The Votes Are In!
2024 Readers' Choice is back, bigger and better than ever!
View Winners → Sex Offender Sues Arcadia Over Residency Restrictions
Arcadia Weekly Aug 12, 2015
by
share with
By Joe Taglieri
Despite revisions last year to an ordinance that severely limits housing options for potential residents convicted of sex crimes, a registered sex offender has filed a lawsuit against the city of Arcadia that seeks to repeal the law entirely.
Recent state court decisions have challenged similar ordinances in other California municipalities, as advocates for sex offenders’ constitutional rights have over the last several years filed lawsuits aimed at rolling back what they claim are unfairly restrictive and discriminatory enforcement actions by Arcadia and a number of other locales statewide.
Last September the Arcadia City Council voted unanimously to enact the following amendments to the city’s sex offender regulations:
Council members revised “the definition of a sex offender to include only those individuals who have committed offenses against children,” according to a city staff report. The council also removed “restrictions on where a sex offender may travel or loiter and … regulations involving the Child Safety Zone” in addition to rewording the ordinance to more closely reflect “existing State Penal Code provisions regulating sex offenders.”
These revisions were based on state appellate court decisions rendered last year, Chief of Police Bob Guthrie said at the Sept. 2 council meeting.
However, in March the California Supreme Court found that a San Diego County law, which is similar to Arcadia’s residency restrictions, violated sex offenders’ civil rights.
In its unanimous decision the court held that “blanket enforcement of … mandatory residency restrictions against registered sex offenders on parole in San Diego County impedes [their] basic, albeit limited, constitutional rights.”
The court also concluded that the San Diego residency restriction law “cannot survive rational basis scrutiny because it has hampered efforts to monitor, supervise, and rehabilitate [sex offenders] in the interests of public safety, and as such, bears no rational relationship to advancing the state’s legitimate goal of protecting children from sexual predators.”
Santa Maria-based attorney Janice Bellucci, president of the group California Reform Sex Offender Laws, said “ordinances like this within the city of Arcadia are in fact unconstitutional as defined by the sate supreme court.”
Bellucci filed a federal lawsuit July 29 against the city on behalf of an anonymous client who is referred to as “John Doe” in court documents.
She declined to elaborate on details about her client’s sex offense conviction, but did say he works in Los Angeles County and wants to move to Arcadia to reduce his work-related commute.
“What I’m talking about is constitutional rights, that’s why this lawsuit was filed,” Bellucci said. “It has nothing to do with somebody’s prurient interest in what offense was committed and how long ago it was committed.”
The lawsuit points out that the Arcadia ordinance “defines ‘Residential Exclusion Zones’ as areas ‘within … 2,000 feet of the closest property line of a child care center, public or private school grades K through 12, park, public library, swimming or wading pool,” playgrounds, school bus stops or locations that facilitate classes or group activities for children, according to a court document.
The lawsuit also claims that officials have not made publicly available “a list of the facilities or properties that establish the locations of the ‘Residential Exclusion Zones’ … nor otherwise made available to the public a map of the ‘Residential Exclusion Zones.'”
The plaintiff also alleges that more than 90 percent of Arcadia’s residential areas are in exclusion zones, “including virtually all affordable housing within the city.” The small percentage of properties outside of restricted areas are zoned for nonresidential use, effectively preventing registered sex offenders from establishing residency in Arcadia “because there is no residential real estate available to them.”
In an Aug. 5 story published in the Los Angeles Daily Journal, a newspaper that covers the local legal community, City Manager Dominic Lazzaretto said officials’ “intent has always been to ensure the safety of all of our residents while remaining within the bounds of the law and respecting applicable civil liberties.”
Lazzaretto declined to elaborate and told Arcadia Weekly city officials would meet in a closed session Aug. 18 to discuss the case.
Police Chief Guthrie and City Attorney Stephen Deitsch also declined to comment.
The lawsuit charges that “the Arcadia Residency Restrictions are arbitrary, politically motivated acts imposed by a local government in response to popular sentiments, based upon misinformation, which seeks retribution against Registrants who constitute a socially outcast minority. The Arcadia Residency Restrictions also lend themselves to discriminatory enforcement as well as the suppression of the constitutional rights of Registrants as well as individuals who travel with them, including spouses and family members.”
The plaintiff’s case hinges on alleged infractions of an assortment of sections of the U.S. Constitution, namely the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments, as well as the California Constitution’s Article I, Section 7 on “due process, equal protection and the right to travel” and Article XI, Section 7 that requires municipal ordinances not conflict with state law.
A statement from Bellucci’s advocacy group cites data indicating most registered offenders are not likely to commit additional sex crimes.
“The rate of re-offense for a registered citizen on parole is only 1.8 percent, according to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation,” the statement reports. “And a registered citizen who has not re-offended in 17 years is no more likely to commit a sex offense than someone who has never been convicted of a sex offense,” according to a report released in April by the California Sex Offender Management Board, or CASOMB.
“The [sex offender] registry itself and certainly residency restrictions directly related to that actually provide parents with a false sense of security,” said Bellucci, a mother of two daughters and wife of a minister who has practiced law since 1982. “If you’re looking at the people who are listed in the registry, and we have over 110,000 now in California, … the direction you’re not looking at is parents, family members, teachers, coaches and clergy.”
Citing CASOMB data, Bellucci added “those are the people who unfortunately are the most likely to assault your child” at a predominant rate of 93 percent.
She said other than court costs and attorney fees, her client doesn’t seek any additional financial redress and that his only intention with the lawsuit is to legally establish residence in Arcadia.
Bellucci filed a lawsuit in June against Grover Beach in San Luis Obispo County and said she intends to file additional suits challenging residency restrictions.
Last week the Grover Beach City Council agreed to a settlement that requires repeal of sex offender residency restrictions and payment of attorney fees, Bellucci said.
