Families of SOs Community Group
WE HAVE MOVED!!! ............................. ............................... ......................... ............................ ............................. .......................... HERE: http://support-for-families.boards.net ............. ................ ............... ................ ............................... .................Please create a profile...
The California Supreme Court has scheduled oral argument on two residency restriction cases on December 2 starting at 2 p.m.. The oral arguments are open to the public and will be held at the Ronald Reagan State Office Building, 300 South Spring Street, Third Floor, North Tower, Los Angeles.
“The issue of where a registered citizen may live is of great importance to more than 105,000 families within the state of California,” stated California RSOL President Janice Bellucci. “This issue is also important to the protection of the state and federal constitutions.”
The first of the two cases is People v. Mosley, for which the Court granted review more than four years ago. An important element of that case is whether residency restrictions apply only to registered citizens on parole or to all registered citizens. The source of the residency restrictions at issue is Jessica’s Law which prohibits registered citizens from living within 2,000 feet of a school or a park. That law, when codified, was placed in a section of the Penal Code that applies only to parolees.
The second of the two cases is In re Taylor for which the Court granted review more than two years ago. The focus of this case is whether the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) can prohibit all registered citizens on parole from living within 2,000 feet of a school or a park. The California Court of Appeal stated in its September 2012 decision that residency restrictions adversely affect three constitutional rights – the right to travel, the right to privacy and the right to establish a home. The Court ruled that blanket residency restrictions exceed the scope of its stated objective — the protection of children — because it eliminates nearly all existing affordable housing in San Diego for registered citizens and in essence banishes them from living within most if not all of San Diego County and because it treats all paroles the same regardless of whether his or her crime involved the victimization of children or adults.
“Registered citizens, family members and those who support registered citizens are encouraged to attend the Court’s oral arguments on December 2,” stated California RSOL Vice President Chance Oberstein.
California RSOL will conduct a press conference near the site immediately following the oral arguments.
http://californiarsol.org/2014/11/ca-supreme-court-to-hear-two-residency-restrictions-cases/#comments
“The issue of where a registered citizen may live is of great importance to more than 105,000 families within the state of California,” stated California RSOL President Janice Bellucci. “This issue is also important to the protection of the state and federal constitutions.”
The first of the two cases is People v. Mosley, for which the Court granted review more than four years ago. An important element of that case is whether residency restrictions apply only to registered citizens on parole or to all registered citizens. The source of the residency restrictions at issue is Jessica’s Law which prohibits registered citizens from living within 2,000 feet of a school or a park. That law, when codified, was placed in a section of the Penal Code that applies only to parolees.
The second of the two cases is In re Taylor for which the Court granted review more than two years ago. The focus of this case is whether the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) can prohibit all registered citizens on parole from living within 2,000 feet of a school or a park. The California Court of Appeal stated in its September 2012 decision that residency restrictions adversely affect three constitutional rights – the right to travel, the right to privacy and the right to establish a home. The Court ruled that blanket residency restrictions exceed the scope of its stated objective — the protection of children — because it eliminates nearly all existing affordable housing in San Diego for registered citizens and in essence banishes them from living within most if not all of San Diego County and because it treats all paroles the same regardless of whether his or her crime involved the victimization of children or adults.
“Registered citizens, family members and those who support registered citizens are encouraged to attend the Court’s oral arguments on December 2,” stated California RSOL Vice President Chance Oberstein.
California RSOL will conduct a press conference near the site immediately following the oral arguments.
http://californiarsol.org/2014/11/ca-supreme-court-to-hear-two-residency-restrictions-cases/#comments
Advocate2
Wow just wow! I have been trying to get some clarification on FL laws - it is very unclear which SO laws apply to those on parole or probation and those that are for all SOs (regardless of paper) - the counties and cities all have their little ordinances for all SOs but I want to know about the state law. I had a judge tell me a few years back that an SO (off paper) breaking the county law of living restrictions etc. was a civil misdemeanor and handles in civil court
Join the Conversation