the city and the state are different from what they were in the years prior to the ordinance’s approval including the state’s prison population realignment.
Realignment has resulted in different approaches in how the state Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation handles registered sex offenders, he said.
Changes in state policies have meant state authorities are “not stockpiling recently” paroled individuals the way they had been in Pomona at one time, Jared said. “That practice has subsided.”
Bellucci said her client is seeking “the repeal of the ordinance and attorney fees (but) no monetary damages.”
The restrictive ordinances have a direct impact on more than 105,000 people around the state and indirectly affect about 400,000 which includes the family members of registered sex offenders, Bellucci said. ..Source.. by Monica Rodriguez
March 30, 2013
Lawsuit alleges online extortion, a growing menace
The California man thought he put his past behind him, but then he became victim to an online scam associated more with the mafia than the Internet.
He is alleging in a federal lawsuit that three websites are running an extortion racket preying on his history as a one-time registered sex offender.
The alleged shakedown is a growing trend in cyberspace that also includes "ransomware" -- another extortion scheme that uses fake police and FBI warnings to demand money in exchange for unfreezing data on your computer, experts say.
In the case of the California man and nine other plaintiffs, their lawsuit accuses three websites of trying to extort $500 in exchange for removing their names and photographs from sites purporting to list sex offenders, though two of the plaintiffs are no longer listed on a state sex offender registry and another two plaintiffs, both women, have never been arrested or convicted of a sex offense or any crime, their attorney says.
One of the women is the wife of the California man, both of whom were interviewed by CNN with their attorney. The couple declined to give their names because none of the plaintiffs is identified in a federal lawsuit filed this month in California.
"I am forever sorry for what I did, and I paid my debt to society," the man said of his sex offense conviction in Washington state, a crime that he declined to elaborate on. "I had been rightfully removed from the Washington (sex offender registry) site, and now I'm on the other site that wants money for removal."
The man and woman, both in their 30s, were married last year, and the new husband was looking forward to finally being removed from the Washington state website 10 years after he was convicted of a sex offense.
But just as he was removed from the state government registry in January, a website claiming to list sex offenders posted his name and conviction online -- along with a link to photos of the couple, the couple said.
The website charged him $79 just to verify the posting about him -- and wanted $421 more to remove his name, photo and the link to their personal photos.
That amounts to extortion, the California couple alleges.
"I didn't pay $421 because I don't want to pay for a business like that, and the potential for them to list me again on their site and another site seems all too likely," the man said.
Added his wife: "I am thrilled to be married to him, and it seems to me that these guys are literally banking on shame, and it angers me deeply that they are presuming that I would be ashamed of my husband, which I am not."
The lawsuit lists four individuals and 10 other unidentified persons as owning or operating three websites that allegedly function as an extortion scam in violation of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. The plaintiffs also cite California's "right of publicity" law, which "says you can't use anybody's name or photograph to help them sell something or solicit something without prior consent," said plaintiff attorney Janice Bellucci of Santa Maria, California.
"They're acting in concert and they are extorting money from people," Bellucci said of the three websites.
The three websites didn't respond to CNN requests for comment. The four defendants didn't return calls or could not be reached for comment. The defendants are Brent Oesterblad of Paradise Valley, Arizona; his brother David of Tempe, Arizona; Chuck Rodrick II of Desert Hills, Arizona, who also goes by Charles David Gilson; and Traci Heisig, also of Desert Hills, Arizona, according to the lawsuit and Bellucci.
The lawsuit alleges those individuals own or work for the websites SORarchives, Offendex and Online Detective.
Internet security expert Vincent Weafer, senior vice president of McAfee Labs in Santa Clara, California, said online extortion typically occurs when users click on a deceptive link in an e-mail -- and then suddenly a message pops up claiming to be a warning that the user has visited an illegal or illicit site.
The computer then locks up, and the warning seeks money ranging from $10 to a few hundred dollars in exchange for unlocking the computer or data, Weafer said.
In early 2010, McAfee Labs saw 5,000 cases of ransomware each quarter, but now it has grown to 200,000 cases per quarter, Weafer said.
"It follows e-mail and social networks. That's a collective trend we're seeing," he said.
Ransomware has grown because it uses an efficient, anonymous payment service. The scam began in Russia and later the former Soviet republics in Eastern Europe.
"By and large you have organized crime groups that took to this early," Weafer said.
The ransom demand is purposefully kept to a few hundred dollars, he said.
"Obviously, if I ask you for $10,000, you're not going to pay the money," Weafer said. "So the small amount is simply to make it attractive to you to pay it and make it go away."
Online security experts are concerned whether the extortionists will make good on their promise -- or even find a way to return to a computer and seek more money.
"Will they free the machine after you pay?" says a McAfee Threats Report for the fourth quarter of 2012. "There are no guarantees, and anonymous payment systems make it basically impossible to track their movements."
The California husband sent an e-mail to a person who operates SORarchives, who responded under a pseudonym with a Gmail address, the husband said. The husband demanded his name erased from the site. He refused to pay the additional $421 for removal.
"They became fairly belligerent in their response and insulting," the California man said about the e-mail response. "There was some profanity in there too, which they graciously asterisked out."
The federal lawsuit represents a legal initiative on behalf of the California Reform Sex Offender Laws organization, a nonprofit that says public sex offender registries and residency restriction laws don't protect children and instead dehumanize individuals and their families. Saying every sex offense should be judged on its own merits, the group asserts public money would be better spent on prevention, healing and rehabilitation.
Bellucci is president of the California group.
The California couple are members of the group, as is the other California plaintiff, a man in his 60s. He is a registered sex offender and was convicted in 1979 in California for a sex offense, the lawsuit said. The other plaintiffs live in Washington, Kentucky, Tennessee and Oregon.
In a telephone interview with CNN, the California man in his 60s said he has new fears about his safety with the additional publicity from the three websites posting his name and photograph. In the past, he has been attacked because of his registry on the California government's sex offender website. His daughter was harassed out of school because of his crime, he said.
"It misrepresents who I am, and that opens me up for potential retaliation for vigilante violence, which I've already experienced now twice," the man said of the three websites.
He discovered his name on the three sites when a friend searched his name on the Internet and found it listed on the three websites, he said. After paying the websites $79 for an initial inquiry into the matter, he refused to pay the additional $421 the sites are seeking to remove his name and photograph, he said.
"It's a witch hunt," he added. "It's a way to make money off the backs of those who have this horrible tag of being a sex offender, of which people don't have a correct view of what that really means. They have a one-size-fits-all and ... extreme view that sex offenders are damaged humans who will always re-offend.
"That's not the case," he said.
The federal government website http://www.onguardonline.gov/ offers guidance and contact information in case you find yourself dealing with cybercrime. ..Source.. by Michael Martinez, CNN
January 24, 2013
Sex offenders say city law violates their rights
1-24-2013 California:
City officials say they won't back down from legal attempts to void their ordinance.
CYPRESS – Twice within the span of a month, the city has been sued by sex offenders who say the city has violated their rights by refusing to let them live here.
City officials say they will stand behind the law, enacted with a unanimous vote in March, that bars sex offenders from living near schools, parks and civic buildings. It mirrors a state law enacted by voters in 2006 that prevents sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of schools or parks where children congregate. The city law goes further than the state mandate, also banning residency for sex offenders near private schools and day care centers.
In the first lawsuit, filed in December, ___ says the city refuses to let him return to the home he lived in before he was convicted of rape in 2003. He also says he's forced to live on the street in an industrial part of Anaheim with others in a similar situation. His former residence in western Cypress is just blocks from Eucalyptus and Eastgate parks.
Current law, the lawsuit says, "forces him to make an unlawful and unconscionable choice between being homeless or violating his parole condition and returning to prison."
In 2003, he pleaded guilty in a Los Angeles County courtroom to charges of raping his former girlfriend. After he was paroled in 2010, the state Department of Corrections and Cypress police determined he couldn't live in the city. He looked to Los Alamitos, where law enforcement also turned him down, the lawsuit says.
His Glendale-based attorney, Carlo A. Spiga, filed the lawsuit on Dec. 21.
On Monday, the council voted to fight the lawsuit, and a separate lawsuit filed Monday, City Attorney William Wynder said.
"We were told to defend the city's ordinance, and that's what we will be doing," Wynder said. "We worked carefully with the Orange County District Attorney's Office in crafting our ordinance. It's entirely within state law, allowing localities to adopt more stringent requirements. This ordinance is enforceable."
In addition to the proximity restrictions, the Cypress law prevents more than one sex offender from living in a single residence unless they are married or related by blood. It also prevents sex offenders from putting up Halloween decorations or answering the door for trick-or-treaters.
Spiga and Los Alamitos city officials did not return phone calls seeking comment. Luis Patiño, a spokesman for the Department of Corrections, said his agency doesn't comment on ongoing litigation, but said there are several similar lawsuits active in several counties across the state.
A 2010 ruling by the state Supreme Court said the state restrictions can be applied to convicts who committed their crimes before the 2006 law took effect.
___' lawsuit asks for the state and Cypress laws to be overturned, as well as for lawyer's fees.
In the second lawsuit, filed earlier this week, ___ and his fiancee, ___, say Cypress has unconstitutionally tried to prevent him from living in ___'s home. ___ was convicted in 1987 of sexual penetration with a foreign object and released in 1990.
___'s Santa Maria-based attorney, Janice M. Bellucci, said ___ and ___ got engaged in November 2010, and that he signed an agreement to pay about $700 rent to ___ before he moved in with her the following February.
The ordinance requires sex offenders in rentals at the time the law took effect to leave after their leases expire, but Bellucci said ___'s agreement with Moreno is open-ended.
"He is still living there, but the city is threatening," Bellucci said; she expects the city to try to evict ___ in late February. "There's nowhere else he can live in Cypress. We believe they have the right to live together, whether or not he's engaged."
Wynder said the Police Department hasn't driven renters out of town right away, but has given many of them up to six months to find other places to live.
Bellucci is president of California Reform Sex Offender Laws, and in March penned a letter to Cypress arguing that the then-proposed law was overly broad.
"It's unfortunate that Cypress has chosen to ignore the information we provided them before they did what they did," Bellucci said this week. "We gave them every opportunity to do the right thing, but they chose a different path." ..Source.. by MICHAEL MELLO
