CA - City being sued by registered sex offender

Original Article

06/10/2014

By Doug Keeler

Lawsuit alleges ordinance designed to keep sex offenders away from parks, other areas are unconstitutional

The City of Taft is being sued by a registered sex offender.

The suit was filed May 29 in federal court and alleges an ordinance passed in 2007 designed to keep sex offenders away from areas where children are likely to congregate is unconstitutional.

City Attorney Jason Epperson met with the Taft City Council in closed session to discuss the suit.

The suit is not unique.

The plaintiff in the suit is _____, a man convicted in 1979 of lewd and lascivious acts with a child under age 14. That conviction requires him to register as a sex offender.

Similar suits have been filed against other California cities, alleging that ordinances similar to the one in Taft violate the fifth and fourteenth amendments of the United States Constitution, the ex post facto clause of the constitution and the California Constitution.

The suits centers on city ordinance 8-13, which states, in part:

• It is unlawful for any registrant to reside within 2,000 ft. of any children's facility or child daycare center within the city.
• It is unlawful for any registrant to loiter within 300 ft. of any children's facility or child day care center within the city.

The suit, filed by Arroyo Grande attorney Janice Bellucci, doesn't seek cash damages (it does seek attorney fees and other costs) but asks the court to order the city to stop enforcing the ordinance and declare the ordinance “null and void.”

Chief of Police Ed Whiting said that he doesn't believe the ordinance has ever been enforced and has no knowledge of it being enforced against the defendant.

Bellucci is associated with a group called California Reform Sex Offender Laws.

Taft isn't alone in being sued on behalf of Lindsay, a Grover city resident.

Lompoc was sued in April and Pomona was sued in April just to name a few.

CA - Wasco sued over sex offender ordinance

Original Article

05/16/2014

By Jose Gaspar

WASCO (KBAK/KBFX) - A lawsuit filed Thursday in federal district court in Los Angeles by a group called California Reform Sex Offender Laws challenges a Wasco ordinance that restricts sex offenders.

"We allege that the Wasco sex offender ordinance violates both the federal and state constitutions," said Santa Barbara attorney Janice Bellucci, president of the nonprofit legal group.

Wasco approved the ordinance in 2007. It prohibits registered sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of any "children's facility."

But, it also bans registrants from being within 300 feet of a wide range of public and private locations, such as libraries, day care centers, parks and other places.

Bellucci said registrants have a right to access a library.

"There's a constitutional right to access to information. That's part of the 1st Amendment to the U.S. constitution, and that is being abridged by this city ordinance," said Bellucci.

She said the goal is to get rid of "presence restrictions" in every county in California in 2014.

Wasco city officials defend the ordinance, saying it was adopted with the intent of protecting residents and most of all, children.

"My intent is to protect the welfare and the safety of our children in our community," said Wasco Mayor Tilo Cortez.

According to Megan's Law website, Wasco has 15 registered sex offenders living within the city limits.

"Whenever you have registered sex offenders around small children, it's a concern for any parent," said Cortez.

The lawsuit is asking the federal court that it strike down the city's ordinance as null and void, and that Wasco pay all attorney fees and costs associated with the suit.

Five other cities in Kern County have similar sex offender ordinances in place: California City, Delano, Shafter, Taft and Tehachapi.

Just two weeks ago, the city of Shafter agreed to stop enforcing its ordinance after being informed by California Reform Sex Offender Laws that it, too, could be sued.

Cortez said he could not comment on the suit as the city has not yet been served.

"Obviously, we're just finding out about this, but we'll see where the law takes us," said Cortez.

CA - City of Cypress agrees not to enforce residency and presence restrictions

Original Article

02/04/2014

The City of Cypress, located in Orange County, has agreed not to enforce most of its residency restrictions and all of its presence restrictions as terms of two settlement agreements reached on January 31. The City of Cypress also agreed to pay attorney’s fees and costs for the lawsuits filed against them in federal and state courts. In exchange, the plaintiffs in those cases have agreed to dismiss with prejudice the pending lawsuits.

“This is a significant victory for the registered citizens and the family members of registered citizens in Cypress,” stated Janice Bellucci (Video), the attorney who represented the plaintiffs. “Families who were once threatened to be torn apart will now be able to live together in that city.”

The Cypress ordinance severely restricted the locations where a registered citizen could live to only two small segments of that city: in the city’s cemetery and in an industrial park area. The ordinance also prohibited visits by a registered citizen to public areas such as the public library, city parks, and restaurants with recreational areas for children.

The city’s stay of enforcement for residency restrictions will last until the California Supreme Court renders a decision regarding whether or not residency restrictions are constitutional. The city’s stay of enforcement for presence restrictions will last until the same court decides whether to grant review of the Godinez case which deemed the Orange County ordinance to be unenforceable.

The City will continue to enforce a few provisions in its sex offender ordinance — Halloween restrictions and restrictions regarding how many registered citizens can stay in the same hotel or in the same hotel room. A total of three lawsuits were filed last year challenging the Cypress ordinance — two in federal court and one in state court.

See Also:

• D.A. will take sex-offenders fight to state Supreme Court

CA - Lawsuit seeks to block Simi Valley's Halloween sex offender ordinance

Original Article

09/28/2012

By Mike Harris

A federal lawsuit filed Friday seeks to block enforcement of Simi Valley's new Halloween sex offender ordinance, contending it is unconstitutional.

The lawsuit alleges that the ordinance violates the First and 14th Amendments because it "suppresses and unduly chills protected speech and expression."

The suit was filed in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles by five registered sex offenders, three of their spouses and two of their children, all Simi Valley residents. They are identified only as John and Jane Does.

It's the first time one of the Halloween sex offender laws passed by a number of California cities, including Ontario and Orange, has been challenged in court, said Santa Maria attorney Janice Bellucci (Video).

Bellucci, president of the board of a group called California Reform Sex Offender Laws, filed the suit, which also seeks unspecified financial damages, on behalf of the plaintiffs.

Simi Valley City Attorney Marjorie Baxter said the lawsuit is groundless.

"We thoroughly researched the ordinance and I don't feel the lawsuit has any merit, and we will defend it vigorously," she said.

The Simi Valley City Council adopted the law — the only one of its kind in Ventura County — to prevent sex offenders from having contact with trick-or-treating children on Halloween. Championed by Mayor Bob Huber, a lawyer who is seeking re-election in November, the measure applies to the several dozen convicted child sex offenders who live in the city and are listed on the Megan's Law website.
- So what is wrong with the sex offender hit-list?  Guess you're saying it doesn't work like intended, and also, what about holding parents accountable and having them go along with their children?

The ordinance requires the offenders to post signs on their front doors saying, "No candy or treats at this residence." It also bars them from opening their doors to children on the holiday, displaying Halloween decorations or having exterior lighting on their property from 5 p.m. to midnight on Oct. 31.

When voting for the measure on Sept. 10, Councilman Steve Sojka expressed concerns that the city could be exposing itself to a lawsuit by passing the law.

The measure is scheduled to take effect in time for Halloween.

The lawsuit argues that the ordinance prohibits "a discrete and socially outcast minority from expressing any publicly viewable celebration of Halloween" and "forces this group to impose a burden on their own safety and that of any person who resides with them by requiring them to turn off all exterior lighting at their residences on Oct. 31 every year."

The ordinance also publicly shames the sex offenders "by mandating that they place a large content-specific sign on their door every year," the lawsuit contends.

But Councilman Mike Judge noted at the council's Aug. 20 meeting that the ordinance was limited to registered sex offenders on the Megan's Law website, which publicly lists their identities.

"We're not branding them," Judge, a Los Angeles police officer, said. "They're already branded."

Bellucci argues that there are no reported instances of a child being molested while trick-or-treating.

According to her group's website, the organization is "dedicated to restoring civil rights for those accused and/or convicted of sex crimes."

The City Council adopted the ordinance on a 4-1 vote with Councilwoman Barbra Williamson dissenting. She and Sojka are also running for re-election in November.