Skip to content
Name: In re Taylor
Case #: D059574
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 09/12/2012
Subsequent History: Review granted 1/3/2013: S206143
Summary

As applied, residency restriction as a condition of parole for all sex offenders, based on “Jessica’s Law,” impermissibly impinges on the right to travel because it makes it virtually impossible for parolees to find affordable compliant housing in San Diego County. The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) appealed an order enjoining it from enforcing a blanket residency restriction on paroled sex offenders in San Diego County. Affirmed. In 2006 voters passed Proposition 83 (“Jessica’s Law”) which in part made it illegal for registered sex offenders to live within 2000 feet of any school or park where children regularly gather. (Pen. Code, § 3003.5, subd. (b).) CDCR adopted a policy to enforce this residency restriction as a parole condition for registered sex offenders. A number of such offenders sought to enjoin this practice; this case involved the petitions of four parolees chosen as lead cases. In granting the injunction the lower court had considered several maps which reflected that, after single family dwellings were subtracted, less than 3% of multifamily dwellings were compliant. Of those, a number could be eliminated based on high cost or unavailability. Parole conditions must be reasonable, as parolees retain constitutional protection against arbitrary and oppressive action. As applied, the restriction, when enforced as a blanket parole condition, is an unreasonable infringement on the fundamental rights of parolees, including the right to travel. The restriction, as applied in San Diego County, is “excessive and unduly broad in relation to its purpose” as it limits housing choices of all sex offenders regardless of the type of victim involved in his/her crime. The “restriction exceeds the scope of its stated objective” and, when enforced as a blanket parole condition in San Diego, is “unreasonable and constitutes arbitrary and oppressive official action.”