CORRESPONDENCE_50A - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

offenders met their victims in a public location while 82 percent of all sex offenses took place in a private setting, such as a home -the home of the offender or the home of the victim. (See CSOMB report, August 2011, page li). Most sexual assaults are not perpetrated by strangers The proposed ordinance is also subject to judicial challenge because it is based upon a myth that the perpetrators of sexual assaults on children are strangers unknown to the victims who lurk in public places such as public parks. This myth is known as "Stranger Danger" and is not based upon fact. The fact is that only 7 percent of the perpetrators of sexual assaults against children were identified as strangers, according to the U.S. Bureau of Juvenile Statistics. The remaining 93 percent of the perpetrators were either family members or adult acquaintances -including teachers, coaches and members of the clergy -already known to the victim. (See CSOMB report, August 2011, page 11). The orooosed ordinance is overiv broad and not tailored to the government interest The proposed ordinance's stated method of protecting children is also subject to judicial review because it is overly broad. That is, the proposed ordinance would apply to g_II "registered sex offenders" within California. It would not be limited to the 242 residents of Santa Ana listed on the California Megan's law website. Instead, the ordinance would apply to about 750,000 individuals listed on the nation's registry, including more than 93,000 individuals listed on the California registry. The proposed ordinance is overly broad, in part, because it does not distinguish between and among individuals who are required to register after they have been convicted of asex-related offense. Such offenses cover a broad spectrum and range from single non-violent acts such as public urination, consensual teen sex, and "setting" to heinous violent acts such as multiple sexual assaults upon children. The proposed ordinance is also overly broad because it does not distinguish between and among registrants who are on probation or parele or who are beyond such restrictions. In order to maintain its viability, an ordinance must be narrowly tailored to the government interest at issue while still permitting legitimate activities of "regFstered sex offenders". An ordinance is subject to strict scrutiny where fundamental constitutional rights are infringed upon. Legitimate activities of a "registered sex offender" include federal constitutional rights protected by the 1", 4`", S1di, 8'", 10"' and 14"' amendments. tt is doubtful that the proposed ordinance could prevail in a judicial challenge for one reason alone -its ban of all "'registered sex offenders° from the city's public libraries. A federal Court of Appeals has recently determined that a ban of all "registered sex offenders" from a city's public library violated a registrant's First Amendment rights. The court, in that case, ordered the city to open its library to registrants as well as to pay the significant attorney fees of the registrant. A court could also find that legitimate activities of a "registered sex offender" include the right to walk, jog, or attend a family picnic in a City park. 3