Californiarsol is doing a legal analysis of the decision.

http://tinyurl.com/k4anv62

The legal analysis is not up yet, but keep checking back.

rewdiazepam

Here is a better link for the legal analysis and discussion.

http://tinyurl.com/nt2b8ve

rewdiazepam

This good but they are still making them not be near schools?

This whole thing is so hard to understand. Nobody really knows anything, still. Rew, do you understand all the interpretations? I am lost and my head is spinning.

Both cases, especially the first, fell below our expectations.

The first decision-----------

In the first case the court punted on whether the residency restrictions are constitutional.

But they did conclude that the residency restrictions are not an "added penalty."

The second decision-------

The court here said that the residency restrictions violate the constitution. The Court bases this declaration on a finding that residency restrictions infringe upon a registrant’s liberty and privacy interests and that they constitute unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive official action.

But this only applied if you are a registered citizen on PAROLE in SAN DIEGO and only as a BLANKET restriction levied by CDCR.

It only applies to registered citizens who are on parole and only those in San Diego.

The Court granted CDCR the authority to apply residency restrictions that are “more or less restrictive” than those found in Jessica’s Law provided that they do so on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.

I think their are four key words in these two decisions-----parole, San Diego, blanket, and case-by-case. When you read the decision slowly and remember these key words, it makes it easier to comprehend.

rewdiazepam

"Cities and counties can prevent the continuation of these violations in their jurisdictions by repealing their ordinances that include residency restrictions. Any city or county that fails to repeal such restrictions faces the possibility of a legal challenge from California RSOL or other like minded organizations." - CARSOL