Local Municipalities’ Practices Likely to be Impacted

California prison officials have announced that they are loosening some restrictions on where sex offenders may live in response to In re Taylor, a California Supreme Court ruling earlier this month. Under the new policy, state officials will review the cases of all 6,000 sex-offender parolees to determine whether residency restrictions are appropriate. Going forward, each parolee’s case will be assessed on an individual basis.

State officials will consider the criminal histories of parolees, particularly whether their crimes involved children or other sex crimes. Those whose offenses did involve children will most likely remain under the current restrictions created by Jessica’s Law in 2006, which prevent them from living within 2,000 feet of schools, parks and other places where children may be present. However, under the new policy, other offenders, such as those convicted of assaulting an adult or of statutory rape, or those who have shown no propensity for crimes against children, may be permitted to live without such restrictions.

Officials intend this policy change to reduce the number of homeless sex offenders in California. When Jessica’s Law passed, there were roughly 88 homeless sex offenders in the state, but since the law went into effect, that number has increased to around 1,400. Evidence indicates that homelessness increases the risk that these individuals will reoffend or commit other crimes, and the current residency restrictions have effectively mandated homelessness for many individuals. The increased rate of homelessness among sex offenders in San Diego County was a primary justification for the Supreme Court’s recent decision finding that blanket restrictions in that County violate the constitutional rights of parolees.

All current offenders will have their files reviewed by parole officers over the next few months, and offenders currently in prison will be reviewed when they are about to be released. Since the passage of Jessica’s Law, municipalities across the state have passed ordinances which mirror or extend beyond the restrictions imposed. Restrictions on the movement of sex offenders, such as ordinances prohibiting them from being present near schools or playgrounds, were previously held unconstitutional in People v. Nguyen. In light of the recent decision, and the policy shift at the state level, municipalities currently imposing residency restrictions should consider the scope and breadth of their policies and consult with local counsel to make adjustments if necessary.