The Yucca Valley Town Council welcomed a new employee, Bree Francis, at its meeting yesterday before getting down to business. Managing editor Tami Roleff says the council spent most of the meeting discussing the repeal of its ordinance that restricts where paroled sex offenders can live in the town limits…
In February, the town of Yucca Valley was served with a lawsuit that challenged the constitutionality of restricting paroled sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a school, park, or daycare center. In 2015, the state’s Supreme Court found that a similar ordinance in San Diego was unconstitutional, and that city’s ordinance was repealed. The town’s attorney advised the council that repealing this ordinance would make the lawsuit go away and the town would not have to bear the considerable expense of defending itself in a lawsuit it would probably lose.
The council heard from Timothy Peth of Yucca Valley, as well as six other emails, opposing the repeal of the ordinance.
Sheriff’s Captain Lucas Niles reassured the council members that even if the ordinance is repealed, “Nothing would change” because state law also has restrictions on where paroled sex offenders can live. In addition, Niles said, the Sheriff’s Department and the town can provide its input on conditions to a judge when a sex offender is released on parole. The council reluctantly agreed to repeal the ordinance 5-0.
The council appropriated $416,455 to pay for various street maintenance projects throughout the town. Town staff warned, however, that with the stay-at-home order, revenue is expected to decrease, perhaps by 20 percent, and its Measure I funds from the county could be reduced by $150,000. A reduction in revenue could result in making changes to programs.
Finally, the town heard an update on COVID-19 and the town’s economic assistance program. The town has approved 38 applications for its economic assistance program grants of $5,000, and has received five more that have not yet been approved. Staff anticipates that the final seven applications will be received shortly, thus draining the $250,000 the council set aside for the grants. However, the county may initiate a similar program, and there may be more funding coming in from community development block grants.
MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE REPEAL OF THE SEX OFFENDER ORDINANCE
On February 10, 2020, the Town was served with a lawsuit entitled John Doe vs. Town of Yucca Valley.
The lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of Municipal Code Chapter 11.90, which restricts paroled sex offenders from residing within 2,000 feet of a school, park, or daycare center. Repealing Chapter 11.90 would resolve the litigation.
In November 2006, Proposition 82 (“Jessica’s Law”) was passed by the voters. Jessica’s Law amended Penal Code section 3003.5 to prohibit more than one registered sex offender on parole from residing in any single-family dwelling (unless legally related by blood, marriage or adoption) and prohibits registered sex offenders from residing within 2,000 feet of a public or private school or park where children regularly gather. Additionally, it authorizes municipal jurisdictions to enact ordinances that further restrict the residency of any registered sex offender. Based on the authority provided by Penal Code Section 3003.5 the Town adopted Ordinance No. 195 in 2008, prohibiting any registered sex offender from residing within 2,000 feet of a school, park, or daycare center and from coming within 300 feet of any school or park where children are present.
In 2015, the Town adopted Ordinance No. 255, which repealed the 300- foot restriction based on case law holding that such local restrictions on where paroled sex offenders could go were preempted by state law. The Town revised Chapter 11.90 once more in 2017 by adopting Ordinance No. 269, which clarified that, consistent with state law and a recent Court of Appeal decision, the 2,000-foot residency restriction only applied to sex offenders while they are on parole.
In March 2015, the California Supreme Court decided In Re Taylor, finding that the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s (CDCR) enforcement of the residency restrictions in Penal Code Section 3003.5 against sex offender parolees in San Diego County was unconstitutional. The Court found the residency restrictions, as applied and enforced in San Diego County, “hampered efforts to monitor, supervise, and rehabilitate such parolees 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 predator.” This conclusion was based in part on studies and reports released after the passage of Jessica’s Law indicating that such residency restrictions have not improved public safety. The evidence suggests that residency restrictions have the unintended consequences of increasing homelessness among registered sex offenders, thereby actually threatening public safety. Convicted sex offenders who are homeless are not only more difficult to supervise than those who have established residences, they are also more likely to reoffend and less likely to receive critical rehabilitative services.
Following Taylor, many sex offender residency restrictions in cities across the state have been challenged in court. When faced with such lawsuits, cities have generally decided to repeal the local restrictions and leave the regulation of sex offenders to the State Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. In making the decision on whether to defend local residency restrictions, local jurisdictions have had to weigh the anticipated high cost of litigation, the difficult constitutional burden for such ordinances established in Taylor, and the existence of effective state-level controls on paroled sex offenders.
There are multiple ways in which the state effectively monitors and controls the location of paroled sex offenders which will remain in place even if the Town repeals its sex offender residency restrictions.
The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation enforces the 2,000-foot residency restriction on a case-by-case basis depending on individualized threat assessments.
In some instances, state law imposes even stricter distance requirements. Penal Code section 3003(g) provides that “an inmate who is released on parole for a violation of Section 288 [lewd or lascivious acts on a child 14 years old or younger] or 288.5 [sexual conduct with a child 14 years old or younger] whom the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation determines poses a high risk to the public shall not be placed or reside, for the duration of the inmate’s parole, within one-half mile of a public or private school including any or all of kindergarten and grades 1 to 12.”
