FULL PACKET_2012-05-21 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

NARROWING THE BAN TO SIMPLY PROHIBIT "LOITERING" Limiting the ban to prohibit sex offenders from "loitering" in parks would not be effective. State law already prohibits sex offenders from loitering "about any school or public place at or near which children attend or normally congregate ." (Penal Code § 653b.) This would presumably apply to parks. Penal Code 653b, however, is not effective because it requires the sex offender to remain at the location or re-enter the location after being asked to leave. So long as the sex offender has not been asked to leave, he is not in violation of Penal Code 653b. In addition, it is difficult to prove loitering in a trial. "Loitering" means "to delay, to linger, or to idle about a school or public place without lawful business for being present." (Penal Code § 653b, subd. (d).) It would be difficult to prove a sex offender was "loitering" in a park when that person was simply sitting on a park bench or on the grass or strolling through the park. Even videotaping or photographing may not be considered "loitering," as those are common activities of lawful citizens. Yet, these are some of the very activities the proposed Ordinance seeks to preclude with respect to sex offenders. Their presence in parks allows them to identify, observe, and possibly interact with potential victims whom they seek to groom and eve+ntually exploit. Finally, any loitering prohibition may be preempted by Penal Code 653b. (See O'Connell v. City of StocKton (2007) 41 Ca1.4"' 1061, 1067 [a local ordinance may be preempted where it enters an area expressly or impliedly fully occupied by state law].) For these reasons, limiting the ban to "loitering" in parks would not provide an effective tool to protect children from sex offenders' activities in parks. GENESIS AND PROCESS IN DEVELOPING THE COUNTY SEX OFFENDER ORDINANCE In 2010, registered sex offender Eric Hinnenkamp lived 155 feet from a Fullerton park where children regularly gather. He was a Los Angeles County parolee who was released from prison to an apartment in Huntington Beach. Hinnenkamp inherited a house from his parents in Fullerton and was intending to live at the residence. According to Megan's Law website, his prior convictions included felony lewd conduct on child victims, indecent exposure, and restrained sexual battery. Understandably, local citizens became alarmed and asked law enforcement fora solution. The Orange County District Attorney (OCDA) began researching legal solutions and coming up with practical applications in response. Meanwhile, the OCDA also monitored the development of Chelsea's Law in the State legislature. The result was the development and enactment of the County Child Safety Ordinance, which closed a loophole in the existing law. RESIDENCY RESTRICTIONS V_ CHILD SAFETY ZONES The OCDA initially considered enacting both sex offender restrictions, which generally fall into two categories: (1) Residency restrictions; and (2) Child safety zones. Residency restrictions restrict an offender from residing within a specified distance of certain locations, such as schools and parks. Child safety zones restrict offenders' movement within and/or arouno areas where children congregate, such as schools, parks, libraries, etc. Residency Restrictions The available research found by the OCDA suggests that residency restrictions have little impact on sex offender recidivism and may even compromise public safety. Generally, researchers have been unable to correlate any meaningful relationship between residential proximity to schools, parks, etc. and sexual recidivism. Research indicates that residency restrictions diminish housing options in urban areas, which forces offenders to move to more rural locations. This limits offenders' access to social services and community resources that help prevent recidivism by transitioning into the community- Residency restrictions also 50A-5