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.
When parties from all camps can't agree on what the words mean, let alone what was intended by the proposition, it only proves what a piece of garbage Prop 73 really was. No one can know what the voters actually thought they were voting for. Some support retroactivity, some don't. The flawed language was pointed out before the election--discrepancy after discrepancy.
They should throw out the whole darn Proposition and start over with responsibily written legislation. Else they will just spend a lifetime in court, all on the taxpayer dime.
The is a time limit on reclassifying a form of homicide not previously considered capital murder as capital murder and asking for the death penalty: the moment the law is passed extending backward.
So there is a time limit on any law under our Constitution, and it runs backward in time: you can't declare criminal or up the penalty for acts commited before a statute took effect. What part of "no ex post facto law" don't you understand?
The good tyrants promise always sounds common-sensical in the context in which it is proposed.
If we get rid of the prohibition on ex post facto laws by fiat, maybe by fiat some future legislature or state AG will decide that bills of attainder are fine, too, and pass a bill of attainder against all persons posting on internet forums with the screen name nmh.
Wasn't Jerry Brown found not qualified to be Attorney General? I have not heard of a court ruling justifying his eligibility.
Do it for the KIDDIES, for a change!
REALLY look out for them instead of just pretending you care.
Yup, you're right. Constitution and everything predating, post dating, judicial decisions and all the same be damned, I FEEEEEEEEL that nothing else matters but how I FEEEEEL about this.
Read your constitution and then get back to the adults, FRiend. Some folks just FAIL to understand that different folks done got different ideas. Some are good, some are not so good, and some are downright repulsive. That's WHY America is as great as it is, DESPITE the single-issue folk. Discussion of all the different ideas is WELCOME, rather than proscribed.
It might also help to learn how to spell, or at least use the spell check available.
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.