Court Strikes Down Residency Restrictions for Some Sex Offenders

The California Supreme Court ruled today that a voter-approved ban that bars paroled sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a school or park is unconstitutional when applied to areas where it is virtually impossible to find housing that meets the requirement.

The restrictions were part of an initiative approved by state voters in 2006 as Proposition 83, sometimes known as Jessica’s Law in memory of a Florida girl who was raped and murdered by a convicted sex offender.

The unanimous ruling by the high court in San Francisco applies specifically to San Diego County, but the reasoning is expected to extend to other urban counties, including some in the Bay Area, where there is little rental housing not within 2,000 feet of a school or park.

“It definitely will apply in other counties,” said attorney Donald Specter of the Prison Law Office in Berkeley.

“The problem (of finding housing that met the restrictions) is prevalent in many counties throughout California. The court has found that the law places an unreasonable burden on parolees and actually hinders rather than promotes public safety,” Specter said.

The state Supreme Court ruled in a lawsuit filed by a group of registered sex offenders in San Diego County. It upheld similar decisions by a Superior Court trial judge and state appeals court.

Justice Marvin Baxter wrote that the trial judge found the restrictions barred paroled sex offenders from 97 percent of the rental apartments and low-cost residential hotels that would otherwise be available to them, and that the remaining 3 percent was not necessarily available for reasons such as high rents and reluctant landlords.

As a result, the law has led to greatly increased homelessness among sex offenders in San Diego County and greater difficulty for authorities in supervising them, Baxter said.

“Blanket enforcement of the residency restrictions against these parolees has severely restricted their ability to find housing in compliance with the statute, greatly increased the incidence of homelessness among them, and hindered their access to medical treatment, drug and alcohol dependency services, psychological counseling and other rehabilitative services,” Baxter wrote.

At the same time, the enforcement has hampered “the efforts of parole authorities and law enforcement officials to monitor, supervise and rehabilitate them in the interests of public safety,” he said.

“It has thus infringed their liberty and privacy rights, however limited, while bearing no rational relationship to advancing the state’s legitimate goal of protecting children from sexual predators,” the court said.

The decision strikes down “across the board” application of the restrictions to all paroled registered sex offenders in San Diego, but notes that parole authorities have the power to impose special conditions, including residential restrictions, on individual parolees.

Other state laws not affected by the ruling prohibit paroled sex offenders from entering a school or day care facility without permission or entering any park where children regularly gather if the offender’s victim was under 14, the court said.

Proposition 83 co-author and former state Sen. George Runner, who is now a member of the state Board of Equalization, criticized the decision.

“Today’s California Supreme Court decision could allow a child molester to live across the street from a school or park where children gather. It puts San Diego families at risk and sets a dangerous precedent for the rest of the state,” Runner said.

Runner, then a Republican state senator from Antelope Valley, and his wife Sharon, then a Republican assemblywoman, co-authored Proposition 83, entitled the Sexual Predator and Control Act.

In addition to establishing the residency restriction, the law increased penalties for sex offenders, extended parole for some offenses and prohibited probation for others.

Julia Cheever, Bay City News

Please make sure your comment adheres to our comment policy. If it doesn't, it may be deleted. Repeat violations may cause us to revoke your commenting privileges. No one wants that!
  • ShellyStow

    Thankfully this court is actually looking at the results of these horrible laws and recognizing that not only are they in violation of the Constitution but are diametrically opposed to the concepts of rehabilitation and everything indicated by research.

    • Elizabeth Frantes

      You can no more rehabilitate a rapist than you can cure a dog with rabies.

  • Echo Moon

    so very glad that this was struck down! the only ones who really need to be on the registry are the child
    molesters, rapists, and the violent. the cost savings would be enormous.
    and the savings in man hours would be extraordinary! how much cheaper,
    better, safer for all if the police only had to watch and monitor some,
    not all. it is fantastic to see some intelligence being used against these laws that protect no one and do no one any good. the only ones who truly benefit from these restrictive laws are the politicians who come up with them. they use scare tactics and fear mongering to make themselves look tough on crime. oh, and to garner votes!

    • Elizabeth Frantes

      Do you know what a PLEA BARGAIN IS? No? No wonder you’re dumber than a box of rocks on quaaludes

  • Elizabeth Frantes

    Keep in mind that most sex offenders are never charged with the offenses they commit. DAs routinely drop charges in plea bargains. Richard Allen Davies was NOT registered as a sex offender, even though he had been arrested for a vicious kidnapping/rape, the DA dropped ALL THE SEX CHARGES and that’s why he was on the streets to kidnap Polly Klaas. The victim of the first crime was not told of the plea bargain, nor that he had been released, and she was very lucky he didn’t go after her .. . we know that sex offenders NEVER STOP OFFENDING and many have dozens, even HUNDREDS of victims.

  • ShellyStow

    Elizabeth, as old as this is, I doubt anyone will see it but you, if you check back, so I will speak only to you. You hold several beliefs that are not factual or true. You also show a willingness to be childishly insulting to someone you do not know. For your own sake, if you are going to be an advocate for what you believe in, at least do a little research and learn a few facts. You won’t find any support for most of your beliefs, but at least you will avoid looking foolish by saying things that anyone not ignorant of the subject matter will laugh at. As far as your insults and crude remarks, ask yourself if anyone will pay much attention to someone who appears to be about ten years old. You are entitled to your opinions and beliefs, but you would do well to present them in a more adult manner. Thank you and peace to you.