« History lessons and future forecasts concerning pot prohibition | Main | Two distinct Illinois appellate panels find Miller retroactive on two distinct grounds »

December 2, 2012

State court strikes down Orange County prohibition on sex offender visits to parks and beaches

As reported in this new Los Angeles Times article, a "controversial Orange County sex offender law that bans some people from visiting parks and beaches has been ruled illegal by a panel of Superior Court judges, who have asked the state appeals court to now review the get-tough rule."  Here is more about the ruling and its impact:

The panel reached the decision after overturning the conviction of a registered sex offender who was ordered to serve 100 days in jail after he was caught attending a Cinco de Mayo party at Mile Square Park in Fountain Valley.

The Orange County district attorney’s office, which has pushed cities across the county to adopt the sex offender ban, said it would continue to enforce the law.  “I believe that protecting children from sex offenders is one of the highest priorities in law enforcement,” Dist. Atty. Tony Rackauckas said in a statement.

But the ruling has drawn immediate fallout. Sheriff Sandra Hutchens has asked her department to stop enforcing the law, and Lake Forest, one of the many cities that adopted the rule, is considering repealing its ordinance.

Nearly half the 34 cities in Orange County have adopted the law, and of those, almost half are now being sued.  To persuade cities to adopt the law, the district attorney's office has taken a forceful approach — sending ranking prosecutors and administrators to City Council meetings to talk with municipal leaders.

Orange County appears to be the lone county in the state to adopt a law banning all registered sex offenders — even those who haven't been convicted of a crime against children — from going to a county beach or spending time in a county park.  And while registered sex offenders can apply for an exemption for work or family gatherings, few have been approved.

In its Nov. 15 decision, the Appellate Division of Orange County Superior Court ruled that the county ordinance is unlawful because the state Legislature is the only body that should be enacting restrictions on sex offenders.  “Such a patchwork of local ordinances poses tremendous risk to the offender who may not be aware of each regulation in each city, or indeed even know the precise location of city borders,” the decision read.

December 2, 2012 at 10:56 AM | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451574769e2017d3e619920970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference State court strikes down Orange County prohibition on sex offender visits to parks and beaches:

Comments

good based on the 2002 USSC decision this law and any like it are illegal on there face anyway.

As far as i'm concerned passed of any like this is legal ground to kill the govt fucktard stooge who was retarded enought to sign it.

Posted by: rodsmith | Dec 2, 2012 10:59:13 PM

“I believe that protecting children from sex offenders is one of the highest priorities in law enforcement,” Dist. Atty. Tony Rackauckas said in a statement.

Yes, and destroying families and Constitutional rights at the same time. He said that he will continue to enforce the law. In this man's simple mind (a lawyer's mind), drunk drivers don't count as a threat to the (heads bowed for effect please) children. If I am not mistaken, (and I rarely am) I read that the DA's Chief of Staff's husband was arrested for driving under the influence on (drumbeat please) Halloween Night. Somehow, I bet that this will be swept under the rug in our JUSTUS System.

Posted by: albeed | Dec 3, 2012 7:56:59 AM

I work as a note-taker/reader at a local community college.

This ban actually could UNDERMINE law enforcement personnel and the general public if embittered former sex offenders decide to have a head-on confrontation with police, or stage civil disobedience against this form of segregation the way the freedome riders in the Southeastern U.S. between the 1940's and early 1960's with lunch counter sit-ins, etc. Some sex offenders might go off the deep end and decide they have nothing to lose anymore by targeting police, God forbid.

This segregation law does NOT protect the publice; it potentially endagers them!

Posted by: william r. delzell | Dec 3, 2012 9:21:14 AM

william, to compare dangerous icky pervs to people fighting segregation is beyond offensive.

Is the law perhaps foolish and exclude people who aren't dangerous icky pervs from accessing a park or a beach? Perhaps, but to exclude people based upon their actions in committing sex offenses is obviously legal as a punishment for a crime. All that will happen is that every new sex offender will have this clause added to their probation - or if a previously convicted sex offender gets a probation violation this clause will be added. And that while perhaps still foolish as being overinclusive will be perfectly constitutional.

Erika :)

Posted by: Erika | Dec 3, 2012 10:49:05 AM

Um...
"...dangerous, icky, pervs?"
If you truly knew what you were talking about, you might realize that such a blanket statement is not only unethical but slanderous...
The "icky" pervs you refer to make up only a small percentage of the total number of people labeled as sex offenders. Further, when you consider the population as a whole, they are hardly noticeable (except in the media)...
As far as adding a clause to probation conditions, this has to be shown, before the court, that the addition of such a clause is justifiable. The "offender" is also entitled to a hearing before any changes are made (federal)...
Just because some idiot county DA thinks he is Batman or something does not justify continued punishment after a person has served their sentence. Add to that the fact that most people labeled as offenders were not a threat to society in the first place...
Finally, to consider that ignorance of the protections written into the Constitution to enforce human rights can ever be considered "constitutional" is ludicrous and demonstrates a severe degradation in our society. But, perhaps, it's always been that way...
The Romans kept their society together by hating Christians...
The Nazis kept their society together by hating Jews...
The United States did it with African Americans, alleged communists and now, alleged "sex" offenders...
Take a deep breath, get some coffee, sit down and think a moment...
The "icky perv" you refer to may only be a fantasy built by your own fears...

Posted by: NPJ45143112 | Dec 3, 2012 11:43:31 AM

Albeed --

If I am not mistaken, (and I rarely am) I read that the DA's Chief of Staff's husband was arrested for driving under the influence on (drumbeat please) Halloween Night. Somehow, I bet that this will be swept under the rug in our JUSTUS System.

Not only are you NOT mistaken, he is more than just the COS's hubby... he's DA Rackauckas' top personal adviser AND a former chair of the California GOP, per local station KCRA's report seen here.

IOKIYAAR

Posted by: Brian G. | Dec 3, 2012 5:14:52 PM

Several points:

I was the first person to warn the OC Supervisors about the very action that they are now undergoing. (SOURCE: http://totalbuzz.ocregister.com/2011/03/21/law-would-ban-sex-offenders-from-county-parks/50283/). Having said that, the county is now going to justifiably be liable for hundreds of thousands, if not low millions, in awards and lawyer fees. This is, in fact, a no-brainer, but to be blunt, this is all on the OC DA's own volition as he is trying to become the next California Attorney General (not likely in this Democrat-controlled state).

SPECIAL NOTE TO "icky perv" Erika :) :

"All that will happen is that every new sex offender will have this clause added to their probation - or if a previously convicted sex offender gets a probation violation this clause will be added. And that while perhaps still foolish as being overinclusive will be perfectly constitutional."

Erika, you miss the point entirely. We are NOT talking about conditions of probation or parole here, of which is an entirely different argument, mainly being that parole conditions that restrict access to locations is entirely constitutional within the sentencing scope of the court. The point made is that the prohibition applies to ALL registered sex offenders whether they are under the supervision of the court derived from their original judgment, or have been discharged from the court system through expiration of sentence or judge decision. In this case, your statement does not apply. But then again, you, like the public, are more than likely to confuse the two (heavens knows that the press does it all the time).

However, I am going to be interviewed by the OC Register on Thursday, so this matter is far from over.

Posted by: Eric Knight | Dec 3, 2012 6:39:50 PM

erika you want to tell me which empty head you found this bit of criminal stupidity in?

" but to exclude people based upon their actions in committing sex offenses is obviously legal as a punishment for a crime"

First legally it's not a punishment. If you as a member of the public are now admitting it is in fact a punishment. You slam right up into both that nasy document the constitution and the 2002 ussc decison which said the registry is not punishment.

Second this is being applied to those not on probation/parole who have legally and constutionally finished their legal court ordered sentence. Legally the hate-filled neo-nazi wannabee's of this country have no more right to tell them where to live or work or walk than they do you!

as for this fucktard DA as far as i'm concerned the only headline i want to see about him will be

"Possible Future State District Attorney was found today with his empty head blown off!"

FILM at 11!

Posted by: rodsmith | Dec 3, 2012 9:53:56 PM

Erika,

In response to your response to me, this law that you support does NOT protect children from those who molest them. If one did molest children, we still have older, pre-Megan's Law, existing statutes and laws in which one can throw the book at anybody who re-offends. These restrictions you support are redundant and smack of petty apartheid--the laws that South Africa when it was still under brutal white rule used, not for the purpose of protecting public safety, but simply to HUMILIATE non-whites by denying them use of the same and equal facilities like parks, sidewalks, public transit, libraries, restaurants. When petty apartheid went so far as requiring non-whites to use the white AFRIKANS language, that was the tip of the ice berg that caused major riots against petty apartheid by the mid-1970's.

How does this all relate to Orange County's Jim Crowing of parks against a class of former felons? First, it uses exclusion/segregation and uses stereotypes about sex offenders that resembled such stereotypes used in the past against Jews, blacks, Chinese, Ethiopians, Armenians, etc. as a way of maintaining ethnical solidarity among the ruling class.

This type of banning categories of people from city/county parks, etc. could lead to eventual violent outbursts by those subject to these banning, where they might blow up at any police officer who attempts to enforce this law on them. Some of these former offenders might decide that they have nothing to lose anymore by lashing out at law enforcement even if it means the death penalty for them.

This ban is a very mis-guided, "feel-good" law used by cynical politicians pretending to be for victims' rights to cover up their own wrong-doings and to push through a totalitarian agenda.

I work as a reader/writer for a local community college.

Posted by: william r. delzell | Dec 4, 2012 10:14:48 AM

How true william and if you study history it's easy to see over and over and over that when activity like this happnes usualy the only way it stops is when those it's happening to and their friends start killing those who do it and those who support it.

This case is even more serioius since we legally have a 2002 United States Supreme Court decison that basically says what they are doing is Unconstitutional. So anyone who decides to resist has ever legal and moral right to do so no matter who they have to hurt or kill that is trying to enforce it.

Posted by: rodsmith | Dec 4, 2012 10:47:56 AM

Anyone who compares a law like this to Nazi Germany, Apartheid Era South Africa, or Jim Crow era laws is engaging in about the world's most offensive comparision.

The fact is that ultimately these type of laws are going to be upheld - quite simply, the ability to use a public park is a privilege and not a right. That means that the government - like any other landowner - can set rules for park usage (as long as they do not discriminate against a protected group) and even exclude entire groups of people (again as long as it is non-discriminatory). Having been convicted of a sex offense does not make one a protected class - not only are sex offenders not protected as a class there are actually laws which legally mandate their discrimination. Public ownership does not alter the general rules of property - thus, the park near my house can ban people from playing golf, riding horses, walking dogs without leashes, or entering after dark - if you do that, you can be given a ban from ever going back to the park. That is perfectly legal because there is no fundamental right to use public property.

There is a privilege to use public property as long as you follow the rules set by the landowner. However this is not such a law - instead, this is a law excluding people convicted of a crime involving a sexual offense against a child or a forcible sex offense against an adult - from using a public beach. Sex offenders have already demonstrated beyond a reasonable dobut that they create a danger. i should have the ability to go to a public beach without having to worry about a rapist seeing me in my bikini. i should be able to take my niece to a park without having some icky perv pedophile looking at her.

No one would question if a city banned vandals from going into public parks and arrested previously convicted vandals from ever going into a public park again for trespassing. No one questions the right of a store to ban convicted shoplifters from ever entering that store again - that is much closer to the situation of banning sex offenders from parks. The only difference is that parks are set aside for people who abide by the rules set in the park. And that both the store and the park must accept people regardless of race, gender, disability, etc. - protected status in other words.

Having been previously convicted of a sex offense - especially a violent sex offense such as child molestation or rape - does not qualify as a protected status. Instead, convicted sex offenders have proven that they create a danger which is generally to women and children (statistically overwhelmingly female). There have been cases where previously convicted sex offenders have attacked women and children in public parks. That will create a sufficient public interest to justify state laws banning convicted sex offenders from entering parks as part of the state's police power - and that will be ultimately upheld (just you watch).

Remember that 4 justices of the United States Supreme Court in Kansas v. Hedrick declared that an icky perv could be effectively kept in prison for ever and that the state didn't even have to provide treatment. Those same 4 justices in Fouscha v. Louisiana said that you do not even have to have been an icky perv or even been convicted of a crime - the state could keep you in a mental hosptial which is indisguishable from prison. All the state had to do is to say that you were dangerous - they didn't have to treat you or even give you an actual mentalt health diagnosis. And the Roberts court is much more right wing than the Renquist court - if Constitutionally, most sex offenders could be kept in preventive detention (and it is clear that under Kansas v. Hedrick they could be) it is clearly constitutional to enact lesser restrictions of icky pervs especially in relationship to sensitive areas such as public parks and beaches.

Now i'm not saying that its good policy to bar all sex offenders from public parks and beaches - in my opinion, only people convicted of violent sexual offenses or any offense committed as an adult against a child under the age of 14. If someone was convicted of having sex with his 16 year old girlfriend as a 20 year old, he shouldn't even be a registered sex offender in my opinion and there is likely little to no risk of him being able to go to the beach or a park. However, almost all registered sex offenders are in fact people who committed violent sexual offenses almost always against women or girls. You cannot honestly tell me that you think that someone who raped a child would be safe working in a day care - why allow that icky perv to be able to hang out near a playground?

Now isn't it revealing that the icky perv apologists are male? Apparently they just do not think that violence against women and girls is a big deal. At least they are way more concerned with the rights of convicted male sex offenders than innocent women and children. That is backwards - to care about the right of a rapist or a pedophile over the right of an innocent person to be able to safely use a public park is perverse and speaks volumes. If it wasn't for social mysogny those sex offenders would likely all still be in prison where they belong because society would have given them the long prison sentences that violent sexual criminals deserved in the first place.

Someone who commits rape or molests a child should never be allowed to walk free ever again in their life. And its pretty clear that if men and boys were the primary victims of rape and not women and girls that the laws would already reflect that.

Erika :)

Posted by: Erika | Dec 4, 2012 12:36:30 PM

"Anyone who compares a law like this to Nazi Germany, Apartheid Era South Africa, or Jim Crow era laws is engaging in about the world's most offensive comparision."

No Erika, you are responsible for the most offensive comparisons, (as is Congress and the USSC) by making all those who have been convicted of what is labeled as a sex offense a "sex offender" and in yours and the public's mind a second class citizen. As Philip Zimbardo so eloquently expressed in the "The Lucifer Effect":

"At the core of evil is the process of dehumanization by which certain other people or collectives of them, are depicted as less than human, as non comparable in humanity or personal dignity to those who do the labeling. Prejudice employs negative stereotypes in images or verbally abusive terms to demean and degrade the objects of its narrow view of superiority over these allegedly inferior persons. Discrimination involves the actions taken against those others based on the beliefs and emotions generated by prejudiced perspectives.

Dehumanization is one of the central processes in the transformation of ordinary, normal people into indifferent or even wanton perpetrators of evil. Dehumanization is like a “cortical cataract” that clouds one’s thinking and fosters the perception that other people are less than human. It makes some people come to see those others as enemies deserving of torment, torture, and even annihilation."

You are guilty!

Posted by: albeed | Dec 4, 2012 1:06:30 PM

In response to Erika's contention that most critics of these laws are male, seems to imply on her part that only MALES are capable of committing horrible sex crimes AND that only a MALE would even be merely SUSPECTED (even if innocent) of such a crime.

Erika, one does not have to be male to commit a predatory sex offense; nor does one have to be male to be falsely accused of such a reprehensible crime. We have had cases of women, some guilty and some innocent, of being convicted (yes, CONVICTED)of such jailable and bannable offenses. One of these day, even YOU could run the risk (just as ALL of us can) of being railroaded for this type of crime. So, if I were you, I would not be so cocky about these questionable laws.

I have a cousin in law enforcement and I would not want to pick up a paper one of these days and find out that he had been shot dead by a former sex offender angry about laws that restrict their movements even after they have paid their dues. Without excusing anybody for a minute who commits a horrible predatory sex offense; or to condone anybody who chooses to shoot a police officer out of rage over this issue, my point is that these laws do NOT protect the public, but endanger it along with those who are assigned to protect the law-abiding public.

We DID have a case almost three years ago in Tacoma, Washington, where a registered sex offender recently released from Arkansas, entered a Star Bucks store and shot and killed four off-duty officers in cold blood before a fifth officer finally shot the cop-murderer dead.

So, I am not just talking off the top of my head, Erika.

Posted by: william r. delzell | Dec 4, 2012 2:18:58 PM

It seems like only yesterday the precious children in California were all dieing from second hand smoke, So to protect them we banned smoking in areas where children were known to congregate. Today those children are being threatened by the presence of "icky-pervs". So it stands to reason that if the no smoking bans worked and protected the babies in certain areas; so too will the banning of "icky-pervs". Who or what is next?

If this ban is not upheld I have a suspicion that Tony Rackauckas will be making sweet plea arrangements to anyone who'll sign his petition to get the "No Pervs in Parks" ban put on the next state election ballot.

Posted by: Stu Pidinca | Dec 4, 2012 9:58:41 PM

Horse Crap Erika! sorry but as long as their Tax dollars are paying for all these facilities they have every legal right to use em! You dont' want them using the facilities then go ahead and do what the other hatfe filled nazi-wannabee's want to do

Amend the Constitution and strip them of their citizenship. Might as well. They pretty much have no rights now!

as for this drivel from you!

"Anyone who compares a law like this to Nazi Germany, Apartheid Era South Africa, or Jim Crow era laws is engaging in about the world's most offensive comparision."

Guess what Erika a rose is a rose is a rose!

just like

a illegal law is an illegal law is an illegal law!

or a hate filled nazi wannabee is a hate filled nazi wannabee is a hate filled nazi wannabee!


The real sad thing is if all the hate filled nazi fucktards and those like you would just sit your asses down and PICK a damn law and a set of rules and apply it going forward. Nobody could legally say a word against them!

The the continual and never ceasing new laws each and every fucking year is going to do nothing but get people KILLED

hopefully how the aforementioned hate filled nazi wannabee's

Unfortunatley history has shown over and over and over and over pretty much the only ones who never get it in the neck are those who deserve it!

Posted by: rodsmith | Dec 5, 2012 1:07:32 AM

If the people who support these types of useless laws actually cared about public safety or protecting children, as they lie, these laws would not exist. The Registries wouldn't exist either, or at least they would not be publicly accessible.

Further, if the people who support this law actually thought it would do something useful, it would have covered all people who have been convicted of harming other people. And of course, if they thought the Registries were useful, there would have been many, many more types of Registries, along with all the adjunct moronic laws, created well over a decade ago.

People who actually care about public safety and protecting children listen to experts and don't support the Registries, etc.

The criminal terrorists who support this law and these types of bans are nothing but thieves. Until these criminal governments stop stealing from me and forcing me to pay for their huge, nanny, jobs-program governments, I will go ahead and assume that I own much, much more of these parks, beaches, etc. than nearly anyone else and they will not be stolen from me without consequences.

Citizens Registered for Hate and Harassment: It should be beyond clear to you that you are in a civil war with the Registry Terrorists. Don't just ensure that their hate laws are worthless, ensure that they are counterproductive. And work every day to do whatever you legally can to individually attack Registry Terrorists and lower the quality of their lives. Remember that that is what they are doing to you, your spouses, and your children. This is your country, not theirs. They belong in some other third-world country.

Posted by: FRegistryTerrorists | Dec 6, 2012 6:40:32 PM

Response to RODSMITH. You are sadly mistaken...
A quote attributed to Adolph Hitler in Mein Kampf reads as follows:
“The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation”

A myriad of similarities can be drawn between American sex offender laws and those laws imposed in Nazi Germany:

Comparison between Nazi and American Sex Offender Laws and Practices

Nazi Germany Laws and Practices
• Increased age of consent to 21
• Broad definition of sexual deviancy “lewdness”
• Dangerous Habitual Criminals and Measures for Protection and Recovery: Mandatory or “consensual” castrations
• Gestapo ordered registration of “asocials”
• Gestapo given power to round up suspected sex offenders without a conviction and shipped to concentration camps
• Sex offenders branded with pink triangles
• ”Re-education programs,” increased mandatory penalties for sex offenders, and indeterminate sentencing
• Women sexual deviants rarely punished, encouraged instead to be more feminine: Women can be cured, men are incurable
• Propaganda: “Weeding out inferiors” necessary to promote society and children
• Economic exploitability of sex offenders: civil forfeitures, cheap labor in camps
• Public fear, sex scandals, media propaganda, and use of informants to obtain registries

American sex offender laws and practices
• Increasing age of consent to 18 in most states
• Broad definition of sexual abuse for minor acts
• Various states have allowed judges to impose chemical castration on child victim or repeat sex criminals
• Megan’s Law: public registration of sex offenders
• Ohio passes first “Civil Registry,” allowing people to be registered as sex offenders without a conviction and subject to penalties
• Alabama sex offender licenses with the words “Sex Offender” in red letters
• Civil commitment programs, increased mandatory penalties for sex offenders, and indeterminate sentencing
• Female sex offenders receive lighter sentences and seen as less severe; all male sex offenders are “pedophiles”
• Banishing sex offenders is “necessary for safety of our youth”
• Economic exploitability: Billions in grants for agencies and private businesses dealing in sex offender monitoring
• Public fear based on misinformation of statistics, sex scandals, media propaganda, and registries make all registrants a suspect class
Wake up America!!!


Posted by: Nat | Dec 7, 2012 12:08:15 PM

What are you talking about Nat!

I'm on your side!

Posted by: rodsmith | Dec 10, 2012 12:07:15 AM

Post a comment

In the body of your email, please indicate if you are a professor, student, prosecutor, defense attorney, etc. so I can gain a sense of who is reading my blog. Thank you, DAB