Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> restrict an offender from residing within a specified distance of certain locations, such as <br /> schools and parks. Child safety zones restrict offenders' movement within and/or around areas <br /> where children congregate, such as schools, parks, libraries, etc. <br /> Residency Restrictions <br /> The available research found by the OCDA suggests that residency restrictions have little <br /> impact on sex offender recidivism and may even compromise public safety. Generally, <br /> researchers have been unable to correlate any meaningful relationship between residential <br /> proximity to schools, parks, etc. and sexual recidivism- Research indicates that residency <br /> restrictions diminish housing options in urban areas, which forces offenders to move to more <br /> rural locations. This limits offenders' access to social services and community resources that <br /> help prevent recidivism by transitioning into the community. Residency restrictions also <br /> decrease employment opportunities for offenders and increase their transience and <br /> homelessness. These unintended consequences reduce the number of offenders accurately <br /> tracked by local law enforcement agencies. The research findings were anecdotally supported <br /> by conversations with local and State law enforcement officials. <br /> For more detailed discussions of this topic, please see the articles and the sources cited in the <br /> quarterly bulletin Geography and Public Safety, Vol. 2, Issue 1, May 2009, and listed at: <br /> httr)://www.oip. usdoi.gov/nii/maps/q ps-bu iletin-v2i 1 . pdf. <br /> Residency restrictions also face constitutional challenges relating to the right to privacy, the right <br /> to intrastate travel, substantive due process and other rights. The outcome of such challenges <br /> is uncertain in California. In In re E.J. (2010) 47 CalAth 1258, the California Supreme Court <br /> suggested a residency restriction must be narrowly tailored to further the government interest of <br /> protecting children from sex offenders. The Court remanded the petitioners' constitutional <br /> claims to the trial court for evidentiary hearings concerning, among other things, the supply of <br /> available housing for each sex offender in their respective community- If a residency restriction <br /> makes a substantial portion of a community off-limits to sex offenders, it may be difficult to <br /> sustain its constitutionality. <br /> Meanwhile, the OCDA was waiting for the enactment of Chelsea's Law, which contained the <br /> language of the County Ordinance. <br /> Chelsea's Law - Amended <br /> The language in the drafted sex offender ordinance is adapted from proposed language in <br /> Chelsea's Law and from Penal Code 626.81, which prohibits sex registrants from entering <br /> school grounds without written permission. Until 2010, Chelsea's Law (AB 1844) would have <br /> added as Penal Code 647.9 much of the language set forth in the County Ordinance. <br /> On July 15, 2010, Chelsea's Law was amended to delete the originally proposed language as <br /> Penal Code 647.9. The bill was signed into Law on Sept. 8, 2010. Instead, the bill added section <br /> 3053.8 to the Penal Code. That section precludes Penal Code 290 registrants from entering <br /> parks where children gather without express permission, but only applies the restriction to <br /> parolees who served prison time for certain sexual offenses in which one or more of the victims <br /> was under 14 years of age- Thus, the "park restriction" in Chelsea's Law does not apply to sex <br /> registrants who have been discharged from parole. Some of these sex registrants are subject to <br /> lifetime parole and some are be subject to parole for 20 years, depending upon the particular <br /> crime committed- <br /> 5 OA-21 <br />