Jessica's Law
Jessica’s Law was an initiative that passed in November 2006. The initiative was Proposition 83 and it targeted sex offenders in an effort to keep them away from children.
Here are a few components of the initiative:
- It prohibits any person who has to register as a sex offender from living within 2,000 feet of a school or park.
- Prohibits probation for certain sex offenses like spousal rape, and lewd or lascivious acts.
- It extends parole for offenders, including habitual sex offenders. ! Requires lifetime G.P.S. monitoring of felonious sex offenders.
There were other changes as well, but the initiative as a whole served to increase punishment of sex offenders. In 2015, California relaxed certain provisions under Jessica’s Law, as it decided to remove the blanket restrictions on all sex offenders, and evaluate each on a case-by- case basis. Those sex offenders whose crimes were committed on adults will not be forced out of school zone areas. The California Supreme Court ruled that the blanket restrictions violated the constitutional rights of parolees. Jessica’s law initially left many sex offenders homeless, which makes them harder to track and increases their odds of repeat offending. So while Jessica’s Law carried harsh punishments for sex offenders, the courts have revised them where appropriate.
Information obtained from The Los Angeles Times andBallotpedia.
About Pat Ford
Pat Ford is a criminal defense lawyer in San Diego who works on appeals in some of the most difficult cases around the state. He has a great record for success and integrity. Pat has also published a criminal case law digest since 1984 that's used by judges and lawyers around the state. He also speaks and writes articles for criminal lawyers as well as consumers interested in the law. The consumer-related articles are intended to be informative but do not constitute legal advice.
Case of the Day
The case of the day summarizes a current case and is viewed by lawyers and judges around the state every day.
Geofence search warrants were impermissibly overbroad and violated the particularity requirement of the Fourth Amendment but the good faith exception applied and suppression was not required.Defendants were identified as murder suspects after a geofence search warrant directed to Google revealed cell phones signed in to Google accounts connected to them were in several of the same locations as the victim on the day of the murder. The geofence warrants complied with the California Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 2016 (Cal ECPA) but they violated the particularity requirement of the Fourth Amendment and were impermissibly overbroad as the warrants placed no meaningful restrictions on the police search. However, suppression of the evidence was not required where the officers reasonably relied on the new geofence warrant in good faith.id: 27850