Existing law, the Sex Offender Registration Act, requires persons convicted of specified sex offenses to register with local authorities for life while residing, located, attending school, or working in California. Existing law, as adopted by the voters by the passage of Proposition 83 at the November 7, 2006, statewide general election, prohibits a person who is required to register as a sex offender from living in specified places, including within 2,000 feet of a school or park where children regularly gather. Existing law authorizes municipal jurisdictions to enact local ordinances that further restrict the residency of the registered sex offender. Existing law makes it a misdemeanor for a person who is on parole for specified sex offenses to enter any park where children regularly gather without express permission from the persons parole agent.

This bill would state that a local agency is not preempted by state law from enacting and enforcing an ordinance that restricts a registered sex offender who is required to register for an offense committed against a minor from residing or being present at schools, parks, day care centers, or other locations where children regularly gather within the local agencys jurisdiction. The bill would authorize a local agency to adopt ordinances, rules, or regulations that are more restrictive than state law relating to a registered sex offenders ability to reside or be present at those locations within the local agencys jurisdiction if the person is required to register for an offense committed against a minor.

Existing law, the Sex Offender Registration Act, requires persons convicted of specified sex offenses to register with local authorities for life while residing, located, attending school, or working in California. Existing law, as adopted by the voters by the passage of Proposition 83 at the November 7, 2006, statewide general election, prohibits a person who is required to register as a sex offender from living in specified places, including within 2,000 feet of a school or park where children regularly gather. Existing law authorizes municipal jurisdictions to enact local ordinances that further restrict the residency of the registered sex offender. Existing law makes it a misdemeanor for a person who is on parole for specified sex offenses to enter any park where children regularly gather without express permission from the persons parole agent.

This bill would state that a local agency is not preempted by state law from enacting and enforcing an ordinance that restricts a registered sex offender who is required to register for an offense committed against a minor from residing or being present at certain locations schools, parks, day care centers, or other locations where children regularly gather within the local agencys jurisdiction. The bill would authorize a local agency to adopt ordinances, rules, or regulations that are more restrictive than state law relating to a registered sex offenders ability to reside or be present at certain those locations within the local agencys jurisdiction if the person is required to register for an offense committed against a minor.

Existing law, the Sex Offender Registration Act, requires persons convicted of specified sex offenses to register with local authorities for life while residing, located, attending school, or working in California. Existing law, as adopted by the voters by the passage of Proposition 83 at the November 7, 2006, statewide general election, prohibits a person who is required to register as a sex offender from living in specified places, including within 2,000 feet of a school or park where children regularly gather. Existing law authorizes municipal jurisdictions to enact local ordinances that further restrict the residency of the registered sex offender. Existing law makes it a misdemeanor for a person who is on parole for specified sex offenses to enter any park where children regularly gather without express permission from the persons parole agent.

This bill would state that a local agency is not preempted by state law from enacting and enforcing an ordinance that restricts a registered sex offender from residing or being present at certain locations within the local agencys jurisdiction. The bill would authorize a local agency to adopt ordinances, rules, or regulations that are more restrictive than state law relating to a registered sex offenders ability to reside or be present at certain locations within the local agencys jurisdiction.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Senator Loni Hancock, Chair

2015 - 2016 Regular

Bill No: SB 267 Hearing Date: May 12, 2015

Subject: Registered Sex Offenders: Local Ordinances

HISTORY

Source: San Bernardino County

Prior Legislation: AB 655 (Quirk-Silva) – 2014, died in Senate

SB 386 (Correa) – 2013, amended into unrelated bill

Support: Crime Victims United of California

Opposition: American Civil Liberties Union; California Public Defenders Association; California Reform Sex Offender Laws; Housing California; Citizens for Criminal Justice Reform – California; Legal Services for Prisoners with Children; 2 individuals

PURPOSE

The purpose of this bill is to authorize local ordinances which restrict the presence of certain sex offenders, by 1) providing that a local agency is not preempted by state law from enacting and enforcing an ordinance that restricts a person required to register as a sex offender for an offense committed against a minor from being present at schools, parks, day care centers, or other locations where children regularly gather within the local agency’s jurisdiction; and 2) authorizing a local agency to adopt ordinances, rules, or regulations that are more restrictive than state law relating to a person’s ability to be present at schools, parks, day care centers, or other locations where children regularly gather within the local agency’s jurisdiction when the person is required to register as a sex offender for an offense committed against a minor.

Current law generally requires persons convicted of enumerated sex offenses to register within five working days of coming into a city or county, with specified law enforcement officials in the city, county, or city and county where he or she is domiciled, as specified.¹ (Penal Code § 290.)

Current law provides that no person who is required to register as a sex offender because of a conviction for a crime where the victim was a minor under 16 years of age shall be an employer, employee, or independent contractor, or act as a volunteer with any person, group, or organization in a capacity in which the registrant would be working directly and in an unaccompanied setting with minor children² on more than an incidental and occasional basis or have supervision or disciplinary power over minor children. This subdivision shall not apply to a business owner or an independent contractor who does not work directly in an unaccompanied setting with minors. (Penal Code § 290.95(c).)

Current law provides that every person required to register as a sex offender who applies for or accepts a position as an employee or volunteer with any person, group, or organization where the registrant would be working directly and in an unaccompanied setting with minor children on more than an incidental and occasional basis or have supervision or disciplinary power over minor children, shall disclose his or her status as a registrant, upon application or acceptance of a position, to that person, group, or organization. (Penal Code § 290.95(a).)

Current law provides that every person required to register as a sex offender who applies for or accepts a position as an employee or volunteer with any person, group, or organization where the applicant would be working directly and in an accompanied setting with minor children, and the applicant’s work would require him or her to touch the minor children on more than an incidental basis, shall disclose his or her status as a registrant, upon application or acceptance of the position, to that person, group, or organization. (Penal Code § 290.95(b).)

Current law prohibits the issuance of a license to operate or manage a community care facility to a person required to register as a sex offender, as specified. (Health and Safety Code § 1522.) In addition to the applicant, this section is applicable to criminal convictions of the following persons:

1. Adults responsible for administration or direct supervision of staff.

2. Any person, other than a client, residing in the facility.

3. Any person who provides client assistance in dressing, grooming, bathing, or personal hygiene. Any nurse assistant or home health aide, as specified.

4. Any staff person, volunteer, or employee who has contact with the clients.

5. If the applicant is a firm, partnership, association, or corporation, the chief executive officer or other person serving in like capacity.

6. Additional officers of the governing body of the applicant, or other persons with a financial interest in the applicant, as determined necessary by the department by regulation. (Id.)

Current law provides that any person required to register as a sex offender shall disclose this fact to the licensee of a community care facility before becoming a client of that facility, as specified. Any person or persons operating a community care facility that accepts as a client an individual who is required to register as a sex offender shall confirm or deny whether any client of the facility is a registered sex offender in response to any person who inquires whether any client of the facility is a registered sex offender, as specified. (Health and Safety Code § 1522.01.)

Current law requires that individuals, who are volunteer candidates for mentoring children in foster care settings, as defined by DSS, shall be subject to a criminal background investigation prior to having unsupervised contact with the children. The criminal background check shall be initiated and conducted pursuant to either Sections 1522 and 1522.1 or Section 1596.603, as applicable. Sections 1522 and 1522.1 may be utilized by a county social services agency in cooperation with, or as a component of, a licensed foster family agency. (Health and Safety Code § 1522.06.)

Current law provides that persons required to register as a sex offender based upon the commission of an offense against a minor, are prohibited from residing, except as a client, and from working or volunteering in any of the following:

1. A child day care facility or children’s residential facility that is licensed by the State Department of Social Services, a home certified by a foster family agency, or a home approved by a county child welfare services agency.

2. A home or facility that receives a placement of a child who has been, or may be, declared a dependent child of the juvenile court pursuant to Section 300 of the Welfare and Institutions Code or who has been, or may be, declared a ward of the juvenile court pursuant to Section 601 or 602 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. (Penal Code § 3003.6)

Current statutory law, as enacted by Proposition 83 in November of 2006, provides that, “. . . it is unlawful for any person for whom registration is required pursuant to Section 290 to reside within 2000 feet of any public or private school, or park where children regularly gather.

(c) Nothing in this section shall prohibit municipal jurisdictions from enacting local ordinances that further restrict the residency of any person for whom registration is required pursuant to Section 290.” (Penal Code § 3003.5.)

Current case law provides that it is unconstitutional to apply these residency restrictions “across the board to petitioners and similarly situated registered sex offenders on parole in San Diego County.” (In re William Taylor (2015) 60 Cal. 4th 1019.)

Current case law provides that state law regulating the management of sex offenders in the community supersedes any local ordinances in this area. (People v. Nguyen (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 1168, rw. den.)

This bill would provide the following:

• A local agency (defined by the bill to mean a city, county, or city and county) is not preempted by state law from enacting and enforcing an ordinance that restricts a person required to register pursuant to Section 290 for an offense committed against a minor from being present at schools, parks, day care centers, or other locations where children regularly gather within the local agency’s jurisdiction.

• A local agency may adopt ordinances, rules, or regulations that are more restrictive than state law relating to a person’s ability to be present at schools, parks, day care centers, or other locations where children regularly gather within the local agency’s jurisdiction when the person is required to register pursuant to Section 290 for an offense committed against a minor.

RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION

For the past eight years, this Committee has scrutinized legislation referred to its jurisdiction for any potential impact on prison overcrowding. Mindful of the United States Supreme Court ruling and federal court orders relating to the state’s ability to provide a constitutional level of health care to its inmate population and the related issue of prison overcrowding, this Committee has applied its “ROCA” policy as a content-neutral, provisional measure necessary to ensure that the Legislature does not erode progress in reducing prison overcrowding.

On February 10, 2014, the federal court ordered California to reduce its in-state adult institution population to 137.5% of design capacity by February 28, 2016, as follows:

• 143% of design bed capacity by June 30, 2014;

• 141.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2015; and,

• 137.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2016.

In February of this year the administration reported that as “of February 11, 2015, 112,993 inmates were housed in the State’s 34 adult institutions, which amounts to 136.6% of design bed capacity, and 8,828 inmates were housed in out-of-state facilities. This current population is now below the court-ordered reduction to 137.5% of design bed capacity.”( Defendants’ February 2015 Status Report In Response To February 10, 2014 Order, 2:90-cv-00520 KJM DAD PC, 3-Judge Court, Coleman v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (fn. omitted).

While significant gains have been made in reducing the prison population, the state now must stabilize these advances and demonstrate to the federal court that California has in place the “durable solution” to prison overcrowding “consistently demanded” by the court. (Opinion Re: Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants’ Request For Extension of December 31, 2013 Deadline, NO. 2:90-cv-0520 LKK DAD (PC), 3-Judge Court, Coleman v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (2-10-14). The Committee’s consideration of bills that may impact the prison population therefore will be informed by the following questions:

• Whether a proposal erodes a measure which has contributed to reducing the prison

population;

• Whether a proposal addresses a major area of public safety or criminal activity for which there is no other reasonable, appropriate remedy;

• Whether a proposal addresses a crime which is directly dangerous to the physical safety

of others for which there is no other reasonably appropriate sanction;

• Whether a proposal corrects a constitutional problem or legislative drafting error; and

• Whether a proposal proposes penalties which are proportionate, and cannot be achieved

through any other reasonably appropriate remedy.

COMMENTS

1. Stated Need for This Bill

The author states:

SB 267 is about giving locals the necessary tools to protect their children in their community. This bill would allow local governments to restrict the presence of registered sex offenders, who commit crimes against children, around schools, parks, day care centers, or other locations where children regularly gather. In January 2014, the Court of Appeal, Fourth District Division 3, decided the case of People v. Nguyen (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 1168, concluding that the City of Irvine was preempted by provisions in the Penal Code from restricting the location of registered sex offenders from city parks. Prior to the opinion issued in People v. Nguyen numerous counties and cities across the state had adopted local regulations concerning the presence of sex offenders at locations in their community where children are present. In response to this case, an organization that supports sex offender rights has sued in excess of 20 local jurisdictions, forcing them to repeal all or part of their local regulations on the presence of sex offenders. This bill clarifies the legislative intent that local governments are not preempted by state law from enacting presence restrictions that are stricter than the state requirements, with regard to sex offenders.

2. What This Bill Would Do

As explained above, this bill would authorize local governments to enact ordinances restricting the ability of persons required to register as a sex offender for an offense against a minor to be present at schools, parks, day care centers, or other locations where children regularly gather within the local agency’s jurisdiction. As noted by the author, in People v. Nguyen (2014) 222 Cal. App. 4th 1168, the Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District (Division 3 – Santa Ana) struck down a local ordinance of the City of Irvine restricting sex offenders required to register for a crime against a minor from entering “upon or into any City park and recreational facility where children regularly gather without written permission from the Director of Public Safety/Chief of Police or his designee is guilty of a misdemeanor.” That ordinance broadly defined “City park and recreational facility” as “community parks, neighborhood parks, the Orange County Great Park, open space preserves, trails, including structures thereon, and all other lands and facilities under the ownership, operation or maintenance of the City that are utilized for public park or recreational purposes, whether passive or active.” (People v. Nguyen at 1173.)³

SHOULD STATE LAW REGULATING THE MANAGEMENT OF SEX OFFENDERS IN THE COMMUNITY NOT PREEMPT LOCAL ORDINANCES?

3. Restrictions on Sex Offender Registrants in the Community

As noted above, several existing statutory provisions impose limits on persons required to register as sex offenders. Current laws generally prohibit registered sex offenders from working in positions having direct, unsupervised contact with children. In addition, registered sex offenders cannot work at community care facilities, including child day-care facilities, residential care facilities for the elderly, public schools, and certain recreational jobs. Existing law also requires public school districts and private schools to conduct criminal record checks on teachers and administrators.

Recent cases have centered on the residency restrictions for sex offender registrants imposed by a voter initiative, Proposition 83, in 2006. This bill has been amended to remove residency; its restrictions on presence remain in the bill. The reasoning of court decisions concerning residency may inform the Committee’s consideration of this bill’s proposal concerning local ordinances which would impose greater restrictions on a registrant’s presence. Earlier this year the California Supreme Court explained:

As we next explain, we are persuaded that blanket enforcement of the mandatory residency restrictions of Jessica's Law, as applied to registered sex offenders on parole in San Diego County, cannot survive even the more deferential rational basis standard of constitutional review. Such enforcement has imposed harsh and severe restrictions and disabilities on the affected parolees' liberty and privacy rights, however limited, while producing conditions that hamper, rather than foster, efforts to monitor, supervise, and rehabilitate these persons. Accordingly, it bears no rational relationship to advancing the state's legitimate goal of protecting children from sexual predators, and has infringed the affected parolees' basic constitutional right to be free of official action that is unreasonable, arbitrary, and oppressive. (In re William Taylor, infra, at 1038.)

Members may wish to discuss whether this bill would advance the “state’s legitimate goal of protecting children from sexual predators,” and how this bill, which would apply not only to parolees but any sex offender registrant whose past offense was against a minor, would affect registrants who are living law-abiding lives, especially if ordinances vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

Members also may wish to discuss whether due process would require actual notice of each jurisdiction’s ordinance, and how sex offender registrants affected by these ordinances would receive actual notice of their requirements. In Lambert v. California (1957) 355 U.S. 225, the United States Supreme Court held that requiring convicted felons to register within five days of coming into the city of Los Angeles when such persons had not had actual notice of the city's registration requirement was an unconstitutional denial of due process. Many counties have many local jurisdictions within their boundaries. For example, there are 88 cities within Los Angeles County, 28 cities in Riverside County, 24 incorporated cities in San Bernardino County, and 17 cities in San Diego County. Unlike persons who are personally informed of their duty to register, it is unclear how persons subject to a patchwork of unknown, potentially multiple and varying local ordinances restricting their presence in public places would gain actual knowledge of these restrictions.

WOULD THIS BILL VIOLATE CONSTITUTIONAL DUE PROCESS RIGHTS?

HOW WOULD A PATCHWORK OF VARYING PRESENCE ORDINANCES BE?

WOULD PUBLIC SAFETY BE ENHANCED BY LOCAL COMMUNITIES DETERMINING WHERE SOME PERSONS WHO ARE REQUIRED TO REGISTER AS SEX OFFENDERS MAY OR MAY NOT BE PRESENT?

An October 2014 report released by the Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering and Tracking (“SMART”) in the federal Department of Justice developed the Sex Offender Management Assessment and Planning Initiative (SOMAPI), “a project designed to assess the state of research and practice in sex offender management. That report states in part:

Despite the intuitive value of using science to guide decision making, laws and policies designed to combat sex offending are often introduced or enacted without empirical support. The reasons why this occurs are complex and are not explored here. However, there is little question that both public safety and the efficient use of public resources would be enhanced if sex offender management strategies were based on evidence of effectiveness. . . . ¶

(S)tudies have revealed that proximity to schools and other places where children congregate had little relation to where offenders met child victims.⁴

The SOMAPI report included the following related recommendations:

• Jurisdictions should use specialized supervision with a rehabilitation orientation as one component of an overall sex offender management strategy.

• Given COSA's (Circles of Support and Accountability⁵) ability to facilitate collaboration with members of the community, the SOMAPI forum experts recommend COSA as a sex offender management strategy.

• Given the limitations of scope and methodology in existing SORN (Sex Offender Registration and Notification) research, further research is desirable to inform any future changes to SORN.

• SOMAPI forum participants do not recommend expanding the residency restriction policy.

WOULD THIS BILL ENHANCE PUBLIC SAFETY AND THE EFFICIENT USE OF PUBLIC RESOURCES?

4. California Sex Offender Management Board: Containment Model and Exclusion Zones

As explained in a recent report issued by the California Sex Offender Management Board:

AB 1844, known as the Chelsea King Child Predator Prevention Act, was signed into law by the Governor in 2010 and made several changes to the Penal Code regarding sex offender management. One significant change now requires that each registered sex offender on parole or county probation be managed under the Containment Model. Though there is flexibility in local application, the essence of Containment is that it include a victim-centered approach to policy and practice, supervision (State Parole or County Probation), specialized treatment provided by certified mental health professionals, and polygraph evaluations provided by certified polygraph examiners. The vision is when these partners are collaborating, the sex offender will be “contained”, thereby reducing the risk of sexual reoffending (Penal Code §§ 290.09, 1203.067, 3008, and 9003.)⁶

Members and the author may wish to discuss the implementation of the Containment Model in local jurisdictions, and whether its implementation may be an important priority for effectively managing sex offenders in the community.

With respect to exclusion zones, as this bill proposes, the Board states:

CASOMB has discussed whether to recommend a model ordinance on where sex offenders can go in the community. However, no research shows that exclusion zones are helpful in preventing re-offense. Restrictions about where the offender can go in a community are routinely imposed as part of the individual parole and probation conditions because they can be fashioned to relate to the particular offender. State laws already preclude registered sex offenders from being on school campuses and from working with children under defined circumstances. (Penal Code §§ 626.81, 290.95.) There is no evidence that broader restrictions will be effective, or will not be counter-productive by preventing offenders from obtaining appropriate employment.

CASOMB takes the position that any law precluding sex offenders from being in particular places (“exclusion zones”) must be tailored to the individual, including a consideration of the risk level of the offender in order to be effective and need to have reasonable distances and protected places along with consistency in implementation statewide. Correlating the tiered registry and exclusion zones would assist law enforcement in monitoring those individuals most likely to reoffend and would increase options for housing and employment in the interest of developing offender stability in order to prevent recidivism.⁷

IS THIS BILL INCONSISTENT WITH THE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT BOARD?

-- END –

SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNANCE AND FINANCE

Senator Robert M.Hertzberg, Chair

2015 - 2016 Regular

REGISTERED SEX OFFENDERS AND LOCAL ORDINANCES

Allows cities and counties to enact and enforce ordinances restricting registered sex offenders from residing or being present near locations where children regularly gather.

Background and Existing Law

The Sex Offender Registration Act requires people who have been convicted of specified sex crimes to register with local law enforcement authorities and to update their registrations pursuant to specified requirements. There are more than 110,000 registered sex offenders in the California Department of Justice’s statewide database.

On November 7, 2006, California voters enacted Proposition 83 – commonly referred to as “Jessica’s Law.” Proposition 83 enacted numerous statutory provisions increasing penalties for sex crimes, requiring GPS tracking for individuals convicted of felony sex crimes, expanding the definition of a sexually violent predator, and limiting where registered sex offenders may live. Specifically, Proposition 83:

• Prohibits any person who is required to register pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act from residing within 2000 feet of any public or private school, or park where children regularly gather.

• Allows municipal jurisdictions to enact local ordinances that further restrict the residency of registered sex offenders.

Pursuant to Proposition 83, some California local governments have adopted more restrictive local ordinances that restrict registered sex offenders from residing within distances greater than 2,000 feet from schools or parks. In addition to restricting where sex offenders can live, some local governments have adopted ordinances that establish “child safety zones” to restrict registered sex offenders from being present at parks, libraries, swimming pools, arcades, and other similar locations where children regularly gather.

Article XI, section 7 of the California Constitution allows counties and cities to make and enforce within their limits all local, police, sanitary and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws. However, courts have found that if otherwise valid local legislation conflicts with state law, it is preempted by such law and is void. A conflict exists if the local legislation “duplicates, contradicts or enters an area fully occupied by general law, either expressly or by legislative implication.”

Last year, an appellate court opinion in People v. Nguyen (222 Cal. App. 4^th 1168, 2014) found that state law’s comprehensive scheme regulating the daily life of sex offenders fully occupies the field, therefore preempting a City of Irvine ordinance restricting sex offenders from visiting city parks and recreational facilities. Although the Nguyen opinion found that state law implicitly preempts local ordinances regulating registered sex offenders from being present in specified locations, a concurring opinion noted that the Legislature can choose to amend state law to explicitly permit those local ordinances.

Proposed Law

Senate Bill 267 declares that a city, county, or city and county is not preempted by state law from enacting and enforcing an ordinance that restricts a person required to register pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act for an offense committed against a minor from residing or being present at schools, parks, day care centers or other locations where children regularly gather within the city, county, or city and county’s jurisdiction.

SB 267 allows a city, county, or city and county to adopt ordinances, rules, or regulations that are more restrictive than state law relating to a person’s ability to reside or be present at schools, parks, day care centers or other locations where children regularly gather within the city, county, or city and county’s jurisdiction when the person is required to register pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.

State Revenue Impact

No estimate.

Comments

1. Purpose of the bill. The recent court opinion in People v. Nguyen raises doubts about the validity of local ordinances in dozens of cities and several counties that impose location restrictions on where registered sex offenders may be physically present within the community. Several local governments that enacted these ordinances have been the target of lawsuits challenging the ordinances. As a result, many local governments have felt obliged to repeal some or all of their ordinances restricting sex offenders’ presence in locations where children gather. Promoting public safety through the adoption of local ordinances and regulations that reflect local conditions and priorities is one of the fundamental purposes of local governments’ police powers. SB 267 restores local officials’ ability to exercise police powers to protect their communities by restricting some registered sex offenders’ access to locations that are frequented by children.

2. Statewide uniformity vs. local control. Legislators continually struggle with how to balance state and local control. State laws that preempt local control promote uniformity. Local controls allow local officials to adapt policies to fit their communities' circumstances. Statewide statutes are important when individuals' rights are at stake --- like voter qualifications or access to the justice system. Local controls are important when individual rights aren't at risk and when there is general agreement that local elected officials should respect community differences. Some interest groups favor statewide laws because it can be complicated to comply with disparate rules adopted in 58 counties and 478 cities. Other groups prefer local regulations because they can advance their policies or economic goals one community at a time. SB 267 forces legislators to think about how they balance state control and local regulation for registered sex offenders. Should a registered sex offender’s access to certain public accommodations like swimming pools or movie theaters be subject to different levels of restriction in different communities? Does a person convicted of a particular sex crime pose different risks to public safety depending upon the community in which they are present?

3. Why include residency ordinances? SB 267 grants authority for local ordinances that restrict locations in which a registered sex offender can reside or be present. However, Penal Code 5003.5, as amended by Jessica’s Law, already allows local restrictions on where sex offenders live to surpass restrictions imposed by state law. The court opinion in the Nguyen case did not call into question local ordinances regulating where sex offenders can live. To the contrary, the court’s opinion specifically cited the fact that Jessica’s law allows local residency restrictions to be more stringent than state law to support its conclusion that state law has generally occupied the field of regulating registered sex offenders’ behavior, with only specified exceptions. SB 267’s provisions should apply specifically to ordinances that regulate locations where registered sex offenders may be physically present within a community, which are the ordinances that the Nguyen decision called into question. Because SB 267’s references to ordinances restricting where a registered sex offender can reside appear to be duplicative of existing law, the Committee may wish to consider amending SB 267 to delete references to ordinances that regulate registered sex offenders’ residences.

Support and Opposition

(4/9/15)

Support: California Fraternal Order of Police; Crime Victims United; Long Beach Police Officers Association; Los Angeles County Professional Police Officers Association; Sacramento County Deputy Sheriff’s Association; San Bernardino County; Santa Ana Police Officers Association.

Opposition: Unknown.

-- END --