50A - ORDINANCE - SEX OFFENDERS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

At the SVP trial in 2008, the People presented evidence that Landau also molested additional victims besides those named in the prior criminal complaints. Beginning in 1961, Landau, then 21, molested an 8-year-old boy over the course of three years. In 1970, he molested another 8- year-old boy, and continued to do so until the boy was 15. While Landau can no longer be charged with these crimes due to the statute of limitations, this evidence was used to show his continued pattern of sexual deviance. During the 2008 trial, a doctor stated that based on the defendant's number of known victims and rate of offenses, Landau likely had between 1,000 and 1,500 undetected molests prior to his first conviction. Landau had declined to participate in treatment programs while in the hospital and had stopped using a prescription medication for depression, a side effect of which is a reduced sex drive. NARROWING THE BAN TO SIMPLY PROHIBIT "LOITERING" Limiting the ban to prohibit sex offenders from "loitering" in parks would not be effective. State law already prohibits sex offenders from loitering "about any school or public place at or near which children attend or normally congregate . . (Penal Code § 653b.) This would presumably apply to parks. Penal Code 653b, however, is not effective because it requires the sex offender to remain at the location or re-enter the location after being asked to leave. So long as the sex offender has not been asked to leave, he is not in violation of Penal Code 653b. In addition, it is difficult to prove loitering in a trial. "Loitering" means "to delay, to linger, or to idle about a school or public place without lawful business for being present." (Penal Code § 653b, subd. (d).) It would be difficult to prove a sex offender was "loitering" in a park when that person was simply sitting on a park bench or on the grass or strolling through the park. Even videotaping or photographing may not be considered "loitering," as those are common activities of lawful citizens- Yet, these are some of the very activities the proposed Ordinance seeks to preclude with respect to sex offenders- Their presence in parks allows them to identify, observe, and possibly interact with potential victims whom they seek to groom and eventually exploit. Finally, any loitering prohibition may be preempted by Penal Code 653b. (See O'Connell v. City of Stockton (2007) 41 Cal_4th 1061. 1 067 [a local ordinance may be preempted where it enters an area expressly or impliedly fully occupied by state law].) For these reasons, limiting the ban to "loitering" in parks would not provide an effective tool to protect children from sex offenders' activities in parks. GENESIS AND PROCESS IN DEVELOPING THE COUNTY SEX OFFENDER ORDINANCE In 2010, registered sex offender Eric Hinnenkamp lived 155 feet from a Fullerton park where children regularly gather. He was a Los Angeles County parolee who was released from prison to an apartment in Huntington Beach. Hinnenkamp inherited a house from his parents in Fullerton and was intending to live at the residence. According to Megan's Law website, his prior convictions included felony lewd conduct on child victims, indecent exposure, and restrained sexual battery. Understandably, local citizens became alarmed and asked law enforcement for a solution. The Orange County District Attorney (OCDA) began researching legal solutions and developing practical applications in response. Meanwhile, the OCDA also monitored the development of Chelsea's Law in the State legislature. The result was the development and enactment of the County Child Safety Ordinance, which closed a loophole in the existing law. RESIDENCY RESTRICTIONS V. CHILD SAEFTY ZONES The OCDA initially considered enacting both sex offender restrictions, which generally fall into two categories: (1) Residency restrictions; and (2) Child safety zones. Residency restrictions 4 5OA-20