ORANGE COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY PRESS RELEASE, FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Date: May 22, 2012
Contacts:
Susan Kang Schroeder, Chief of Staff , Office: 714-347-8408, Cell: 714-292-2718
Farrah Emami, Spokesperson, Office: 714-347-8405, Cell: 714-323-4486
ORANGE COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY APPLAUDS SANTA ANA FOR EXPANDING LAW TO KEEP REGISTERED SEX OFFENDERS
OUT OF CITY PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS
SANTA ANA – The City of Santa Ana enacted a law yesterday to expand child safety zones to protect children from registered sex offenders in city parks, playgrounds, and other children’s facilities after a first reading of the ordinance. The Santa Ana City Council voted unanimously to pass the ordinance yesterday, May 21, 2012. There will be a second reading of the Ordinance June 4, 2012. The Ordinance becomes effective 30 days after the second reading. The ordinance incorporated many of the County’s Sex Offender Ordinance to their existing Child Safety Ordinance. The City Council includes Mayor Miguel Pulido, Mayor pro tem Claudia Alvarez, Council Members David Benavides, Carlos Bustamante, Michele Martinez, Vincent Sarmiento, and Sal Tinajero.
Orange County District Attorney Tony Rackauckas and Orange County District Attorney’s Chief of Staff Susan Kang Schroeder were present at the City Council meeting to address public concerns and advocate for the passage of the ordinance.
“Santa Ana is Orange County’s second most populous city and I commend the leadership of Santa Ana City Council for incorporating the County ordinance,” stated District Attorney Rackauckas. “This law will help protect the rights of children and parents to enjoy and play at parks and facilities that are meant for children.”
“Santa Ana’s children and their families deserve the freedom to enjoy our parks, recreation centers, and libraries without the risk and fear of sex offenders preying on them,” stated Mayor pro tem Alvarez. “The amendments made to the City of Santa Ana’s Sex Offender Ordinance were a result of joint efforts with the District Attorney’s office. The amendments strengthen law enforcement’s work in protecting such freedoms for our children. I’m proud of our city’s partnership with District Attorney Tony Rackauckas in the fight to protect our children from sex offenders and commend him for his efforts county-wide.”
California Penal Code sections 290, et seq. require individuals convicted of certain crimes to register as sex offenders. The registration process is used to ensure that such offenders shall be readily available for police surveillance at all times because such offenders are deemed likely to commit similar offenses in the future. Sex offender registrants are also banned from entering County recreational and City parks which have passed the Sex Offender Ordinance.
The Santa Ana Ordinance was modeled after the County Ordinance, which was passed unanimously by the Orange County Board of Supervisors April 5, 2011, and took effect May 5, 2011, to create a child safety zone to further protect children from registered sex offenders in County parks and harbors.
The County Ordinance was developed and proposed by District Attorney Rackauckas and Supervisor Shawn Nelson (Fourth District) and makes it a misdemeanor, punishable by up to six months in jail and/or a $500 fine, for registered sex offenders to enter County recreational areas where children regularly gather without permission from the Orange County Sheriff’s Department (OCSD), who enforce the Ordinance.
The Sana Ana Ordinance makes it a misdemeanor for any sex offender to enter or be present within 300 feet of a children’s facility, which is defined as places such as day care centers, parks, schools, Discovery Science Center, Boys and Girls Club of Santa Ana, KidWorks, the Bowers Kidseum, and some libraries, for the apparent purpose of observing a child or children under the age of 18. Sex offenders are prohibited from returning to the property at any time after having been notified to leave by the owner or any authorized official of such children’s facility. Sex offenders are prohibited from entering into or being present in any children’s facility. Each entry into such area, regardless of the time period between entries, constitutes a separate offense under this ordinance.
After enacting the County Ordinance, District Attorney Rackauckas, Chairman of the Board Bill Campbell, and County Supervisors Nelson, Patricia Bates, and Janet Nguyen sent letters to each Orange County city encouraging them to consider a similar ordinance for their city parks. Between May 2011 and April 2012, the Cities of Westminster, Irvine, La Habra, Los Alamitos, Huntington Beach, Yorba Linda, Laguna Hills, Lake Forest, Mission Viejo, Rancho Santa Margarita, Seal Beach, and Costa Mesa passed similar ordinances, and other cities are currently in the process of developing a similar ordinance.
To read the full County Ordinance, please visit www.orangecountyda.com and select the April 5, 2011, press release entitled, “Orange County Board of Supervisors Unanimously Votes to Adopt New Law to Keep Registered Sex Offenders Out of Parks, Harbors, Beaches and Playgrounds,” under Press Releases/Media Advisories.
The Santa Ana City Ordinance is as follows:
ORDINANCE NO. NS-2832
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AMENDING CHAPTER 10, ARTICLE XII OF THE SANTA ANA MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO PROXIMITY OF REGISTERED SEX OFFENDERS TO CHILDREN’S FACILITIES
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds, determines and declares as follows:
A. On May 15, 2006, the City Council of the City of Santa Ana (the “City Council”) adopted Ordinance No. NS-2712, adding Article XII, sections 10-700 to 10-703 to the Santa Ana Municipal Code, thereby regulating the proximity of registered sex offenders to children’s facilities.
B. The City Council continues to place a high priority on maintaining public safety and finds that registered sex offenders pose a clear threat to children residing in or visiting the City.
www.orangecountyda.com • 401 Civic Center Drive West, Santa Ana, CA 92701
C. Article XI, Section 7 of the California Constitution authorizes the City to enact and enforce ordinances that regulate conditions that may be public nuisances or health hazards, or that promote social, economic or aesthetic considerations.
D. Sex offenders have high recidivism rates that exceed those exhibited by other convicted criminals. The City Council must therefore take all necessary action to protect children and potential victims from these dangerous predators.
E. The City Council is concerned about the high rate of recidivism among sex offenders and their dangerousness as a class. The City Council takes legislative notice of the November 2003 report issued by the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics entitled, “Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from Prison in 1994.” A fifteen (15) state study of prisoners released in 1994 showed that when compared to non-sex offenders released from state prison, released sex offenders were four times more likely to be rearrested for a new sex crime. This report is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though fully set forth. A copy of this report has been made available for City Council and public review at the City Clerk’s office as a public record since posting of the agenda noticing consideration of this ordinance, and will remain as such.
F. The City Council agrees with the U.S. Department of Justice statements in its brief to the Supreme Court that convicted sexual offenders are much more likely to repeat the offense of conviction than any other type of felon,” and “clinical rehabilitative programs can enable sexual offenders to manage their criminal sexual impulses and thereby reduce the risk of sexual recidivism, [but a] vital component of those programs is for participants to come to terms with their sexual misconduct.”
G. The City Council finds that since sex offender recidivism rates are empirical data but sex offender rehabilitation depends upon an individual sex offender’s personal efforts and acceptance of responsibility, factors that cannot be predicted, the danger presented by sex offenders is an unacceptable risk to the health, safety and welfare of the community that requires the City’s regulatory intervention.
H. On April 24th, 2012, the Santa Ana Public Safety Committee recommended the City Council adopt a revised ordinance, adding and amending certain provisions of the current ordinance, based on significant public safety considerations presented to and discussed by the Committee.
I. The findings of and discussion by the Santa Ana Public Safety Committee, the Request for Council Action for this ordinance dated May 15th, 2012, and any attachments thereto, shall by this reference be incorporated herein, and together with the findings set forth in Section 1 of Santa Ana Ordinance No. NS-2712, in this ordinance, and any amendments or supplements or oral testimony before the City Council, shall constitute necessary findings for this ordinance.
J. In enacting this ordinance, the City Council does not intend to punish sex offenders for their prior illegal conduct. Rather, the purpose of this chapter is to create a regulatory and non-punitive scheme to protect children and the public health, safety and welfare for the City’s residents and visitors.
K. It is not the intent of this ordinance to allow conduct otherwise prohibited by state law, or to contradict state law.
www.orangecountyda.com • 401 Civic Center Drive West, Santa Ana, CA 92701
L. Nothing in this ordinance shall be deemed to modify or in any way limit restrictions placed upon a sex offender by terms and conditions of parole or probation.
M. All provisions of the Santa Ana Municipal Code which are repeated herein are repeated solely in order to comply with the provisions of section 418 of the Charter of the City of Santa Ana. Any such restatement of existing provisions of the Code is not intended, nor shall it be interpreted, as constituting a new action or decision of the City Council, but rather such provisions are repeated for tracking purposes only in conformance with the Charter.
Section 2. Chapter 10, Article XII of the Santa Ana Municipal Code is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:
Article XII. – PROXIMITY RESTRICTIONS FOR REGISTERED SEX OFFENDERS TO CHILDREN’S FACILITIES
Sec. 10-700. – Purpose.
Sec. 10-701. – Definitions.
Sec. 10-702. – Prohibitions.
Sec. 10-703. – Notice.
Sec. 10-704. – Penalties for violation.
Sec. 10-705. – Other prosecution authorized.
Sec. 10-706. – Severability.
Section 10-700. – Purpose.
Sex offenders pose a clear threat to the children residing in, or visiting our community. Because convicted sex offenders are more likely than any other type offender to reoffend for another sexual assault, the city council desires to impose safety precautions in furtherance of the goal of protecting our children. The purpose of this regulation is to reduce the potential risk of harm to children of our community by impacting the ability for sex offenders to be in contact with unsuspecting children in locations that are primarily designed for use by, or are primarily used by children, namely, the grounds of a school, a center or facility that provides day care or children’s services, and a park. The city desires to add location restrictions to such offenders where the state law is silent.
Section 10-701. – Definitions.
The following words, terms, and phrases, when used in this chapter, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning:
Child or Children means any person under the age of eighteen (18) years of age.
Children’s facility means any school, day care center, or park (excluding Sasscer Park), as defined in this section, the Discovery Science Center located at 2500 N. Main Street, the Bowers Kidseum located at the corner of 18th Street and Main Street, the McFadden Learning Center located at 2627 W. McFadden, the Newhope Branch Library located at 122 N. Newhope Street, the Main Library located at 26 Civic Center Plaza, KidWorks located at 1902 W. Chestnut, the Orange County Children’s Therapeutic Art Center,
www.orangecountyda.com • 401 Civic Center Drive West, Santa Ana, CA 92701
located at 2215 N. Broadway #1, Boys & Girls Club of Santa Ana located at 950 W. Highland Street, and the YMCA of Orange County located at 2100 W. Alton Avenue.
Day care center means any child day care facility other than a family day care home, and includes infant centers, preschools, extended-day care facilities and school-age child care centers, as defined in § 1596.76 of the California Health and Safety Code and licensed pursuant to the provisions of the California Child Day Care Facilities Act (Health & Safety Code §§ 1596.70 et seq.).
Park means any public park or recreation or playground area or building or facility thereon within the city, owned and maintained by the city as a public park or recreation or playground area.
School as used in this article shall mean any institution of learning for minors, whether public or private, offering instruction in those courses of study required by the state Education Code and maintained pursuant to standards set by the state board of education. This definition includes a nursery school, kindergarten, elementary school, middle or junior high school, senior high school, or any special institution of education, but it does not include a vocational or professional institution of higher education, including a community or junior college, college, or university.
Sex Offender means:
1. Any person who has been required to register with a governmental entity as a sex offender when the underlying offense was a crime involving a child and/or children, including but not limited to, crimes involving child pornography; or
2. Any person who has been required to register with a governmental entity as a sex offender pursuant to California Penal Code sections 290, et seq., including but not limited to persons required to register when the underlying offense was a violation of: any section listed in Penal Code Chapter 7.5, Penal Code sections 207 (kidnapping), 220 (forcible and/or in concert or assault with the intent to commit rape, sodomy, oral copulation, lewd acts upon a child or penetration), 261 (rape), 264 (rape), 286 (sodomy), 288 (lewd acts upon a child), 288a (oral copulation of a minor), 288.2 (sending harmful material to a minor with sexual intent), 288.3 (contacting a minor to commit forcible kidnapping or kidnapping for ransom, rape, child endangerment, sodomy, lewd acts upon a child, oral copulation of a minor, forcible sexual penetration, possession of child pornography), 288.5 (continuous sexual abuse of a child), 289 (forcible sexual penetration), 314 (indecent exposure), and 647.6 (child annoyance).
Section 10-702. – Prohibitions.
1. A sex offender is prohibited from being on or within three hundred (300) feet of a children’s facility:
(a) While there for the apparent purpose of observing a child or children, or
(b) If the sex offender returns at any time after having been notified to leave by the owner or any authorized official of such children’s facility.
Three hundred (300) feet shall be measured from the property lines of the parcel so zoned or used of each children’s facility without regard to intervening structures.
www.orangecountyda.com • 401 Civic Center Drive West, Santa Ana, CA 92701
2. A sex offender is prohibited from entering into or upon, or being present in or upon, any children’s facility. Each entry into any such area, regardless of the time period between entries, shall constitute a separate offense under this ordinance.
3. A violation of this section is a misdemeanor.
Sec. 10-703. – Notice.
Registered sex offenders, prior to the date this article becomes effective, residing in the city shall be mailed a copy of the ordinance from which this article derives, first class mail, to their residence with the city police department.
Thereafter, sex offenders who register with the city shall be provided a copy of the ordinance from which this article derives at the time of registration.
Section 10-704. – Penalties for violation.
Punishment for a violation of this section shall be as follows:
(1) Upon a first conviction, by imprisonment in a county jail for a period of not more than six months, or by a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars ($500), or by both imprisonment and a fine.
(2) Upon a second conviction, by imprisonment in a county jail for a period of not less than ten (10) days and not more than six months, or by both imprisonment and a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars ($500). Upon a second conviction, however, the person shall not be released on probation, parole, or any other basis until he or she has served not less than ten (10) days.
(3) Upon a third or subsequent conviction, by imprisonment in a county jail for a period of not less than ninety (90) days and not more than six months, or by both imprisonment and a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars ($500). Upon a third or subsequent conviction, however, the person shall not be released on probation, parole, or any other basis until he or she has served not less than ninety (90) days.
Section 10-705. – Other prosecution authorized.
Nothing in this ordinance shall preclude or prohibit prosecution under any other provision of law, which includes but is not limited to prosecution of parole and/or probation violations.
Section 10-706. – Severability.
If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed severable and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion thereof irrespective of the fact that anyone or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional,
www.orangecountyda.com • 401 Civic Center Drive West, Santa Ana, CA 92701
and declares that the invalid portions should be severed and the balance of the ordinance be enforced.
Section 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion thereof irrespective of the fact that anyone or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
###
TONY RACKAUCKAS, District Attorney
www.orangecountyda.com • 401 Civic Center Drive West, Santa Ana, CA 92701
Just waiting for the guy who lives in Park Santiago and is the defender of sex offender rights to pop up here and say how unfair this new law is to men who want to recreate with each other in the park!
@Bravo City Council – I am not the guy to whom you refer, but I am a defender of the US Constitution and the Basic Civil Rights it provides to all. Unless the men who want to recreate with each other in the park are 290 registrants this new ordinance will affect them zero, nada, zilch.
This ordinance is very poorly written and thought out and I am willing to bet everything I have that it will be challenged and cost the tax payer a ton of money. Chances are that by that time, T-Rack will have moved on the bigger and better things.
btw – I am a OC ‘soccer mom’ with no memory of ever setting foot in a park in Santa Ana and really no desire to do so. I happen to have read the constitution, which I will defend until my last breath.
Surely there are better ways to clean up the park (sorry if they are less than pleasant- they sure are nice where I live but we have the same ordinance) than violating the Constitutional Rights of thousands of citizens and residents.
As I understand it, the existing city ordinance bans these activities in the parks, although as we know this stuff goes on and on, at least at Santiago Park.
There is an incident on file at the SAPD where a guy was caught touching himself near the baseball diamond, while kids were playing, so the threat is real.
These guys should just go to the Velvet Lounge at the Artists Village. They will fit right in.
@Art Pedroza – this is about the ordinance that was approved last night and has to do NOT with any kind of unacceptable conduct, but with the mere presence of people – not on parole or probation – in public areas.
The full text of the ordinance is right above your comment. If you have not, I suggest you read it.
The person who touched themselves near the baseball diamond, unless he was a RSO at that time, would be completely and entirely unaffected by this new law which prohibits someone who slapped a teenager on the butt or got a BJ from his 17 year old girlfriend decades ago from taking his own child to the park, museum or the library under the threat of criminal prosecution and incarceration.
I would love to hear more about the person who touched themselves, since as of yet, in all the presentations the OCDA has gives there has NOT been ONE sex crime committed by a RSO in Orange County. Sure, there are sex crimes in parks and sex crimes by repeat offenders, but no intersect. And to think that if they were about to, this ordinance would stop them. How absurd.
The threat of sexual abuse is indeed real. But! Over 90% of offenses are committed by an acquaintance or relative. Close to 95% of offenses are committed by someone NOT on the registry. Want to keep your children safe? Keep them away from school, church, activities, and yes, family, including yourself! Statistically speaking. Or you can be a parent and watch and listen to your child. Please note that, in all these proposals, there is never any emphasis on prevention that might actual be effective.
The stranger danger myth is being perpetuated by politicians and legislators who are riding the wave of public hysteria to bolster their own jobs and resumes.
This happened right here in Orange County, at a park in Irvine: http://www.ocregister.com/articles/woman-260686-amormino-mother.html
This happened near a school: http://www.cbs8.com/story/16901088/man-arrested-following-failed-kidnap-of-teenage-girl
This happened at a park: http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Man-Niece-Missing–85203967.html
If I had more time I am sure I could find tons of these. This is no fake threat and there are almost three hundred guys on the Megan’s Law list here in Santa Ana.
@Art Pedroza – thank you for taking the time to do research and engage in a rational discussion. Allow me a rebuttal re. the links you provided (please enlighten me if I missed something):
1. http://www.ocregister.com/articles/woman-260686-amormino-mother.html
I went and searched the OCDA Media Center for the month of August 2010,
http://orangecountyda.com/home/index.asp?page=8&pagenumber=4&pagesize=300&deptid=&archive=0&sl_month=12
as well as for the keyword “Irvine Regional Park”. There is no mention of this event, no plea for the public’s help in finding the suspect. There is also no arrest, charge or conviction that I could find in any area news outlet. So it is completely unknown if the alleged perpetrator was a “Megans Lister”, or if the whole thing was possibly a fabrication or misunderstanding.
Logical Conclusion: keep all men out of public parks.
2. http://www.cbs8.com/story/16901088/man-arrested-following-failed-kidnap-of-teenage-girl
In this instance the alleged kidnapper snatched a girl off a public street. He is not identified as a RSO, although his name is not provided. Searching the same news site for keywords from the story does not produce another article detailing a formal charge, let alone conviction.
Logical Conclusion: ban all men on holiday from hygene from public streets
3. http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Man-Niece-Missing–85203967.html
This one did NOT happen at a park, an uncle was charged with kidnapping his niece from her school / daycare, where he had permission to pick her up,
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2010/feb/24/uncle-sought-disappearance-niece/
and they were later located at a park (unharmed and ‘in good spirits’). Since the alleged kidnapper was not identified as a “Megans Lister” one can be sure he was not. Searching for his name reveals no further development, formal charges or convictions in this story.
Logical Conclusion: keep all relatives far away from children
Three horrid stories. Not one registered sex offender. Not one sex crime allegation. Not one conviction. Yet somehow they seem justification for keeping people with certain convictions, that may be decades old, out of public areas.
The Soccer mom that is not the guy in Park Santiago neighborhood who is known to defend the rights of men who want to recreate with each other in Santiago park said:
“which prohibits someone who slapped a teenager on the butt or got a BJ from his 17 year old girlfriend”
When was the last time you heard an Irvine soccer mom use that term? Just asking.
@Bravo City Council – uhm… today.
Okay, if you are getting all bent out of shape about semantics, how about “received oral s*x” or “orally copulated”, or “posterior” or “buttocks”. Not sure what you are objecting to.
Happy now?
I guess when you are a Soccer Mom from Irvine with multiple parks and open space in every Irvine village, you have the luxury of protecting the rights of men to meet and recreate with each other day and night in a few of them. In Santa Ana, with limited park space, we have to try to keep our parks safe for the whole family. I know some cities now have designated Dog Parks. Maybe cities should also create Megan’s Lister parks. Just like the Dog Parks, they could fence them and post signs encouraging users to clean up after themselves. At Santiago Park, all they need to do now is add the fence, the signs, and plastic bags for clean up.
Such stupidity in the minds of those who voted for this. California casts one giant net over all registrants, regardless of whether or not their alleged crimes involved children. Please take the time to educate yourselves as to the consequences these ridiculous ordinances have on families who have loved ones trying to rebuild their lives. Interesting that murderers, thieves, frauds, etc. are not labelled after serving their time. Recidivism rates among registrants in California is 5% and none of those happened in parks. Children and minors in parks should be under the watchful eyes of their parents at all times. And how do you plan to enforce this? Background checks on everyone that enters the park? I’ll stop here….makes my blood boil!
If you cannot do the time, don’t do the crime.
@Bravo – not sure where you are getting Irvine from but whatever…
I am very sorry if your neighborhood parks are not a nice place to hang out. Some simple math. The population of Santa Ana is 325k. There are close to 300 residents of Santa Ana on the internet who are identifiable as registrants. Are you saying that all inappropriate behavior is done by these individuals? What if they do not live in Santa Ana? There are 60,000 individuals listed on the public registry for California. Are you going to be checking them all whilst at the park so you can call the cops on them? And watch the kids at the same time? I pity your child.
Of course, there are another, what, 30-40,000 California RSOs that are NOT on the internet, even in Santa Ana. How will you know them? What about the rest of the country? There are 750,000 registrants in the nation.
According to the DA’s office there is no additional expense budgeted for this exercise. Do you really think the cops will come running every time you think you see someone doing something objectionable? Where will the manpower come from? Good thing Santa Ana does not have a crime / gang problem.
What about the creeps who are NOT (okay – yet) registered? This will NOT affect them. At all.
There MUST be another way to clean up the parks without violating the constitutional rights of three-quarter million individuals. Citizens and Residents who are not on parole or probation.
Don’t get me wrong, inappropriate behavior is, well, inappropriate and possibly criminal. The fact that these ordinances are being passed left and right in places like my city without the behavior you describe should give you pause.
Just wait how nice your park will be when this gets challenged and costs the city a bundle.
@Art Pedroza – that is the whole point… all of the affected individuals DID do their time. This is a punishment (and please explain how not being able to take your child to the library / park / museum is not punishment) for something they paid their debt for. You may not like it but if they had not completed their punishment they would be inmates and not RSOs in the community.
What about that speeding ticked I got in the mid 90’s? What is going to protect me from additional punishment being piled onto that infraction? It is called Ex Post Facto, and taken right out of my fave pamphlet, namely the United States Constitution.
@Art Pedroza – I would love to hear your thoughts on my post from May 22, 2012 at 4:54 pm.
I thought you made some broad assumptions in that comment.
As I understand it the new ordinance allows those who have cleaned up their act to petition the SAPD for permission to use our parks.
You’re right about the fact that this law won’t have an affect on those who are not already on the Megan’s law list. But perhaps it will act as a deterrent.
@Admin / Art Pedroza? – broad assumptions? I addressed each and every one of your provided links in tedious detail. Could I have been more specific????
What makes you ‘understand’ there are exemptions offered? The ordinance language is right on this page. If this is your site you added it.
This ordinance does not allow for exemptions. Just as well, as OC Sheriff Hutcheons (sp) declared last year with the County ordinance that she was not going to hand out any permission slips. Quite frankly they shouldn’t, as law enforcement is not equipped to deal with due process, as is the the justice system. This is a clear violation of the Separation of Power. Like in Executive and Judicial Branch. Again – the Constitution. Is anyone listening?
If you are seriously okay with violating Civil Rights because ‘perhaps it will act as a deterrent’ heaven help us all.
Pedroza….again, they DID do their time and technically are rehabilitated. What color are those blinders you have on??
The sheriff went on record stating she doesn’t see any reason that would have her grant a waiver. She’s right! What part of the Words Law ENFORCEMENT do you not understand? It would be remiss of her position to grant anyone a waiver to break a law. So, why would she give an exception to a registered sex offender? This was just smoke and mirrors used by the OCDA to get this bitter pill to go down the city and county’s throat and they both into it hook line and sinker! To date now these ordinances have been proven unconstitutional and unlawful ,but who’s children were put at risk? The registrant’s child by not allowing their first line of protection (their parents) to be there for them. Kids often get hurt in parks. Thank God those children by chance didn’t get hurt during the time these horrible, evil punitive measures were in place! Tony Rackauckas used the registrants as his whipping boy for votes to get re-elected. That is not an uncommon thing for politicians but to do so by putting their children at risk is beyond belief and itself should be criminal. TRUTH