50A - ORDINANCE - SEX OFFENDERS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

decrease employment opportunities for offenders and increase their transience and homelessness. These unintended consequences reduce the number of offenders accurately tracked by local law enforcement agencies. The research findings were anecdotally supported by conversations with local and State law enforcement officials. For more detailed discussions of this topic, please see the articles and the sources cited in the quarterly bulletin Geography and Public Safety, Vol. 2, Issue 1, May 2009, and listed at: httr.)://www.oip.usdc)i.qov/nii/maps/qps-builetin-v2il-IDd f. Residency restrictions also face constitutional challenges relating to the right to privacy, the right to intrastate travel, substantive due process and other rights. The outcome of such challenges is uncertain in California. In In re E.J. (2010) 47 CalAth 1258, the California Supreme Court suggested a residency restriction must be narrowly tailored to further the government interest of protecting children from sex offenders. The Court remanded the petitioners' constitutional claims to the trial court for evidentiary hearings concerning, among other things, the supply of available housing for each sex offender in their respective community. If a residency restriction makes a substantial portion of a community off-limits to sex offenders, it may be difficult to sustain its constitutionality. Meanwhile, the OCDA was waiting for the enactment of Chelsea's Law, which contained the language of the County Ordinance. Chelsea's Law - Amended The language in the drafted sex offender ordinance is adapted from proposed language in Chelsea's Law and from Penal Code 626.81, which prohibits sex registrants from entering school grounds without written permission. Until recently, Chelsea's Law (AB 1844) would have added as Penal Code 647.9 much of the language set forth in the County Ordinance. On July 15, 2010, Chelsea's Law was amended to delete the originally proposed language as Penal Code 647.9. The bill was signed into Law on Sept. 8, 2010. Instead, the bill added section 3053.8 to the Penal Code. That section precludes Penal Code 290 registrants from entering parks where children gather without express permission, but only applies the restriction to parolees who served prison time for certain sexual offenses in which one or more of the victims was under 14 years of age. Thus, the "park restriction" in Chelsea's Law does not apply to sex registrants who have been discharged from parole. Some of these sex registrants are subject to lifetime parole and some are be subject to parole for 20 years, depending upon the particular crime committed. LEGAL ISSUES EXPLORED: Child Safety Zones - Constitutionality A court will examine each law to determine whether it is narrowly tailored to the government interest. Child safety zone laws appear easier to defend than residency restrictions. Safety zone laws are more narrowly tailored to furthering the interest of protecting children by keeping sex offenders away from areas in which children congregate. The more broadly a restriction sweeps, the more likely a court will find it is not narrowly tailored. The more tailored a law appears to protect children from sex offenders, while still permitting legitimate activities by the sex offenders, the more likely it will survive a constitutional challenge. 5OA-6