California loosens sex-offender residency rules 
 
 gallery_thumbnails_photo|photo-2332066|article-gallery-6161963|1 Photo: Brant Ward, The Chronicle Image 1 of / 1 Caption Close gallery_thumbnails_show|article-gallery-6161963|article-gallery-6161963|0 gallery_overlay_open|article-gallery-6161963|article-gallery-6161963|0 gallery_overlay_open_thumbs|article-gallery-6161963|article-gallery-6161963|0 Image 1 of 1 Earl Taylor often sleeps in the back of his truck in Fairfield, CA because he cannot live with his wife. Her home is less than 2000 feet from a school or park. Earl Taylor is one of the state's more than 2300 homeless sex offender parolees, men who legally don't have a place to live because of Prop. 83 or Jessica's Law. Photo: Brant Ward, The Chronicle Earl Taylor often sleeps in the back of his truck in Fairfield, CA... California loosens sex-offender residency rules 1 / 1 Back to Gallery gallery_thumbs_close|article-gallery-6161963|article-gallery-6161963|0 gallery_overlay_close|article-gallery-6161963|article-gallery-6161963|0 
 
 SACRAMENTO — California will no longer bar all registered sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a school or park, instead applying such restrictions on a case-by-case basis, state corrections officials announced Thursday. 
 
 The move comes after a state Supreme Court ruling this month affecting San Diego County, which found that “Jessica’s Law” was unconstitutional and did not protect the public. In 2006, California voters approved the law restricting where sex offenders could live. 
 
 Critics of the law said such restrictions lead many sex offenders to be transients because they can’t find housing more than 2,000 feet from schools and parks in urban counties, where jobs and rehabilitation services are easier to find. 
 
 The change is expected to leave the restrictions in place for offenders who sexually abused children, while relaxing the rules for some others. 
 
 Although the unanimous Supreme Court ruling affected only San Diego County, where a lawsuit was filed by sex offenders, observers expected it would be applied to other densely populated counties, including San Francisco. 
 
 “The court’s ruling is specific to San Diego County; its rationale isn’t,” said Luis Patino, a spokesman for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. “The state attorney general’s office has advised us that applying the blanket mandatory residency restrictions would be found to be unconstitutional in every county.” 
 
 Existing restrictions will remain in place while the corrections department reviews the cases of thousands of sex-offender parolees to decide if the residency law should still apply. That review is expected to take two months. 
 
 High-risk sex offenders with a current or prior conviction for lewd acts on a child under 14 will still be prohibited from living within a half-mile of any K-12 school, Patino said. 
 
 “We expect parole agents when looking at a person’s conviction history, such as sexually abusing children, they will still be placed under that restriction,” he said. “If they don’t show a propensity for sexually abusing children, then they won’t have it.” 
 
 California has 6,000 sex offender parolees living in communities across the state who are required to register for life with police and disclose their address on a publicly searchable database, established under “Megan’s Law.” 
 
 Loosening the restrictions on sex offenders drew criticism from George Runner, a former Republican state senator and author of Jessica’s Law. 
 
 “To do this across the board when the Supreme Court declined to do that, this is way beyond what the court did,” Runner said. “The voters overwhelming supported this.” 
 
 Melody Gutierrez is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. E-mail: mgutierrez@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @MelodyGutierrez ||||| On Halloween night, children dressed as ghosts, goblins and superheroes are free to roam neighborhoods in search of candy and a little holiday-inspired mischief. 
 
 As a safety precaution, state authorities have imposed Halloween restrictions on sex offender parolees, barring them from putting up decorations or passing out treats. 
 
 And in San Diego County, they are required to post signs outside their homes discouraging trick-or-treaters from approaching. 
 
 A lawyer and activist from Santa Maria, Calif., wants to change that. She filed a lawsuit last week in San Diego federal court on behalf of an unidentified Chula Vista man, accusing the state of violating his rights and those of other registered sex offenders. 
 
 "For them, Halloween truly is a night of horrors," said Janice Bellucci, who also is president and founder of California Reform Sex Offender Laws. The organization is "dedicated to protecting the U.S. Constitution by restoring the civil rights of individuals required to register as sex offenders in California," according to court documents. 
 
 Bellucci said many parolees don't know how officers are going to interpret the special conditions on Halloween night. She said she's received calls from people with concerns that they might be violating parole if they turn on the porch light for a visiting relative or if they post a pumpkin drawing on the refrigerator created by one of their own children. 
 
 "They don't know truly what is required of them," Bellucci said. 
 
 Officials with the state Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the defendant in the lawsuit, said they were unable to comment on specifics of the case. 
 
 They don't know truly what is required of them. — Janice Bellucci, of California Reform Sex Offender Laws 
 
 For more than 20 years, the department has run what it calls Operation Boo, a statewide Halloween night event in which parole officers and other law enforcement conduct compliance checks on known sex offenders. The goal is to make sure that sex offender registrants aren't attracting children to their homes. 
 
 Under California law, offenders convicted of certain types of sex crimes can be required to register with law enforcement officials, notifying them of where they live. Megan's Law, passed by the Legislature in 2004, gave the public access to that information via the Internet. Previously, such information could be accessed only in person by visiting a police or sheriff's station. 
 
 The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation reported last year that it was responsible for supervising about 11% of the nearly 92,000 sex offenders in California. Under Operation Boo, the special conditions of parole for sex offender registrants on Oct. 31 are as follows: 
 
 There is a curfew from 5 p.m. to 5 a.m. during which parolees must remain indoors; 
 
 All exterior lights of their homes must be turned off so that it looks as though no one is home; 
 
 No offering of Halloween candy and no Halloween decorations is allowed; 
 
 During the curfew, sex offender parolees may only open the door to respond to law enforcement. 
 
 Operation Boo does not require that offenders affix a poster to their homes as a warning to potential visitors, said Luis Patiño, a spokesman for the department. 
 
 But Bellucci said she learned from her client, the plaintiff identified in the lawsuit only as John Doe, that there is such a requirement in San Diego County. She said she confirmed that information with her client's parole officer and that she also has it in writing. 
 
 In 2013, when the Union-Tribune went with parole officers on an Operation Boo sweep in San Diego, the signs were seen at at least two locations, in National City and Chula Vista. One read, "Not participating in Halloween activities. No trick or treaters," and another read, in part, "Sorry, no candy." 
 
 According to the lawsuit, requiring parolees to post signs on their front doors encourages speech in violation of their 1st Amendment rights. It also invites harm to themselves, the people they live with and their property by forcing parolees to "advertise" their status as registered sex offenders. 
 
 Bellucci contends in the suit that state authorities enforce the Halloween policy in an "arbitrary and unreasonable manner," taking no account of the age of a sex offender's conviction or whether it involved a crime against a child. 
 
 The unnamed plaintiff in the lawsuit was required to register as a sex offender because of an offense that occurred before 1985 and did not involve a child. Since then, he has not committed another sex offense, and is currently on parole because of a drug-related conviction, according to court documents. 
 
 Bellucci has filed similar lawsuits against the cities of Simi Valley and Orange over Halloween restrictions on registered sex offenders — "registered citizens," as she prefers to call them — including mandatory sign requirements. She said officials repealed the laws and the suits were dismissed. 
 
 Last year, parole agents arrested 62 of the 1,294 sex offender parolees who were contacted during Halloween night compliance sweeps throughout the state. The arrests were on charges of possession of child pornography, narcotics, weapons and other parole violations, state authorities said. 
 
 dana.littlefield@sduniontribune.com 
 
 Dana Littlefield writes for the San Diego Union-Tribune.
– In an attempt to cut down on the number of transient sex offenders wandering around without a place to call home, California state prison officials announced yesterday they'd be relaxing rules that ban all registered sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a school or park, the San Francisco Chronicle reports. The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation will now review each parolee's case individually, and a spokesman for the CDCR says "high-risk" offenders who've been convicted of sexually abusing a child under the age of 14 still won't be allowed within a half-mile of any K-12 school. California residents had voted for the "Jessica's Law" residency legislation in 2006, but the state Supreme Court ruled March 2 that the law was unconstitutional in San Diego County, the Los Angeles Times reports. While "the court’s ruling is specific to San Diego County, its rationale isn't," explains the spokesman. Those who opposed the law have pointed out that the restrictions had kept parolees from finding a place to live in urban areas, where employment and rehab services are more plentiful, per the Chronicle. The more stringent housing rules will apply while the cases of some 6,000 California sex offenders are reviewed, which should take about two months, the paper notes.