Lawmaker: State Supreme Court 'Sided with Sex Offenders' over Children

A Riverside County lawmaker today denounced a California Supreme Court ruling that invalidated provisions of a 2006 law limiting where convicted sex offenders are permitted to reside.

Assemblywoman Melissa Melendez, R-Lake Elsinore, described the court’s unanimous decision in William Taylor vs. San Diego County as illustrative of a “breakdown of California’s public safety system.”

“I feel nothing but utter disappointment after judicial activism reigned supreme at the state’s high court today,” Melendez said. “They sided with sex offenders rather than protecting innocent children.”

Melendez characterized the court’s action as one more instance of the judicial branch chipping away at voter-approved measures.

“From the continuous early release of criminals, decriminalization of date-rape drugs -- and now the striking down of this instrumental law that keeps our children safe from sexual predators who lurk near their schools and play areas -- we are witnessing the continued breakdown of California’s public safety system,” the legislator said. “Californians deserve responsible leadership from their government.”

In its 31-page opinion, the Supreme Court found that the residency restrictions established under Proposition 83, the Sexual Predator Punishment and Control Act -- better known as “Jessica’s Law” -- were “unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive.”

The ruling, penned by now-retired Associate Justice Marvin Baxter, pointed to the challenges faced by four registered sex offenders -- William Taylor, Stephen Todd, Jeffrey Glynn and Julie Briley -- who filed civil complaints against San Diego County based on their inability to find housing because of a Jessica’s Law provision that bars sex registrants from living within 2,000 feet of a school or public park.

Two lower courts ruled in favor of the petitioners, who argued their parole conditions under Jessica’s Law “made entire cities off limits to registered sex offenders.”

The California Supreme Court ruling noted that the petitioners were unable to find “compliant” residential quarters, and in one case, a parole agent had suggested that one of the offenders live along the San Diego River to avoid violating his parole, which the man did.

The Supreme Court cited a study showing “the percentage of multifamily parcels that are compliant with the residency restrictions (for registrants) is less than 3 percent (in San Diego County).”

The court found registration requirements on the whole were constitutional under Jessica’s Law, but ruled that the so-called “exclusion zones” or “predator-free zones” ringing schools and parks were an overreach, and therefore upheld the lower court decisions.

Provisions that require convicted sex offenders to notify law enforcement whenever they move to a new location were not affected, and the court acknowledged that parole agents should have limited discretion in prohibiting sex registrants who have been convicted of various crimes against children from living in certain locations.

--City News Service

Also on Patch:

• Ex-Con Who Killed Motorist During Police Chase Sentenced
• Man Flees Police By Car, Foot in Lake Elsinore Chase
• Corona Crash Leaves Vehicle Ablaze
• Lake Elsinore Gets A Visitor From The North
• Lakeside Lancer Regiment Guard Takes 5th
• Top 4 Destinations in California for Spring Break