California #1: Residency Portion of Prop 83
Don't forget to visit our "No Sex Offender Residency / Proximity Laws" page.
Lawyer/Lawfirm: Dennis Riordan (Riordan & Horgan)
523 Octavia St -- San Francisco, CA 94102-4313 -- Phone: (415) 431-3472 Fax: (415) 552-2703
|
2-22-2007 California:
Judge tosses lawsuit challenging Jessica's Law (Prop 83) |
.A federal judge on Thursday dismissed a lawsuit challenging a California voter-approved measure prohibiting sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of schools, parks and places where children gather. U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White said the unidentified sex offender who challenged the law, adopted by voters Nov. 7, did not have legal standing to bring the case.
White said Proposition 83, commonly known at Jessica's Law, does not apply to the roughly 90,000 registered sex offenders already living in California's communities before the measure passed. The sex offender who brought the challenge was one of them. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has taken that same position, while Attorney General Jerry Brown has maintained the measure applied to sex offenders released prior to Nov. 7 if they changed their residence after Nov. 7.
..more..
: by Associated Press. Read the court's decision: CLICK
|
11-28-2006 California:
Judge weighs sex offender law |
.A federal judge in San Francisco said Monday he will extend a temporary halt on part of a sex offender control law while he considers what he called "a new and different position" from state attorneys on whether it is retroactive. U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White said he plans to sign by the end of Monday an extension of a temporary restraining order blocking a residency restriction in Proposition 83, an initiative passed by 70 percent of California voters on Nov. 7. The order will last until the next hearing on the case on Feb. 23.
The residency restriction in the Sexual Predator Punishment and Control Act expands previous limits and bars registered sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a school or park. It was challenged in a civil rights lawsuit by an anonymous former offender under the name of John Doe, who claims he will be forced to move from his Bay Area home in violation of a constitutional ban on retroactive punishments. The lawsuit contends the measure would bar registered sex offenders from living in "virtually every residential neighborhood in every city in California" as well as many suburban areas.
Lawyers from the office of California Attorney General Bill Lockyer had argued in a brief that the law shouldn't be applied retroactively and that John Doe therefore had no basis for a lawsuit. But at a hearing before White on Monday, Deputy Attorney General Teri Block said Lockyer's position is that former offenders like John Doe don't have to leave their present homes, but can't move to a new residence within 2,000 feet of a school or park. "If he decides to move in the future, the law would apply to him," Block told the judge. White said he hadn't seen that distinction in the state's brief.
The judge said, "The court regards the position taken by the attorney general today to be a completely new and different position from that set forth in the papers." White, who had been considering signing an agreement between the two sides for dismissal of the lawsuit, said, "The court feels a little bit ambushed." The extension of the temporary restraining order will last until another hearing before White on Feb. 23 on whether to convert the temporary order into a preliminary injunction against the requirement. In the meantime, White ordered state attorneys to submit a supplemental brief by Jan. 16 explaining their position on whether and how the law is retroactive.
The judge said the schedule will give incoming Attorney General Jerry Brown, who is due to be sworn in on Jan. 8, an opportunity to modify the state's position if he wishes to do so. John Doe's attorney, Dennis Riordan, argued in court that the state's current position was "a dramatic change." He said John Doe's lawsuit encompassed his right to move to a new residence as part of his right to travel. Riordan said after the hearing that while the temporary order technically applies only to John Doe, it should in effect bar evictions of all offenders who committed their crimes before Nov. 7. "It legally applies only to John Doe, but anyone who applies it to others does so at their peril given that there is a federal court order," Riordan said.
Lockyer spokesman Nathan Barankin said the attorney general's position "isn't a new position as far as our briefing was concerned" because John Doe's lawsuit didn't say he had any plans to move. Barankin said, "The court wants to explore the attorney general's position more fully so we'll brief that." The lawsuit does not challenge other provisions of the law, including a requirement that certain sex offenders must wear global positioning system devices for the rest of their lives. John Doe says in the lawsuit that he has served his sentence and received treatment for a non-aggravated felony offense committed more than 15 years ago.
He says the residence restriction will cause him "to be exiled from the home that he owns with his wife and from the community where he has lived for 20 years." In addition to Lockyer and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, the district attorneys of San Francisco, Marin, Sonoma and Alameda counties are named as defendants. The lawsuit says John Doe currently lives in one of those counties and if forced to move would try to relocate in one of the other three. The original temporary restraining order was issued by U.S. District Judge Susan Illston on Dec. 8, the day the lawsuit was filed. Illston said the residency restriction "is punitive by design and in effect" and is therefore likely to be found to violate the U.S. Constitution's ban on so-called ex post facto, or retroactive, laws increasing punishments for crimes.
..more..
: by Bay City News
|
UPDATE: Judge feels AMBUSHED by Attorney General's office! |
|
11-27-2006 California:
Judge: Lockyer Is Changing Interpretation Of Sex Offender law |
.Attorney General Bill Lockyer's office is changing its interpretation of a sweeping, voter-approved law that requires sex offenders to reside at least 2,000 feet from parks and schools, a federal judge said Monday. After Lockyer's office maintained in court briefs that Proposition 83 is not retroactive, Deputy Attorney General Teri Block told a judge Monday that the law does apply -- albeit with a caveat -- to those who committed their crimes before the law's Nov. 7 passage.
Block told U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White during a hearing challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 83 that sex offenders who already are living within the prohibited zones can stay there -- but if they move, they must comply with the new law. The attorney general's interpretation of the law generally stands unless it is overturned by the courts, lawmakers or voters. White said he felt "a little bit ambushed" because the state was taking "a completely new and different position than set forth in their papers."
After an hourlong hearing, White said he was extending a temporary restraining order that a different judge in the case rendered Nov. 8, barring enforcement of the residency requirements. U.S. District Judge Susan Illston had ruled that those requirements were likely unconstitutional because they were new punishment not on the books when the offenders committed their sex crimes. Judge White set another hearing for Feb. 23. By then, Lockyer, who is leaving office because of term limits, will have been replaced by Oakland Mayor Jerry Brown.
..more..
: by Associated Press
|
11-16-2006 California:
Lockyer Moves To toss Prop. 83 Lawsuit |
.California Attorney General Bill Lockyer moved late Wednesday to dismiss a federal lawsuit that challenges a voter-approved measure prohibiting registered sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a school or park. Lockyer urged the lawsuit's dismissal because the measure does not have any sanction against those who violate the 2,000-foot rule. Proposition 83 "does not call for punishment, mush less imprisonment, for violation of the residency restriction," the attorney general's brief said.
A lawsuit challenging one of several provisions of Proposition 83 was brought by an unidentified California registered sex offender who already lives within 2,000 feet of a school or park. The plaintiff, identified in court papers as John Doe, is not on parole or probation for a sex crime. He was convicted 15 years ago and served no time. Lockyer's office also said the lawsuit should be dismissed because the measure does not apply to registered sex offenders like John Doe who are already living in a prohibited area and who are not on parole or probation. It was not immediately known how many California registered sex offenders are living within 2,000-foot zones and who are no longer on parole or probation.
There are some 90,000 registered sex offenders in California's communities, but the attorney general's brief only addressed how the law applies to persons such as John Doe. Which registered sex offenders the law ultimately would cover is to be the subject of further litigation. A spokesman for the measure's author, State Sen. George Runner, R-Lancaster, said he did not intend for it to apply to sex offenders already in the community.
"We've stipulated all along in every news article in which Senator Runner was quoted that it was his intent that it would be prospective only," Runner's spokesman Will Smith said. A day after the measure passed Nov. 7, U.S. District Judge Susan Illston temporarily blocked the 2,000-foot requirement from taking effect, ruling that it was likely unconstitutional as applied to sex offenders in the community because it amounted to new punishment on them after their convictions. Illston set a Nov. 27 hearing.
The so-called Jessica's Law also increases prison terms for sex offenders and requires lifetime satellite tracking for rapists, child molesters and other felony sex criminals upon their release from prison. None of those provisions was a part of the lawsuit. The proposition is named for Jessica Lunsford, a 9-year-old Florida girl who was kidnapped, raped and suffocated by a convicted sex offender last year. More than 70 percent of voters approved the measure Nov. 7. The case is Doe v. Schwarzenegger, 06-6968.
..more..
: by Associated Press
|
11-08-2006 California:
Sex offender Proposition 83 blocked in court |
.SAN FRANCISCO - A federal judge on Wednesday blocked enforcement of Proposition 83, the ballot measure passed overwhelmingly by voters a day earlier that's meant to crack down on sex offenders, including limiting where they may live. U.S. District Judge Susan Illston, ruling on a lawsuit filed here early Wednesday, said the measure "is punitive by design and effect" and likely unconstitutional. The so-called Jessica's Law prohibits registered sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a school or park - effectively prohibiting parolees from living in many of California's cities.
It also would require lifetime satellite tracking for paroled rapists, child molesters and other felony sex criminals upon their release from prison. State law already sets limits on where sex offenders can live, but the new requirement would make it even harder to find homes for offenders released from prison. Parolees currently are prohibited from living within a quarter-mile - or 1,320 feet - of a school, with a half-mile restriction only for high-risk sex offenders. Supporters said the initiative would save lives. However, law enforcement and social service workers worry that some sex offenders may simply stop reporting their addresses so they won't have to move.
The scope of the initiative's impact largely hinged on whether it would apply retroactively to the state's roughly 90,000 registered sex offenders. Supporters and critics had expected the expanded residency requirements to be challenged in court. Judge Illston issued what is known as a temporary restraining order against Proposition 83. She said the unidentified sex offender who brought the case was likely to prevail and ordered a Nov. 27 hearing. John Doe, as the plaintiff was named in court documents, argued that the measure could only apply to sex offenders registered after the law was passed.
Another unknown is what to do with registered sex offenders who violate the law. The measure does not add any crimes to the state's criminal statutes. "There are a million questions left open," said Dennis Riordan, the lawyer who filed the lawsuit. Nathan Barankin, a spokesman for Attorney General Bill Lockyer, said the state would vigorously defend the law. "We won't know the true scope of Prop. 83 until the courts have resolved all the litigation," Barankin said. "Our goal is to make sure those questions get answered as quickly as possible."
Under the measure's language, most suburban and metropolitan areas of the state would be off limits to sex offenders. The proposition, according to the suit, "effectively banishes John Doe from his home and community for a crime he committed, and paid his debt for, long ago." The suit says the proposition forces the former convict "from the home that he owns with his wife and his community of over 20 years." The proposition is named for Jessica Lunsford, a 9-year-old Florida girl who was kidnapped, raped and suffocated by a convicted sex offender last year. More than 70 percent of voters approved the measure Tuesday. The case is Doe v. Schwarzenegger, 06-6968.
..more..
: by DAVID KRAVETS, Associated Press. To Read Temporary TRO issued.
|
