Grover Beach man battling pervs-in-park laws

June 21, 2014
Frank Lindsay

Frank Lindsay

A Grover Beach man, who is a registered sex offender, has filed several claims against California cities which have enacted strict laws for where sex offenders can visit. [OC Register]

More than 70 cities have voted in laws which are more stringent than state regulations. These include local ordinances that bar sex offenders from going to movie theaters or parks.

In January, the state Court of Appeals handed down a ruling involving the city of Irvine’s regulations. The court said that the state has jurisdiction over where sex offenders cannot go.

In March, Grover Beach resident Frank Lindsay filed a lawsuit in federal court calling for a repeal of Pomona’s ordinance on the grounds it violates state and federal constitutions and makes it difficult for registered sex offenders to move into the city. Lindsay, 60, was convicted in 1979 for lewd or lascivious acts with a child less than 14 years of age.

Last week, the Pomona Council gave preliminary approval to repealing a portion of its 2008 regulation. They are slated to have a final vote July 7.

As in the past, Lindsay is being backed by lawyers from California Reform Sex Offender Laws (RSLO), who say the change will allow registered sex offenders and their families to lawfully visit movie theaters, parks, beaches and libraries.

“The sex offender ordinance adopted by the City of Santa Ana is in violation of both the federal and state constitution,” RSLO president Santa Maria attorney Janice Bellucci, told the Orange County Weekly.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I highly doubt the original constitution considered child predators while writing it. Pretty sure ‘people’ such as pedophiles would have been dealt with in a way where their constitutional rights weren’t an issue. Give me a break…want a park like setting, buy a house with a yard and stay in it. Creep…


I would agree with you except for one small problem. The state’s definition of “Sex Offenders” is far too broad and includes people highly unlikely to re-offend and some whose offenses were marginally “sexual” at best. Stop treating people who are convicted of indecent exposure for urinating in public and 18 y/o boys for having relationships with their 15 1/2 y/o girlfriends as if they were the same as real child molesters and I will jump on board.

PS. As I get older and the prostate gets more troublesome, I can see myself being caught in the first situation while traveling someday. Public restrooms are too few and far between in places.

Why stop at parks and movies. With his white mustache and a fake beard, he could be a great Santa Claus at Christmas. Let him be a recess aide at elementary schools and a scout leader while we’re at it.

His rights must be protected!

Think about it – There are good reasons these offenders are barred from various places. They should be grateful they can be out of prison at all, as they are often the target of other inmates who have children of their own “outside” and who feel helpless to protect them from these sex offenders. They frequently take out that frustration on the convicted sex offender in prison with them.

Do you support similar restrictions on other former convicts?

For example, former bank robbers not allowed to enter a bank, former rapists not allowed in bars or nightclubs?

Any criminal has the ability to reoffend, and a good percentage do, but only sex offenders have restrictions placed on where they can live and what public areas they are allowed in. I don’t want to live next to a sex offender, but I REALLY don’t want to live next to a murderer, but for some reason released murderers can live where ever they want and sex offenders can’t.

Isn’t a rapist a sex offender?

The special problem with these lovely people is that they typically have abused many children over a long period of time, repreating the same pattern over and over.

Your analogy of living next to a murderer would be more accurate if it was living next to a serial killer, who kills children.

Society has an obligation to protect children from these monsters. Since they won’t do itt my way (castration followed by the victims family choosing the method of torture. And death), they can at least attempt to keep these sickos out of the muppet movie.

Paragon-You might want to study a bit before saying other criminals don’t have restrictions because felons have many many hoops to dive through including never being able to own firearms and the list goes on.

Keep them locked up….or amend the state and federal constitution and keep these scumbags off our streets and out of our neighborhoods.

Back in 1979 I don’t think you had to register as a sexual predator so why is this guy going going after these cities now? is he actually being told he can not go to the movies?

If his only conviction was over 30 years ago why is he making a stink now and bringing this negative attention to himself? I think the lawyers have found a scape goat in this guy and are using him as their poster child.

Don’t get me wrong child molesters have a special place in hell as far as I am concerned, I just don’t know what this guys angle is.

Oh yeah, they have to register. The law goes WAY back for these guys. The problem with say keeping them out of theaters is that they have to get caught. The laws are fairly hard to uphold for this reason. Creeps are everywhere and they don’t care about the law until they get caught.

In order to bring a case the lawyer needs to represent someone who has “standing” which is a concrete stake in the outcome.

Obviously the lawyers are promoters of this cause, but he is the “victim” who has supposedly been harmed by these egregious restrictions to keep him away from where children congregate.

Zombies….much friendlier once you get to know them.

Child molesters too, right?