Laserfiche WebLink
Chapter 10, Article XII of the Santa Ana Municipal Code <br />June 3, 2014 <br />Page 2 <br />People v. Godinez (2014) WL 99188 and People v. Nguyen (2014) 222 Cal.AppAth 1168, the <br />Orange County District Attorney had prosecuted individuals for violation of sex offender proximity <br />restrictions. The Godinez case was based on the County of Orange restrictions, while Nguyen <br />arose from an Irvine ordinance. In both decisions, the Court of Appeal ruled that the restrictions <br />were invalid and preempted by California state law because the California Penal Code sets forth <br />a regulatory scheme restricting the activities and movements of sex offenders. <br />On April 23, 2014, the California Supreme Court declined to review either of the Court of Appeal's <br />decisions. As such, the Court of Appeal decisions are final, meaning that similar local sex <br />offender restrictions in other cities are invalid and unenforceable as well. Based on the Court <br />decision, cities throughout Orange County have sought to repeal their respective ordinances. <br />These cities include Costa Mesa, Huntington Beach, Rancho Santa Margarita, Seal Beach, <br />Tustin, Laguna Hills, and Yorba Linda, among others. <br />Additionally, the City of Santa Ana has been sued in United States District Court by a registered <br />sex offender who claims that the Santa Ana restrictions violate his constitutional rights. (Lindsay <br />v. Santa Ana, Case No. 2:14 -cv -710). At this time, it is recommended that the City repeal <br />Chapter 10, Article XII of the Municipal Code as codified by Ordinance No. NS -2832. <br />FISCAL IMPACT <br />There is no fiscal impact associated with this action <br />4�z- 99, <br />S R. Carvalho ity Attorney <br />Attachments: Proposed Ordinance Repealing SAMC Chapter 10, Article XII <br />50A -2 <br />