CA RSOL Opposes AB 321
The California Reform Sex Offender Laws organization and the 102,000 families it represents oppose Assembly Bill (AB) 321 as currently written because it would further reduce the locations at which a “sex offender” can reside. That is, the bill would preclude “sex offenders” from living near a day care center or a foster home. Current state law precludes “sex offenders” on parole from living within 2,000 feet of a school or a park. That law significantly limits where a “sex offender” and his/her family can live. In fact, it completely eliminates residency in some major cities such as San Francisco and most locations within cities such as Los Angeles and San Diego.
Laws like AB 321 are based upon misinformation. The facts are (1) most children are sexually assaulted not by a “sex offender” but by a family member, teacher, coach or clergy and (2) less than 2 percent of “sex offenders” commit a second sex-related offense. These statistics come from the CA Sex Offender Management Board report of September 2011 and CDCR report of October 2012.
Please send letters to the bill’s author, Tim Donnelly, at P.O. Box 942849, Room 2002, Sacramento, CA 94249-0033 or call him at (916) 319-2033. You can also communicate with Assemblyman Donnelly by E-mail by going to www.assembly.ca.gov. Donnelly is a Republican who represents Victorville and adjacent cities.
This Post Has 20 Comments
Commenting Rules
We welcome all input but ask that you stay civil and on-topic. Comments on this site are moderated - one of our volunteer moderators will review your comment as soon as possible. Thank you.
What does this mean? Are they really trying to apply this to all RSOs even those who have completed parole/probation? It sounds like it, yet the supreme court already ruled on the law about the parks that it could only be applied to parolees, so what gives?
I am truly sick to death of all these changes in the laws being applied retroactively.
None of them are based on facts and so it is clearly *punishment* not ‘protecting the general public welfare’ which means this is blatant persecution.
Like or Dislike:
+6
So this is in addition to SB 386 by Senator Correa? WTheck?!!!!
Like or Dislike:
0
Unfortunately, yes!
Like or Dislike:
-1
So …. Another letter will be drafted and mailed.
Like or Dislike:
0
My letter is in the mail. Thanks to a registrant who alerted me to this bill (he recieved an email) before it was posted on this website.
Like or Dislike:
+1
Wow, California sounds like its totally out of control with sex offenders laws and potential laws? Its truly surreal. The only thing we can watch on TV now is either shows with sex or violence, but yet people wonder how or why people break laws or get the ideas to break the laws? Furthermore, statistics in California are clearly showing that there is almost no recidivism in California, but yet politicians and city leaders continue to push for more stringent laws/policies? Its clearly evident that they must have a lot of time on their hands. Furthermore, the imploding of new or implied future laws should send a clear message to law makers in Sacramento that a tier system needs to move forward sooner than later. Not all sex offenders are serious or high risk? Furthermore, people need to be able to eventually fall off the registry after a certain amount of years. California, wake up!
Like or Dislike:
+4
Its the “Throw Everything on the wall and see what sticks” method… They’ll keep throwing and throwing over and over again
Like or Dislike:
0
C’mon man..shake your head dummily ..your eyes are stuck..it doesn’t matter what
your name is..what matters is this…you’re wasting time and money
Again…this restriction can only apply to within probation/parole
..c’mon man..stop it …the stats and percentages are the people
who are forced to be on listing are at least 98 percent NOT
repeaters…just the facts dum ..stop lying and using fear…use the
truth and facts …people have proven you are WRONG…they are
NOT repeaters…they have proven you are massively WRONG.
Like or Dislike:
+1
Correct me if I’m wrong here but in reading that bill it seems like it says they want to make sure no rso’s are living IN a foster home or daycare center. I didn’t read anything about someone living near one?
Like or Dislike:
0
Proposed bill is vague ..already been before court’s decision and
based on false accusations ..based on fear……….President Kennedy
said freedom rules by diversity …communists rule by coercion.
Like or Dislike:
+2
Please be careful in how this bill is challenged. There appears to be a lot of misinformation here.
For instance, there is NO mention of a residency restriction exclusion zone mentioned in AB 321. Let me post the verbatim text here:
From AB 321: )
I only see that the restriction is geared toward residency addresses that are the same as those holding child-centric businesses. In fact, if a registrant used an address that was next door, or in the next apartment, in which a separate street address is given, then the registrant has not violated AB 321.
Now, the law may be worthy of challenge. Just ensure that the letters sent to the particular lawmakers are targeted specifically with the intent of the bill.
Like or Dislike:
+1
I do want to clarify: I do not see this bill used in conjunction with Jessica’s Law with regard to creating an additional location that can be used against RSO’s (on or off parole, dependent upon current court edicts and municipal codes). As currently written, I believe that the only coding that MAY be misappropriated (and potentially, purposefully so by zealous law enforcement personnel and prosecutors) lies in provision (a), in regards to interpreted or assumed that this address qualifies as a restricted location pursuant to Jessica’s Law.
Hope that’s clear as mud.
Like or Dislike:
+2
Eric, you’re right. Does it mean that a registrant can’t live NEAR a place/home that services children or CAN’T LIVE at a place/home that services children? Hopefully someone will clarify.
Like or Dislike:
+1
Eric, your clarification wasn’t posted at the time I posted my reply.
Okay, so I assume that they wrote the bill so that it would require law enforcement to make sure the registrant’s address isn’t a home that services children ie: foster home or day care.
Like or Dislike:
+1
That’s my take… but my clarification essentially stated “never say never.”
AB 321 specifically does not have residency restrictions in place, but that may not stop agencies from trying to us AB 321 in conjunction with existing residency zone restrictions. However, that is peripheral, not central, to the bill, so I feel that any write-in campaigns should be specific to the centrality of the bill. Prioritizing concerns on items that aren’t central to the bill only adds to the ineffectiveness of the campaign.
Like or Dislike:
+1
However, the bill does state “a place where prohibited” OR a place that serves children. It’s the “where prohibited” that might cause confusion and concern.
Like or Dislike:
+1
To continue the play of “muddying up the waters”…
AB 321 only applies to limiting residency in the specific residence, and not as one of the locations that Jessica’s Law pertains to. Unless Jessica’s Law itself is revised to include such locations, then we have an argument. At this time, such a location is not off-limits to RSO’s.
Now I don’t dispute that, as a result in enforcing AB 321, authorities may to expand restriction zones later on, and in fact the argument against enactment should include some of these concerns. This is key. We know more than anyone else how laws are typically expanded, and even predict that rate of expansion, and AB 321 certainly provides the genesis of such expansion. The point, though, is that we cannot effectively argue the result of the rate of expansion until the expansion actually occurs.
And yes, I agree also that the politicos know this as well: Enact an ordinance, then build upon it. A frog cannot be boiled by throwing it into a boiling pot; it must first be placed in lukewarm water, and the water slowly heated until the frog cannot get out and the water is subsequently boiled. This is exactly how sex offender laws are progressed to the point where only actions in Federal Court can undo the havoc.
Like or Dislike:
+1
This proposed piece of legislation is a toothless law. So the police have to tell you you can’t live somewhere. Then they have to send you a letter telling you to move out in 60 days.
And what If I say NO? I will not move. There isn’t anything in this law that makes it a crime NOT to follow it!
Furthermore, how am I supposed to know where foster homes are???? Day care centers might show up on google, but I seriously doubt foster homes do…
This law is another poorly drafted piece of junk, just like Jessica’s Law. I feel George and Sharon Runner’s slime all over this.
Like or Dislike:
+2
Are you certain? It may not have a listed punishment for the crime, but if they consider it (yet another) piece of tacked-on detail of ‘registration’ they could then say you’ve violated your registration? Which could land you in jail/prison for a short time, but then you’re stuck with years of probation/parole for years, gps, not allowed to live where you once did… I don’t know if this is the case, but it wouldn’t surprise me.
I suspect most of these ridiculous detail laws are just to trap RSOs into violating registration so they can boost the numbers to show recidivism, which will increase the stats to show they are a danger, and increase their power by ‘fighting it’.
Like or Dislike:
0
To me, it sounds like since the residential restrictions might not effect some registrants,(and might be found unconstitutional) they felt they needed this law to ensure that a registrant is not living in a home that may be a foster home, daycare or any home that provides services to children.
These days, I would suggest that no man lives in a home that provides outside children services, since it seems that all it would take is some unfounded accusation.
Perhaps they became aware of some registrant living in a home whereas a wife/girlfriend/family member was also running a daycare.
Like or Dislike:
+1