Front Page  »  

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.


Loading...
Subjects:                 
Related:


33 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I would be more interested in the victim’s opinion on this ordinance today.


0

I have never seen so many non-christians as here on Cal Coast News!


What all of you pseudo-christians need to do is listen and act in the manner of the parishioners of the Emanuel African Methodist Church in Charleston, South Carolina relative to forgiveness. You saw the video, where they were crying relentlessly as they spoke to Dylann Roof through a glass window telling him as true Christians, that they forgive him for murdering their loved ones! Christians are bound to this forgiveness edict from Jesus, even though it goes against the grain of reason. It’s the Christian thing to do.


In the same manner as Frank Lindsay, you’re to forgive him and allow him to live within the confines of Arroyo Grande without ramifications whatsoever. If he commits another child molestation, then you’re to forgive him once again, and again, and again. Think, WWJD?


“For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, but if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.” (Matthew 6: 14-15)


All of you, do you think that Jesus was hung for nothing? No He was not. He died for three days to forgive everyone of their sins continuously, and that includes Frank Lindsay!


As for the non-believers making statements against Mr. Lindsay, it matters not because you’ll burn in Hell upon your demise.


0

There should be a distinction between repeat or serial offenders and those that made a grievous error once.

First time, one time should NOT be a life sentence.


0

The child was only 13! This guy’s a predator, like it or not.


0

If he is a predator, as you so deftly point out, where are the years of victims from this “predator”? All I see is your ignorance.


0

You….really don’t know the definition of a predator do you?


0

Dude you fu#ked up. Now you want to make a rule as the exception?


Deal with the consequences. Good for you that you straightened up. Our trust is not increased you won’t reoffend. Comes with the territory.


Get a good guard dog..


0

Its people like you that give America a bad name. Bad day at the trailer park?


0

Let me get this right…residency restrictions violate the US Constitution, but ILLEGAL immigration doesn’t? Strange times indeed.


0

Relative to the statistics, the city said that sex offenders have recidivism rates as high as forty-five percent and he says state and federal government statistics show registrants on parole re-offend at a rate of only 1.8 percent and 5.3 percent. Okay, but one number is a 45% recidivism rate for LIFE and the other is 1.8 to 5.3 percent only while ON PAROLE. Of course these numbers don’t match.


I researched a bit and found the original SC of CA decision. See http://tinyurl.com/pg7d9vp.


It does repeal this 2006 Prop 83 law (voted in by all the voters in California, by the way), BUT it also says “Last, we agree with the observations of the Court of Appeal that CDCR retains the statutory authority, under provisions in the Penal Code separate from those found in section 3003.5(b),12 to impose special restrictions on registered sex offenders in the form of discretionary parole conditions, including residency restrictions that may be more or less restrictive than those found in section 3003.5(b), as long as they are based on, and supported by, the particularized circumstances of each individual parolee.”


In other words, the restrictions can be set up on a case-by-case basis. He will win this and we will be that much less safe.


Sorry Jessica (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica%27s_Law).


0

Actually these people tend to re-offend a lot. (I speak from personal knowledge of a three-time offender). Neighbors can complain about noise, building additions, trash cans left out, derelict vehicles, weedy landscaping, etc.and put a property owner through the wringer, but if you live in Grover Beach or another small community, you don’t have a say about a sex offender living next door?


There are consequences for actions. Would you want a murderer living next door? Probably not. Yes, they have to lie somewhere, but all this court case does is relegate them to small communities like Grover Beach. Is that really what we want?


I don’t know what the answer is but perhaps a dialog here might bring out some fresh ideas.


0

You said “would you want a murderer living next door?” but ironically you just pointed out one of the big double standards here. There are no laws that limit where murderers, armed robbers, kidnappers, or other violent criminals can live. Those limitations are placed only on sex offenders. So somehow we trust that its safe to have all these violent criminals living in our midst as long as they aren’t sex offenders? That sounds ridiculous to me. If we aren’t letting child molesters live near schools, then why let a bank robber live near a bank, a drunk driver live near a bar, an elder abuser live near a retirement home, etc. Honestly, I’d rather live near someone who committed a sex crime 20 years ago than someone who committed a violent murder.


0

So let me get this straight you are basing your opinion from one repeat offender? So this one person speaks for everyone else? Sorry, but um no. The Justice Department says the recidivism rate is 5.3%. Hardly a lot. That is also just for being re-arrested. Could be anything from a parole violation for missing a drug test to a new crime. Do the research yourself if you don’t believe me because it is clear to me that you haven’t done any.


No, you don’t have a say about a sex offender living next door. If he/she paid their money to purchase that property, or if they are renting the landlord/lady is ok with them living there then there really isn’t much that can be done.


0

Prosecutors will now have to fight to place child sex offenders on lifetime probation so that restrictions can remain in place indefinitely. The victims of child abuse aren’t just victimized once. Frequently, the effects last a lifetime and lead to drug abuse, suicide, or psychological impacts. The offender essentially victimizes their victim daily for the rest of their life. Lifetime parole and probation restrictions are not unreasonable.


0

Actually, therapy can heal some of these wounds. It’s absolutely critical that the issues be opened, discussed, and treatment sought.


0

I was sexually victimized as a child once.. It really isn’t something that bothered me all that much then or now. In terms of the actual effects, it’s really not so disastrous as you make it sound. Of course, for a small number of people, that is not the case but I’m not talking about them. I am not a victim. I am human with experiences. Short of actually being victimized, like losing my life or a limb or becoming horribly disfigured, what those experiences mean and what effect they have on me are a product of what I decide they mean and what society tells me they should mean.


So for the rest of us who weren’t physically traumatized, and I’m sure there is a MASSIVE number, you know who victimizes us daily for the rest of our lives? People like you who attach this stigma to it and make people feel like they have been damaged, that they need help, that what happened to them is SO terrible that they MUST be broken. Law enforcement loves a good villain too. By constantly pushing, mythologizing, and demonizing these awful terrible innately evil caricatures of drug dealers, addicts, child molesters, and so on, you fool a fairly large number of people into demanding more funding and less restrictions for law enforcement, and holding them up on a pedestal.


Of course when its in your interest, you don’t see it clearly. Everyone wants positive reinforcement and affirmation that they are doing the right thing, and that’s exactly what they get. It’s an endless feedback loop, a self fulfilling prophecy. But the whole underlying ideology has VERY little connection with factual reality.


0

This won’t be a popular opinion (nevertheless….I remain not attached to what other people think—so click away on the “thumbs down” all you want). I believe that former offenders who have not consumed alcohol, re-offended, etc., for a period of 10-15 years (or longer) should be allowed a minor amount of leniency on a case-by-case basis. I only state this because I feel it may set a precedent for enticing other offenders to not act out through setting a positive example. There should be ample SA (sex addicts anonymous) meetings to assist them with that in the areas they populate. (This data can be configured using Megan’s List statistics to see where they are concentrated).


Like it or not….these guys are in our society–to stay. Doing all we can to encourage and assist their state of “non-reoffender” helps society as a whole by keeping it safer for children. Now….go ahead and click thumbs down….and do it without looking into Dr. Karl Hanson’s research…..because that is what people with low intelligence scores do.


0

With all of your internet knowledge and your obvious desire to have someone like what you’re saying (I respect your opinion by the way)…..with all of that aside…..would you want this person (attributes described above) living on all corners of your 13 year old grandaughters home knowing shes home alone a considerable amount of time?


Those who molest and violate our children made horrible decisions. When you’re a grown up you sometimes live a lifetime with your decisions!


How’s this sound “your honor, I haven’t raped a child in many years……..”.


0

Relief cannot be granted on a case to case basis. That is unconstitutional; the CA Supreme Court’s decision is sweeping and absolute.


0

Yes, theoretically you are right, but your theory is in a vacuum.

A criminal has to WANT to stay straight, and our degraded society does not reward such behavior. In real life, daily temptations are too attractive for offenders’ to resist; their memories deep in the brain persist.


0
1 2