Can A Registered Sex Offender Visit California

Topic:
Day CARE; LEGISLATION; STATE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS; MUNICIPALITIES; RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS; Sexual practice CRIMES; MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES; SCHOOLS (GENERAL);
Location:
SEX OFFENDERS;

OLR Research Report


May 23, 2007		2007-R-0380
Sex OFFENDERS ' RESIDENCY RESTRICTIONS

By: Sandra Norman-Eady, Master Chaser

You asked for information about land laws and local ordinances that forbid registered sexual practice offenders from residing in or visiting sure areas.

SUMMARY

As of August 2006, at to the lowest degree 21 states and over 400 local governments had adopted sex offender residency brake laws and ordinances, respectively, co-ordinate to the California Research Bureau in an August 2006 report entitled The Impact of Residency Restrictions on Sexual practice Offenders and Correctional Direction Practices: A Literature Review. These laws are modeled after nuisance codes, creating sex offender-free zones like drug-gratuitous zones. They typically prohibit sex offenders from living, and sometimes working or loitering, within a specified altitude of designated places where children congregate.

Like all states, Connecticut requires sexual activity offenders to annals. And similar almost states, police must notify residents when a sexual practice offender moves or returns to their neighborhoods. Only, the land has non enacted a constabulary restricting sex offenders ' residency. This could change presently, however. A bill, sHB 5503, currently earlier the General Associates requires the Risk Assessment Board to utilise the risk assessment scale it develops to determine the sexual activity offenders who should exist prohibited from living inside 1,000 feet of the holding comprising an elementary or secondary school or a licensed center- or home-based kid day care facility.

Danbury is the only city in this state known to have an ordinance restricting sex offenders ' residency. The ordinance prohibits sex offenders from entering a public park, playground, recreation center, bathing embankment, swimming puddle, sports field, or sports facility.

Proponents of residency restrictions argue the need to safeguard potential victims and opponents argue the demand to runway offenders. Nosotros accept found no empirical studies on whether these laws reduce crime rates.

Ramble challenges to the laws and ordinances have been unsuccessful.

BACKGROUND

States began trying to keep track of sexual practice offenders over 50 years agone, when, in 1947, California enacted the first sex offender registration law. Now all states take sexual practice offender registration laws that help law enforcement agencies keep track of offenders ' movements.

In the mid 1990 ' due south states, following the federal government ' s lead, enacted community notification laws that crave law enforcement agencies to inform residents of the identity and location of sex offenders in their neighborhoods. These notification laws caused people to complain to their local official when sex offenders moved into their neighborhoods. Equally a result, five years after the first notification law the beginning sex offender residency and child safety zone restriction police was enacted in Texas.

SEX OFFENDER RESIDENCY RESTRICTION LAWS AND ORDINANCES

State Laws

At least 21 states have laws restricting where registered sex offenders can visit or live. The most mutual blazon of brake prohibits them from residing within a sure distance of specified places where children besiege. Distance markers mostly range from 1,000 to 2,000 feet from the designated place; however, Illinois and Due south Dakota have 500 human foot altitude markers. Some states limit the restrictions to offenders (i) convicted of only the most serious offenses (Arkansas, California, Indiana, and Louisiana) or (2) near likely to reoffend based on some blazon of take a chance assessment (Minnesota and Washington). Table 1 shows the 22 states, lists their relevant statutes, and describes the ban.

TABLE 1: RESIDENCY RESTRICTIONS BY STATE


States With Sex Offender Residency Restriction Laws
*Land*	*Statutory Citations*	*Restriction*
Alabama	� fifteen-20-26(a)	A sexual activity offender may non live or work within 2,000 feet of schools or childcare facilities.
Arkansas	� 5-xiv-128 (a)	A level 3 or 4 (most serious) sex offender cannot live inside 2,000 feet of schools or daycare centers.
California	W&I Code � 6608.5 (f) (2005) Penal Code � 3003 (g) (1) (3)	A sexually violent predator or a serious paroled sex offender cannot alive within ane-fourth of a mile of a school, and high-run a risk paroled sex offenders cannot alive within one-half mile of a school, daycare middle, or identify where children besiege.
Florida	� 947. 1405 (7)(a)(2)	A sexual practice offender whose victim was under xviii years old cannot live inside 1,000 anxiety of schools or places where children congregate.
Georgia	�� 42-1-thirteen and 42-1-fifteen	No sexual practice offender may alive, work, or loiter within 1,000 feet of any schoolhouse, childcare facility, schoolhouse bus stop, or place where minors besiege.
Illinois	� v/11-9.3 (b-5)	A child sex offender may not live within 500 feet of a school or school property.
Indiana	� xi-thirteen-3-4 (thousand) (2) (A)	A trigger-happy sex activity offender cannot alive inside 1,000 feet of whatever school property while on parole.
Iowa	� 692 (A)(2A)	A sexual offender may not alive within 2,000 feet of a school or childcare facility.
Kentucky	� 17.495	A sex activity offender may not live within 1,000 feet of a school, childcare facility, ball field, or playground.
Louisiana	�� 14:91.ane and 15.538	A sexually violent predator and serious paroled sex offender may not live inside 1,000 anxiety of schools or related school activities, including school bus stops for life or duration of parole or probation.
Michigan	�� 28.721 to 28.732	A sex activity offender cannot live within i,000 feet of school safety zone.
Minnesota	MSA Chap. 244.052 et al.	The parole commissioner determines if a level Iii sexual activity offender may live inside 1,500 feet of school zones.
Missouri	� 589.417	A sexual practice offender may not live within 1,000 anxiety of a school or childcare facility.
Ohio	� 2950.031(A)	A sexual activity offender cannot live within 1,000 feet of any school, childcare facility, or place where children get together.
Oklahoma	OSA Tit. 57 � 590	A registered sex offender cannot live within ii,000 anxiety of a school.

Table i: –Connected-


States With Sex Offender Residency Restriction Laws
*State*	*Statutory Citations*	*Restriction*
Oregon	�� 144.642 (1)(a) and 144.644(two)(a)	The Department of Correction decides where and how close a sexual activity offender tin live to a schoolhouse or daycare center based on a conclusion matrix.
Due south Dakota	� 22-24B	A sex offender cannot live or loiter inside 500 feet of customs prophylactic zones.
Tennessee	� xl-39-[2]eleven(a)-(b)	A sex offender cannot live within 1,000 feet of schools, childcare facilities, or the victim.
Texas	Texas Govt. Code Chap. 508.187 (b)	The country parole board decides how shut to a child safety zone a paroled sex offender can live or visit.
Washington	�� 9.94A.712(6)(a)(ii) and 9.95.425-430	A sex offender convicted of a serious offense with a high-chance assessment (Level II or Iii) cannot live within a customs protection zone (within 880 feet of whatever school or daycare eye)
West Virginia	� 62-12-26 (b) (1)	A paroled sex offender cannot live within ane,000 feet of a school or childcare facility.

Source: California Research Bureau/ California Country Library, 2006.

Local Ordinances

According to the California Research Agency, over 400 municipalities have enacted restrictive ordinances, primarily inside the past 2 years. States with known local ordinances include California, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, New Bailiwick of jersey, New York, Texas, Virginia, and Washington. The number of municipalities with such ordinances varies past state simply according to the bureau, at least 113 municipalities in New Bailiwick of jersey and 60 in Florida have them. Like state laws, local ordinances on this upshot either foreclose offenders from sure areas where children are known to congregate or institute distance markers.

Danbury is the merely urban center in Connecticut with such an ordinance. It prohibits kid sexual practice offenders who are required to register in this state from existence present in whatever child safety zone. A "kid safety zone" is a public park, playground, recreation center, bathing beach, swimming or wading pool, or sports field or facility and surrounding land.

The prohibition does non apply to any person:

i. whose name has been removed from the Section of Public Safety ' s Sex Offender Registry or from the registry in another state or in the federal or military system by court society or expiration of the registration term or

2. entering into a polling place in a child safe zone to vote if he leaves immediately after voting.

If a constabulary officer reasonably believes a kid sex offender is in a child prophylactic zone in violation of the ordinance, the part must inquire him to provide his proper name, address, and telephone number. If the officer ' s conventionalities is confirmed, he or she must issue the offender a written warning and require him to exit the area. An offender who refuses to exit and subsequent offenders are subject to a $100 fine for each violation. The fine does not apply if the offender ' due south conduct results in his conviction for a new criminal offense or if his parole or probation is revoked because of it (Danbury City Ord. � 12-27).

ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST RESTRICTIONS

The about powerful and often the single argument in support of safety zones or residency restrictions is that they reduce backsliding rates by keeping potential victims safety and apart from offenders. Opponents debate that these restrictions have a number of unintended consequences. For example, they (1) isolate offenders, oftentimes forcing them to live in rural areas that lack jobs, transportation, housing, and treatment; (2) create homelessness, making information technology hard for law enforcement officers to runway offenders; (3) cause offenders to go underground and not update registration information; and (4) tin can forestall offenders from residing with supportive family unit members who alive in the restricted areas.

CONSTITUTIONALITY OF RESIDENCY RESTRICTIONS

Residency restrictions accept withstood constitutional challenges in trial and appellate courts in Illinois, Iowa, Ohio, and S Dakota. At outcome in these cases collectively was whether the restrictions (one) impose criminal sanctions that penalize offenders whose convictions are terminal in violation of the ex post facto clause of Article I, Department 10, Clause 1, of the U.Southward. Constitution, (2) violate the constitutionally-protected right to travel, or (3) discriminate against offenders in violation of the 14^th Subpoena ' south Equal Protection Clause.

These courts have held that (1) residency restrictions are a form of civil regulation intended to protect children and thus prohibitions on ex mail service facto laws do not apply; (2) the federal constitution does non include a correct to live where one chooses; and (iii) residency restrictions are rationally related to states ' legitimate interests in protecting children from harm (see Doe v. Miller, 405 F. 3d 700 (viii^th Cir. 2005); State five. Steering, 701 Northward.West. 2d 655 (Iowa 2005); Coston five. Petro, 398 F. Supp. 2d 878 (South.D. Ohio 2005); and People five. Leroy, 357 Ill. App. 3d 530 (2005)).

SN-East:ts