More residency restrictions bite the dust

By Andrew Bowen . . . The city of San Diego has settled a lawsuit challenging a city law that limits where convicted sex offenders can live, agreeing to enforce the law only against those who are on parole.

The 2008 ordinance bans all registered sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a school, park or other facility that caters to children. The city has never enforced the law, however, because of concerns over its constitutionality.

In 2015, the California Supreme Court overturned a nearly identical law covering unincorporated San Diego County. The court found such residency restrictions are unconstitutional when applied to all sex offenders regardless of an individual’s circumstances, such as the severity of the crime or how much time had passed since their conviction.

Then, in 2017, City Attorney Mara Elliott asked the City Council to repeal the ordinance, noting it had never been enforced and would not likely withstand a legal challenge. But council voted 5-4 against the repeal, which prompted the Sacramento-based Alliance for Constitutional Sex Offense Laws to file suit on behalf of anonymous sex offender plaintiffs.

Read the remainder of the piece here at KPBS.

Help us reach more people by Sharing or Liking this post.


  • This topic has 1 reply, 1 voice, and was last updated 11 months ago by AvatarDerek.
Viewing 4 reply threads
  • Author
    • #67985 Reply

      Here in Ohio, in Stark County, we just had 14 people caught for sex trafficking minors, none of which were on the registry.
      Victims were as young as 12.
      One suspect is part of the Rape Crisis center and another a teacher I believe.
      This proves the uselessness of the registry.
      It does not prevent crime and it does not protect children and neither do residency restrictions.

    • #67987 Reply

      Another comment I would like to make is that if you look at the above map, the residency restrictions are the same as being in a Level 1a Prison.
      In a Level 1a Prison, you can go work in public for a period of time, but you must return every day to sleep and reside in confinement by the Penal Institution in a restricted area.
      The above map makes it clear that offenders with residency restrictions are re-confined or re-imprisoned upon release, just as though they were living back in a prison camp, the only difference is that there is not a barbed wire fence.

    • #68020 Reply

      I believe I mentioned I live right across the street from children and right in back of a family that has kids. Sure living rights are still “Rights”. As far as this school or library or other ordiences are concerned it sounds like many and much of this is a bit overrated in many ways with this restriction limitation of where a person can stay and it also presents a housing issue for some families.

      Different states will use the issue as a type of safety or public safety, At least I’m sure nobody run’s red lights or has a playboy mag in their car out in the open front seat. If one really understand’s, and I don’t even understand all this, its the state and government that want to look good or who slaps fines on this child porno that is on the internet today. Public safety is good but what about social safety type factors. Is it going the way of a type of sex offender colony, I hope not. I believe a lot of this is a money factor if you should ask me.

      Nothing wrong with a person watching their back in many of these issues but being intimided and left out in the cold about much of this “vain” type of justice ordeal makes one want to say where is true justice in America for anyone that gets wrapped up in this sex offender or offender drama which is so conceited and vain in many respects. True justice is good if even those that govern know how to govern right.

    • #68143 Reply

      Were any of the 14 previously convicted of a sex offence? If not they would not be on the registry, and therefore they will say the registry must be working, even though I agree the registry is useless and punitive.

    • #68380 Reply

      If residency restrictions are unconstitutional there , in san Diego how come there not in other states and cities, oklahoma , say Tulsa 2and largest city , you cant live in over 90% of it , okc the capital and largest city you cannot live in 86 % how is this legal how , This causes so many mental health concerns it crazy it’s time people it’s time to take the registry down its unconstitutional period

Viewing 4 reply threads
Reply To: More residency restrictions bite the dust
We welcome a lively discussion with all view points provided that they stay on topic - keeping in mind...

  • *You must be 18 or older to comment.
  • *You must check the "I am not a robot" box and follow the recaptcha instructions.
  • *Your submission must be approved by a NARSOL moderator.
  • *Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • *Comments arguing about political or religious preferences will be deleted.
  • *Excessively long replies will be rejected, without explanation.
  • *Be polite and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • *Do not post in ALL CAPS.
  • *Stay on topic.
  • *Do not post contact information for yourself or another person.
  • *Please enter a name that does not contain links to other websites.

Your information:

<a href="" title="" rel="" target=""> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <pre class=""> <em> <strong> <del datetime="" cite=""> <ins datetime="" cite=""> <ul> <ol start=""> <li> <img src="" border="" alt="" height="" width="">