In the legal world, the precise meaning of a word can have a dramatic impact on a case. This is especially true when it comes to regulating sex offenders. In a recent case, the California Court of Appeal clarified a key term concerning sex offender regulation: What does it mean for a sex offender to “reside” somewhere, for purposes of Penal Code Section 290’s sex offender registration requirement?[1]
In People v. Williams, the court held that a registered sex offender “resides” in a city when he/she first enters that city’s jurisdiction. This seemingly-obvious conclusion may signal a significant change in the placement of sex offenders by parole agents who presume that a “residency” was not established until the sex offender decides to live somewhere permanently. This loophole has heretofore allowed sex offenders to temporarily live next to parks, schools, and other child-intensive locations – places which they are barred from living at under Jessica’s Law – simply because they claimed their stay was “temporary” and did not establish “residency.” The holding in People v. Williams casts serious doubt as to whether this practice is proper, and provides a key tool for cities to close loopholes in Jessica’s Law.
The case involves Bobby Lee Williams, a convicted sex offender who, upon release from prison, was required to register under Penal Section 290, which requires sex offenders to register with law enforcement within five days of entering the jurisdiction “in which he or she is residing.”[2] After spending a night at a rescue mission, Mr. Williams attempted to register with the local police department but was unable to due to a lack of identification. His parole agent informed him that, based on distance limits imposed by Jessica’s Law, the rescue mission was located too close to a school for a registered sex offender to live at, and arranged for Mr. Williams to stay at a hotel. After spending at least one night at the hotel, Mr. Williams moved yet again to his cousin’s home in the city – all the while never registering with the police. He was subsequently arrested for failing to register under Section 290.
Williams was convicted by a jury for failure to register as a sex offender as required by Penal Code Section 290. On appeal, Williams claimed that since he had not moved into his cousin’s home until May 27, he was not in violation of the registration requirement by June 3 because less than five working days had passed. The court disagreed, holding that the legislative purpose in enacting Section 290 was to ensure that convicted sex offenders are readily available for police surveillance. The court stated that a sex offender’s duty to register arises when he/she first enters a local jurisdiction and does not end until he/she leaves that jurisdiction. Thus, the duty imposed on a sex offender to register is imposed five working days from when he enters the jurisdiction, not five working days after finding a permanent residence within the jurisdiction.
As to Mr. Williams, the court determined that he began “residing” in Madera when he first entered its jurisdiction following release from prison and, thus, had failed to register within five working days. In support of its conclusion, the court found the facts Williams was born and had family in Madera, was assigned a parole agent there, and had attempted to register there as sufficient evidence to determine that he was indeed “residing” in Madera.
By defining the term “residing” in this manner, the court imposed a duty on convicted sex offenders to register with the police within five days of entering the jurisdiction of their residence. This decision limits the ability of a convicted sex offender to delay registration until he has secured a “permanent” residence. Further, the court has removed much of the uncertainty in determining when the five notice period begins before registration is required.
Law enforcement agencies should be aware that a convicted sex offender who must register pursuant to Section 290 must do so within five days of entering the jurisdiction – not merely five days after finding a residence in that jurisdiction. Further, if a convicted sex offender moves around within the jurisdiction, he still must register with local law enforcement within five days of entering the jurisdiction.
AGC has been at the forefront of issues related to sex offender registration, including drafting ordinances in several cities which expand zones in which registered sex offenders are prohibited and regulating the number of sex offenders in multi-family housing. For more information regarding issues related to sex offender regulations, please contact Matthew Gorman at (562) 699-5500 or mgorman@agclawfirm.com.
[1] People v. Williams (March 12, 2009 5th App. Dist) Case No. F053858.
[2] Penal Code § 290(b) (emphasis added).
