CA: Fresno County to pay out in settlement over law restricting sex offender housing
Janice Bellucci can add another check to the victory column as Fresno California will be paying out an undisclosed amount in a settlement to the Alliance for Constitutional Sex Offense Laws (ACSOL) attorney who sued them over their residency restriction.
In addition to the settlement Fresno has to pay out, is the more important win – they repealed their sex offender residency restriction. Even though the state determined years ago that such laws were unconstitutional, several municipalities chose to keep the law on their books, presumably for political reasons. Apparently, they are not even currently enforcing it!
Taking that stance has cost them in the form of paying Janice’s attorneys fees, which knowing Janice will be rolled over to fund another challenge!
A side note: these residency restrictions had been declared unconstitutional by the California Supreme Court in 2015 and a 2011 management board that studied them determined they are ineffective and proximity has no correlation to re-offense. The fact that some cities have been digging in their heels despite the clear knowledge that they will get themselves sued, lose and wind up paying out tens of thousands in fees is indicative of the fact that legislators are unwilling to risk political standing despite taking action that is unconstitutional, known to be contrary to empirical data and that will cost their taxpayers money.
Janice… that’s my gurrrllll! Love you Janice and I love that you are a kick ass supporter of civil rights! God bless you always!
I am not familiar with this case. Can someone from FAC place a brief explanation on here as to what it entails? Is it similar to the Florida 1,500 foot residency rule? Which, in turn, most Counties and Cities, have manipulated into 2,500 foot restrictions.
Ed D.,
Florida’s residency restriction is 1,000 feet, not 1,500.
In 2015, the California Supreme Court decided two cases on residency restrictions – People v. Mosley and In re Taylor. The effective result of these cases was that municipalities cannot enact blanket bans on residency and anyone who was not on probation could not be subject to a SORR.
Despite having been declared unconstitutional by their Supreme Court, many municipalities chose to keep their law on the book to appear “tough”, including San Diego, which happened to be one of the defendants in the Supreme Court case.
Janice Bellucci, who is one of the heads of ACSOL (a sister affiliate organization in California), put these municipalities on notice that if they don’t repeal their ordinances, she would sue on behalf of the registrants living there. Some voluntarily repealed on the threat of a lawsuit (which they knew would not win), some waited until they got sued and then acquiesced, and some simply dug in their heels and refused to repeal (even despite the advise of their own city/county attorneys).
Knowing they were not going to win, they nevertheless perpetuated the unnecessary litigation which took time and money and eventually (in the case of San Diego and now Fresno), had to reimburse ACSOL for fees.
My apology for the error on the distance for Florida. Could you tell me, has this ever been challenged in the Florida legal system? I mean the Constitutional validity of the residency restrictions? If not, as of yet, do you see it happening in the not too distance future? While I was “grandfathered in to my current home in Deltona, due to “exceptions” that were in the Ordinances, right after my P.O. went to visit the Deltona City Attorney, the laws were changed and the “exceptions” were omitted! So anyone coming out now, will not enjoy the same fairness I was given. I know the PO was responsible for that happening.
Yes, Does v Miami-Dade.
Is that an ongoing case? Or was it resolved? If resolved, what was the outcome? Thanks in advance for answering my questions.
Please search our site, read our weekly updates and call in for our member updates. it’s discussed regularly.
It’s ongoing since 2014 and in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Great news I hope tax payers take notice
Will this now open up the opportunity for plaintiffs to individually also sue for damages that have resulted from these unconstitutional laws?
Good. I care not that the tax payers loose there money. I pay taxes and get un wanted punishment by the same city I pay taxes to. So good. I hope they get sued again and again untill this stops.
Agreed. Maybe when the taxpayers realize their money is going to waste, they will stop supporting leaders with the “dig in our heels” mentality.
I was living in Fresno, California at the time this was all going on. Sadly, i struggled to find housing and was forced to live in a smaller park on the outskirts of town. It was all that could be found that met the residency restriction distance. It caused me great stress and anxiety, so much so that I left in Dec of 2016 to go back to of all places, my hometown which I did not want to do. This residency restriction altered the course of my life in a negative way and suffered 3-4 years of moving around and loss of shelter as a result. Luckily there was a silver lining in all of it, but not much. If I had stayed in Fresno, I could have been more successful, especially financially. I had to let go of my business mailbox in San Francisco as well, which was helping me secure clients and contacts. Now it’s out in the middle of nowhere nobody’s ever heard of.
I am happy that these lawsuits are resulting in wins and settlements, but why do we have to suffer for years on end before resolve?
I am STILL dealing with the aftermath of a mugshot extortion scheme and cyber-stalking/cyber-harassment from 2011… it is now 2020. All because of a public name and shame registry which nobody seems to care about the actual reason on the registry on the first place. No damned justice. The tax payers are the ones who are paying the price while the politicians get to promote themselves to higher positions.
This is why when it comes right down to it, the laws won’t matter and I might one day be forced to take the law into my own hands to protect myself. How many more years shall we wait for actual justice? Taking the money from taxpayers for all of this does not sit well with me, but at least we know the money is going to Janice, who has tirelessly worked to get us that justice for many years. Go Janice & team!
Maybe some of the other municipalities in other states will sit up and take notice? From the registry to residency restrictions it’s all a bunch of political BS. Does not protect anyone! Just makes it extremely difficult for someone with a sex offense to move on with their lives. What kind of rehabilitation is that? Just a bunch of vindictive BS in my humble opinion. I like to see this kind of push back against the machine! Keep the momentum going!!
The question remains, how soon can they sue again? Because I would repeat this over and over again.
Sue whom? The Fresno case settled.
There are other towns being sued.
Someone reworded this, as the first wording made it out that the lawsuit would and had failed in it’s attempt to enforce the changes required, and instead simply amounted to simply forcing the state to dish out for her attorney fees.
Can she challenge Ohio’s restrictions? I volunteer to be the challenge address
I know this comment is not related to this post. But did anyone happen to catch the mayor down and South Florida say he wanted his actions to be guided by science and not over react about the corona virus. That’s amazing that now they want to look at facts instead of embracing hysteria.
Praise God!
No, Praise St. Janice!!
Thank you so much Janice!!