JUDGE BLOCKS CALIFORNIA'S PROPOSITION 83

CONTROVERSIAL SEX OFFENDER PROP IS BLOCKED IN COURT

For Immediate Release

Wednesday, November 8, 2006: A controversial proposition in Tuesday's election in California which would effectively ban convicted sex offenders from living in several entire cities throughout the state was passed by approximately 70% of the votes. A lawsuit was immediately filed and Federal Judge Susan Illston blocked it saying the case was "Punitive in both design and nature and is likely unconstitutional"

Sex offender Proposition 83 blocked in court
From Associated Press
3:25 PM PST, November 8, 2006

SAN FRANCISCO -- A federal judge on today blocked enforcement of
Proposition 83, the ballot measure passed overwhelmingly by voters a
day earlier that's meant to crack down on sex offenders, including
limiting where they may live.

U.S. District Judge Susan Illston, ruling on a lawsuit filed here
early today, said the measure "is punitive by design and effect" and
likely unconstitutional.

The so-called Jessica's Law prohibits registered sex offenders from
living within 2,000 feet of a school or park -- effectively
prohibiting parolees from living in many of California's cities.

It also would require lifetime satellite tracking for paroled
rapists, child molesters and other felony sex criminals upon their
release from prison.

State law already sets limits on where sex offenders can live, but
the new requirement would make it even harder to find homes for
offenders released from prison. Parolees currently are prohibited
from living within a quarter-mile -- or 1,320 feet -- of a school,
with a half-mile restriction only for high-risk sex offenders.

Supporters said the initiative would save lives. However, law
enforcement and social service workers worry that some sex offenders
may simply stop reporting their addresses so they won't have to move.

The scope of the initiative's impact largely hinged on whether it
would apply retroactively to the state's roughly 90,000 registered
sex offenders. Supporters and critics had expected the expanded
residency requirements to be challenged in court.

Judge Illston issued what is known as a temporary restraining order
against Proposition 83. She said the unidentified sex offender who
brought the case was likely to prevail and ordered a Nov. 27 hearing. John Doe, as the plaintiff was named in court documents,
argued that the measure could only apply to sex offenders registered
after the law was passed.

Another unknown is what to do with registered sex offenders who
violate the law. The measure does not add any crimes to the state's
criminal statutes.

"There are a million questions left open," said Dennis Riordan, the
lawyer who filed the lawsuit.

Nathan Barankin, a spokesman for Attorney General Bill Lockyer, said
the state would vigorously defend the law.

"We won't know the true scope of Prop. 83 until the courts have
resolved all the litigation," Barankin said. "Our goal is to make
sure those questions get answered as quickly as possible."

Under the measure's language, most suburban and metropolitan areas
of the state would be off limits to sex offenders.

The proposition, according to the suit, "effectively banishes John
Doe from his home and community for a crime he committed, and paid
his debt for, long ago."

The suit says the proposition forces the former convict "from the
home that he owns with his wife and his community of over 20 years."

The proposition is named for Jessica Lunsford, a 9-year-old Florida
girl who was kidnapped, raped and suffocated by a convicted sex
offender last year. More than 70 percent of voters approved the
measure Tuesday.

The case is Doe v. Schwarzenegger, 06-6968.