News

Court rejects claim that sex offender residency requirement is unconstitutional

Rules law applies to those convicted before 2006 measure approved by voters

The California Supreme Court ruled Monday that a sex offender residency restriction enacted by voters in 2006 applies to people who were convicted before the measure passed but paroled afterward.

The panel, in a decision issued in San Francisco, by a 5-2 vote rejected a claim by four anonymous parolees who contended the measure was an illegal and unconstitutional retroactive punishment.

At the same time, the court unanimously left open a broader constitutional challenge to the law, which was enacted as Proposition 83 and is sometimes known as Jessica's Law in memory of a Florida girl who was raped and murdered by a convicted sex offender.

The law bars those who have been released from prison and are required to register as sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a school or park used by children.

The four anonymous parolees claimed in a lawsuit filed in 2007 that the requirement blocks off most or all of entire cities, including almost all of San Francisco, as residential areas for them.

The state high court said the parolees could continue their constitutional challenge, but must begin their cases at the trial level in county superior courts, because the facts are different in each of the four cases.

The trial courts will be in San Francisco, Santa Clara and San Diego counties, the three counties into which the four men were paroled.

The four parolees contend the measure violates their state and federal constitutional privacy, travel and due process rights.

Bay City News contributed to this report.

Comments

Like this comment
Posted by Anonymous
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 4, 2010 at 5:32 pm



I agree with the court's decision. I for one don't want to have my family or children's schools and play areas near where a sex offender lives. If the sex offenders are upset about the restrictions, tough. That's the price they pay for having committed those horrible crimes.


Like this comment
Posted by Common sense
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 4, 2010 at 6:56 pm

There are sex offenders living very close to schools in Pleasanton, and the police says there is nothing they can do, even if those sex offenders choose to walk around the schools during dismissal times.

It is not fair that the rights of the sex offenders are considered more important than the safety of the children.


Like this comment
Posted by Cholo
a resident of Livermore
on Feb 4, 2010 at 7:42 pm

If you're concerned about the safety of your children, then pick your children up after school.

If you want to know who the sex offenders are, you can see a pic of them online.


Like this comment
Posted by SteveP
a resident of Parkside
on Feb 5, 2010 at 9:01 am

SteveP is a registered user.

anyone else concerned that cholo knows so much about S.O.'s? Not just defending them, in favor of kids safety, but knowing that their pictures are posted onlone......scary.


Like this comment
Posted by Cholo
a resident of Livermore
on Feb 5, 2010 at 11:14 am

If you're concerned about the safety of your children, then pick your children up after school.

If you want to know who the sex offenders are, you can see a pic of them online.

All of the sex offender's who live in Pleasanton and in the surrounding cities are listed under Megan's Law, Office of the State Attorney General, CA. There are photograph of the perps as well as their current addresses. Pleasanton is surrounded with sex offenders. Know who they are and where they live to protect your children.

There are multiple ways to protect your families and the best way to do it is to stay informed and in contact with PPD. The PPD will take any calls re: sexual predators seriously.


Like this comment
Posted by Keith Richard Radford Jr
a resident of another community
on Feb 23, 2010 at 10:59 am

(Post removed by Pleasanton Weekly Online staff.)


Like this comment
Posted by CSO
a resident of another community
on Mar 1, 2010 at 4:35 am

Its true that some sex offenders should be monitored to ensure that they do not reoffend, and thus victimize another child. But not all sex offenders are "child molesters". The powers that be do not do enough to inform the public of the differences in convictions that put someone in the sex offender category. I'm a registered sex offender. I never touched a child, or came in contact with one. I was convicted for posessing child pornography. These images were found on the internet. (www.easynews.com, still there today!)I don't deserve a life sentence!


Like this comment
Posted by RU Kidding?
a resident of Canyon Creek
on Mar 1, 2010 at 4:39 am

Want to protect your kids? Then read and heed the study done by the U.S. Department of Justice published in 1994. THIS is scary! It seems that kids are more at risk of molestation in their OWN HOME! How come we never hear about THIS and always hear about the so-called "stranger danger"?????

Web Link


Like this comment
Posted by RU Kidding?
a resident of Canyon Creek
on Mar 1, 2010 at 4:41 am

In this state you can be put on the sex offender registry for urinating outside (in public). Yes, it IS the law. Public indecency, look it up! KNOW the law!


Like this comment
Posted by TimPa
a resident of Pleasanton Heights
on Mar 1, 2010 at 10:57 am

As a retired Police Officer and one who worked with these sex offender laws and sex offenders my take on this is this. Sex Offender Regestrys (SOR) do NOT protect your childern you must do that on your own. This state and others have added so many criminals to the SOR that it is not working any more. Given that the US Dept of Justice study showed that over 95% of those arrested for sexual assualts have never been arrested for any crime before. That over 85% of those arrested for sexual assault were well known and trusted by the victim with over 50% of them being a family member. And that in REAL numbers those who are released from prison for non sexual crimes go no to commit in real numbers more sexual offenses then do released sex offenders. So why all of these sex offender laws? One reason so those in office can make the public think they are doing something to protect them. But the real reason those in office are passing all these SO laws is so they can get votes when it comes time to be re-elected.


Like this comment
Posted by RU Kidding?
a resident of Canyon Creek
on Mar 1, 2010 at 4:18 pm

TimPA, thank you for a fact filled post. The statistics you quote are all able to be found by researching studies and reports done by the U.S. Department of Justice. Sacramento (and especially George Runner) is going to ride whatever horse they can find to get re-elected, this is just the most obvious example.


Posted by Name hidden
a resident of Ridgeview Commons

on Apr 26, 2017 at 9:58 pm

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Couples: Do you Really Agree or are you Afraid of not Agreeing?
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 790 views

Castlewood may consider selling Valley course for development
By Tim Hunt | 6 comments | 530 views

Lab scientists find better ways to ID individuals who die in catastrophic events
By Jeb Bing | 1 comment | 137 views