Group representing sex offenders sues state for ignoring court order

SACRAMENTO -- A group fighting for the legal rights of sex offenders has sued to force the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to comply with a March court ruling.

The Alliance for Constitutional Sex Offense Laws (ACSOL) claims the corrections department has ignored an order to include register sex offenders among those eligible for early release under Proposition 57. Alliance for Constitutional Sex Offender Laws v. California Department of Corrections, 80002918 (Sac. Super. Ct., filed June 25, 2018).

This 2016 voter-passed initiative was intended to clear the way for release of thousands of non-violent offenders. But CDCR released regulations in the wake of the passage of Prop. 57 classified all registered sexual offenders as violent criminals, even though they are not defined that way under state law.

ACSOL sued on behalf of a John Doe prisoner. Sacramento Superior Court Judge Allen H. Sumner ruled in ACSOL's favor on March 5 in Alliance for Constitutional Sex Offender Laws v. California Department of Corrections, 80002581 (Sac. Super. Ct., filed April 27, 2017). The corrections department appealed.

The judge ordered CDCR to throw out the relevant regulations, though he stopped short of ordering the agency to adopt the current definition of a "violent felony" in the state's penal code.

Sumner also issued a writ of mandate calling on the agency to issue new regulations that "define 'nonviolent' in a manner consistent with the Constitution and the voters' directive." CDCR filed new final Prop. 57 regulations with the Secretary of State on May 1.

CDCR press secretary Vicky Waters said the agency had not yet been served.

"The administration is appealing the initial ruling, which does not reflect the intent of California's voters, who approved Prop. 57 by a 2 to 1 margin," Waters said in an email. "We are also continuing to implement Proposition 57."

According to the new suit, "CDCR blatantly disregarded this Court's Order, as well as the Court's Writ of Mandate, by again excluding anyone convicted of a Registrable Offense from the early parole process under Proposition 57."

"In its new regulations, CDCR repeated its original mistake of excluding everyone convicted of a sex offense from the benefits of Proposition 57," said ACSOL Executive Director Janice M. Bellucci. "As recognized by the Court in our first lawsuit, the agency lacks authority to change the public's decision to provide the benefits of Proposition 57 to everyone convicted of a non-violent felony."

The complaint claims the CDCR's actions violate the California Administrative Procedures Act and the state Constitution. It seeks to have the new regulations declared "unconstitutional, void, and otherwise invalid."

The March ruling was part of a string of victories for ACSOL this year. Earlier this month, a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge threw out a city of Maywood residency law that made most of the city off limits to sex offenders on the grounds that it was preempted by state law. Weiss v. City of Maywood, VC066407 (L.A. Super. Ct., filed July 7, 2017).

In May, the city of Coalinga lost twice to ACSOL in one day. First, a Fresno County judge dismissed a lawsuit seeking to have the votes of sex offenders housed in a local state hospital thrown out. Those prisoners, who can vote because they are held under civil rather than criminal confinement, helped narrowly defeat a local property tax measure in the 2017 election. Vosburg v. County of Fresno, 17CECG04294 (Fresno Super. Ct., filed Dec. 14, 2017).

Later that day, an Assembly Committee defeated a bill sponsored by Coalinga. AB 2839 would have declared these offenders eligible to vote only in the districts where they lived at the time of their arrests.