Posted on 01/17/2007 11:16:36 AM PST by radar101
The state's new attorney general Tuesday argued in court papers that any of the state's tens of thousands of registered sex offenders who change residences should be prohibited from living near a school or park.
Attorney General Jerry Brown's filing in federal court stuck with his predecessor's interpretation of Prop. 83, the sweeping sex-crimes initiative approved by voters Nov. 7.
But Brown's position continues the legal confusion about a major piece of the initiative named "Jessica's Law" after a slain Florida girl.
Gov. Schwarzenegger and other supporters of the law have said the provision banning sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a school or park where children gather should not apply to people who committed their crimes before voters passed the initiative.
In Tuesday's filing, attorneys for Brown -- who endorsed the initiative during the attorney general's race last year -- argued that Prop. 83's exclusion zones should cover any registered sex offender who moves, regardless of when the crime was committed.
Doing otherwise would "permit tens of thousands of convicted sex offenders to avoid (Prop. 83's) residency restriction altogether, and thus, significantly undermine the intent of California voters to monitor sex offenders more carefully in order to protect their children," the filing states.
There are an estimated 90,000 registered sex offenders in California, with about 15,000 of those in prison. There are an estimated 7,300 sex offenders in Riverside and San Bernardino counties.
Tuesday's filing precedes a Feb. 23 federal court hearing in San Francisco on an unidentified sex offender's lawsuit. The suit seeks to prohibit authorities from kicking any offenders out of their homes.
Lawyers for the plaintiff, who committed his crime more than 15 years ago, want written assurances that the residency restrictions are not retroactive.
An apparent deal collapsed Nov. 27 when lawyers for former Attorney General Bill Lockyer argued that the exclusion zones wouldn't be retroactive -- unless the plaintiff or any other offender moves.
Plaintiffs lawyers said the interpretation would put much of the state's urban area off-limits to sex offenders who committed their crimes before Prop. 83's approval.
U.S. District Court Judge Jeffrey S. White, meanwhile, complained then that he felt "ambushed" by Lockyer's office. He set Tuesday's deadline for the office to better explain its position.
Brown took office Jan. 8. Lockyer is now state treasurer.
Plaintiff's lawyer Dennis Riordan could not be reached for comment Tuesday. Dave Gilliard, a campaign consultant for Prop. 83, had not seen the filing.
Schwarzenegger's lawyers also have not reviewed the brief by Brown's office, a spokesman said.
"We will aggressively enforce Jessica's Law consistent with the voter's intent," spokesman Bill Maille said.
The uncertainty over Prop. 83's residency rules have some Inland sex offenders worried.
A registered sex offender in Moreno Valley said he has no plans to move. He worries the initiative someday will apply to all sex offenders who live near a school or park, even those who have been in the same home for a long time.
"I'm going to stay put where I'm at right now," said the 40-year-old offender, who spoke on the condition his name not be made public because he fears harassment. "If I did move, I would leave the state."
Prop. 83
The initiative dubbed "Jessica's Law" by supporters passed with 70.5 percent of the vote in the Nov. 7 election. It would ban registered sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a school or park where children gather.
it bums me out when I agree with Jerry Brown on issues....
what a cluster - trying to figure out that because this guy molested someone in 2005 he can live next to a park but the guy convicted in December 2006 can't...
Article 1 Section 9, C.3 states: 'No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed,' and Section 10 says: 'No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law. . . .'This is way out of my pay grade, but there seems to be a conflict.The 'words and the intent' of the Ex Post Facto Clause encompass '[e]very law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed.' Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. (1 Dall.) 386, 390 (1798) (opinion of Chase, J.).
An ex post facto law is a law passed after the occurrence of an event or action which retrospectively changes the legal consequences of the event or action.
"Gov. Schwarzenegger and other supporters of the law have said the provision banning sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a school or park where children gather should not apply to people who committed their crimes before voters passed the initiative."
BULL!
It needs to be RETROAVTIVE FOR ALL PERVERTS!
Do it for the KIDDIES, for a change!
REALLY look out for them instead of just pretending you care.
There is a conflict, but the issue is a lot simpler than this proposed measure. Simply lock child molesters up for the rest of their lives, with no chance of parole. Once the current batch dies off, you won't have to worry about recidivism.
the provision bans sex offenders from living
"retroactive" laws are unconstitutional. Those are Ex Post Facto Laws.
That's the dilemma here. The law may be needed, the intent good and 'for the children', but illegal.
This could go to SCOTUS to be sorted out.
But then you get the ACLU with the 'cruel and unusual' crap.
I think what we have here is a prosecutor posing for the cameras. He KNOWS ex post facto laws don't stand a chance in court. It is akin to increasing a sentence after sentencing.
Political games the MSM refuses to expose.
I can't say what I think about the ACLU without going to confession, so I'll abstain.
SCOTUS sidestepped the issue by saying registration wasn't a punishment, therefore no ex post facto law.
Which makes utterly no sense on several levels, but, then again, we're talking SCOTUS here.
;-) ditto
It really doesn't matter because this one is going to get overturned in the courts, and that is a GOOD THING. This is one of the most poorly written laws ever to go before California voters and aside from the ex post facto issue, it is going to be found unconstitutionally vague. The very fact that the government can't determine WHO THIS LAW APPLIES TO should tell people how poorly it was written.
FWIW, this law was specifically designed to do one thing in California. It drives sex offenders completely out of the densly populated LIBERAL coastal areas of the state, and into the less densely populated REPUBLICAN parts of the state. Back when this measure was debated, it was pointed out that the entire San Francisco Bay Area would become a sex-offender free zone, and that most of those sex offenders would probably relocate to the Central Valley and Sierra foothills. The liberals wanted this law to protect THEIR kids, and didn't really give a dang about anyone elses.
Brown is posing for the cameras.
He is also being very free with the tax dollars to fight this.
How about this, tax breaks for land lords of apartments who prohibit convicted sex offenders from living in their appartments.
Convicted felons are not subject to fair housing or discrimination laws. So you give the land lord a $500 per year discount if he puts a written clause in his lease with and actually does a $35 criminal back ground check.
No ex post facto constitutional violation of state or federal constitutions.
Take it up with the Founding Fathers: Ex post facto laws, are unconstitutional. There's always a good cause for taking away liberty: protection from perverts, protection from drunk drivers, protection from starvation, . . . No tyranny was ever imposed on a previously free society without some 'benefit' being promised.
What I'm getting isn't so much the registration, it's the 2000 ft rule.
I believe the one offenders complaint is that he has no plan on moving but what happens if they build a Park or School near his house? He's then in violation but was there first so why should he have to move. IMO that gets pretty close to Ex Post Facto if he's forced to move.
[I am not sticking up for these maggots. But these Ex Post Facto laws come into play with Gun Free School Zones. Thankfully SCOTUS shot down Di-Fi's unconstitutional law under Rehnquist (I was pretty close to the borderline distance - TOO close)].
"Take it up with the Founding Fathers: Ex post facto laws, are unconstitutional."
They must be rolling in their graves over how we are diligently ABUSING obvious common sense.
There is NO time limit on prosecuting murders and their should be NO time limit in keeping kids safe from PROVEN PREDATORS.
Any other specific clauses in the Constitution of the United States of America you want to go around?
I would argue that really long prison termns for sex offenders would be far more effective.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.