Win in California
A win in California! Under threat of litigation the Seal Beach City Council repealed what are politely known as ‘residency restrictions’ which dictate where individuals required to sign the sex offense registry can reside. Statewide regulations still apply but those were cut back by a California Supreme Court decision. Banishment scheme is a more accurate descriptor for Seal Beach’s ordinance as it put “virtually” the entire city off-limits. Similar laws have driven registrants into homelessness and even worse predicaments. In Grand Rapids, Michigan, Frank Pauli, a registrant without a permanent home, froze to death in winter; residency restrictions prevented local missions from giving him warmth and shelter. Congratulations to Frank Lindsay, Janice Bellucci and the Alliance for Constitutional Sex Offense Laws (ACSOL). Have a look at the Los Angeles Times’ report. –Bill Dobbs, The Dobbs Wire
Seal Beach grudgingly scales back restrictions on where sex offenders can live
By Priscella Vega
Excerpts: Seal Beach rescinded its ordinance placing housing restrictions on registered sex offenders after facing a lawsuit from a reform group. In a reluctant but unanimous vote Monday night, the City Council decided that Seal Beach will no longer impose a residency restriction of 2,000 from a public or private school, park, childcare facility or multifamily housing.
Seal Beach is among the 20 cities recently targeted in a string of lawsuits filed by Janice Bellucci, a Sacramento-based attorney and founder of the The Alliance for Constitutional Sex Offense Laws, a group that believes, according to its website, that “sex offense laws and policies should be based on sound research and common sense, not fear, panic or paranoia.”
The complaint filed in the Orange County Superior Court in January alleges that Seal Beach’s residency restrictions for registered sex offenders violates the 14th Amendment’s due process guarantee because the “residential exclusion zones virtually cover the entire city” and accomplishes “the unconstitutional goal of banishment.” MORE:
Write a Reply or Comment