Sex offender files lawsuit against Grover Beach

June 22, 2015

lawsuit 6By KAREN VELIE

A registered sex offender filed a federal lawsuit last week against the city of Grover Beach challenging an ordinance that makes it a crime for sex offenders to set up residency in most of the city. The law suit is the first filed against a city since the California Supreme Court’s decision declared such restrictions unconstitutional.

Frank Lindsay owns a home in Grover Beach were he has resided for 18 years. In 1979, the then 26-year-old Lindsay was convicted of lewd lascivious acts against a child under 14 years of age and released from jail the same year. Since then, his record has remained clean.

In 2010, Lindsay was seriously wounded during a violent vigilante attack at his Grover Beach home. David Griffin, 24, broke into Lindsay’s home and punched him, hit him with a hammer and kicked him. Shortly before the attack, Griffin was unable to enter another registered sex offenders home.

Because of that attack, Lindsay, 63, wants to move from his current residence and establish a new residence in Grover Beach.

However, the city modified a 2007 ordinance in 2014 that currently prohibits registered sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of any school, park, or day care center. And because of the layout of the city, the restriction effectively bars Lindsay from buying another home in Grover Beach.

In the lawsuit, civil rights attorney Janice Bellucci says the city’s residency restrictions effectively banish registrants from Grover Beach and violate the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments, the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution.

Bellucci says the city used false data including that “sex offenders have recidivism rates as high as forty-five percent,” to justify the ordinance. The information, Bellucci says, “is inconsistent with state and federal government statistics which state that registrants on parole re-offend at a rate of only 1.8 percent and 5.3 percent overall.”

In addition, Dr. Karl Hanson, a preeminent researcher of sex offenses, says in a recently released report that a registered citizen who has not re-offended in 17 years is no more likely to commit a sex offense than someone who has never been convicted of a sex offense. In Lindsay’s case, it has been 37 years since he offended and 35 years since the former alcoholic has had a drink.

City officials have not responded to questions about the lawsuit.

Penalties for violating the Grover Beach ordinance include “a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 or by imprisonment for up to one year in jail or both.”

Nevertheless, on March 2, the California Supreme Court decided that residency restrictions could not be applied to all registered sex offenders on parole because their blanket application violated the U.S. Constitution. Primarily because the limitations made it impossible for sex-offenders on parole to obtain housing. As a result, many were living on the streets making them difficult to track.

Following the court’s decision, Riverside County and the cities of Downey and El Monte have begun the repeal of their residency restrictions.

Bellucci said that the California Supreme Court ruling should be applied to those on parole as well as registered offenders who are no longer on parole.

“People not on parole have fewer rights than people who are on parole, Bellucci said. “The Supreme Court ruled the restrictions are unconstitutional for people on parole. It is only logical the restrictions are also unconstitutional for people not on parole.”

In the lawsuit, Lindsay is asking the court to rule that Grover Beach’s ordinance is null and void, for compensation of legal costs and for the recovery of such relief the court deems just and proper.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

So I’m sitting here reading the comments about this article and Sex Offenders. I am interested in this article to see if Grover Beach will be allowed to violate an American Citizens Constitutional Rights. There are people in this world we all need protection from especially for our children. The foolishness of those of you reading the comments and responding proves you are a part of the problem of feeling the government will protect us. Not all registered sex offenders have committed crimes against children or women. Did you know a person can be charged with Indecent Exposure (misdemeanor) and it is mandatory the courts have them register as a sex offender for life in CA. I think people need to actually look into what registration of individuals is really about. And just because a registered sex offender cannot live by a park does nothing to protect children. The registered person can still go to the park and do as they like legal or illegal. This ordinance is just a way for Grover Beach to violate someone’s constitutional rights. Once we as citizens start allowing that to happen they will just start taking more. People start looking into what our state is doing to protect our children by registering people as sex offenders it does nothing but create false security. The offenders that really need to be worried about are not registered yet or are locked up in an institution. The Grover Beach police department already does a fine job of monitoring those it needs too that are registered to protect the city.

Karma is a helluva thing…move to Santa Maria pedo.


What an unchristian like thing to say! You are just another example that the majority of posters on Cal Coast News are non-christians.

WWJD? “Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times? Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven. (Matthew 18: 21-22) Therefore, one offense minus 490 times a Christian can sin, equals 489 more times Frank Lindsay can sin relative to being a pedophile.

There is seemingly one stipulation though, in that Mr. Lindsay cannot act upon lewd and lascivious acts against a child more than seven times in a day. “Pay attention to yourselves! If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him, and if he sins against you seven times in the day, and turns to you seven times, saying, ‘I repent,’ you must forgive him.” (Luke 17: 3-4)

I will pray for you tonight to truly comprehend Jesus’ words so that you won’t be ignorant of His word in the future. You thank me later.

Hey Teddy, are you speaking of the Christians of the Crusades who slaughtered

masses of people? Or the Christians who harangue women and murder their

doctors? Maybe you refer to the Christians who berate homosexuals for being what

they are. Or the ones who would have the government based on the Christian

religion……kinda like what Isis is trying to do with Islam.


Thank you for not bringing up the Salem witch trials, the Inquistion, the Dark Ages, etc. We Christians have enough on our plate as it is.

Why Deebo? Do you not care bout the safety of children in Santa Maria?

Well, since he’s not required to do anything to make you happy I guess you have a couple of choices here. You can deal with it since he’s there and not leaving. I don’t know Frank, but maybe he would be willing to move if you purchase his house for him. Or if you don’t want to live in the same community as him you could move I guess. Here’s a list of homes for sale in Santa Maria if you’re interested.

Not to be supportive of that sort of activity, banning an offender from living 2,000 feet from ANYwhere is absurd. If someone is going to reoffend they are going to reoffend.

The guy has done his time. Barring any aggravating circumstances, he should be allowed to live anywhere he wants.

Jessica’s law and Megan’s law are bad policy based on knee jerk reactions to high profile tragedies. The public has been groomed into believing these laws make us safer. After all, it’s common sense. Just like the earth being flat was common sense. Either you believe this fallacy or be criticized by your peers.

One of the main problems with residency restrictions is it creates clusters of sex offenders in small designated neighborhoods. Does that sound safe? It also has created homelessness among registrants on a broad scale. Is that safer? It sounds like chaos to me.

I’ve read the reports and can assure you that scouring the Megan’s law website for those with convictions is no better than gawking at your family album if you wish to see who may be molesting your child. The “Stranger Danger” myth is ingrained in all of us as children, but is a rare event statistically speaking. “Beware the bearers of false gifts” is a better lesson for your children as well as the basic “Good touch, Bad Touch”. I’ve read that 30% of child sexual abuse is committed by minors.

I’m sorry, but my personal belief is these ‘Dead Baby Laws’ are nothing more than political pandering to weak agoraphobic (or maybe agraphobic) individuals and provide a false sense of security to anyone who will take the time to rationalize them. Unless you’re just hell bent on re-punishing sex offenders.

Freaking pervert go live somewhere else!!

I would rather live next to him than a low life like you

I don’t think so

Good thing he doesn’t have to do anything to make you happy, isn’t it?