Frank Lindsay, Sex Offender on Mission to Overturn California Bans, Sues Santa Ana

Categories: Court, Crime-iny

mad-men-picnic.jpg
AMC
Santa Ana's pervs-in-parks ban draws legal fire.

"Santa Ana's children and their families deserve the freedom to enjoy our parks, recreation centers and libraries without the risk and fear of sex offenders preying on them," then-Mayor pro tem Claudia Alvarez said when the city adopted its pervs-in-parks ban on May 21, 2012. But now preying on the city is a San Luis Obispo registered sex offender who has made Santa Ana the latest California jurisdiction he's suing over ordinances that restrict his movements.

California Supreme Court Essentially Strikes Down Orange County's Pervs-in-Parks Ban

As Frank Lindsay has in the past, he is being backed by lawyers from California Reform Sex Offender Laws (RSOL), whose president, Santa Maria attorney Janice Bellucci, maintains, "The sex offender ordinance adopted by the City of Santa Ana is in violation of both the federal and state constitutions."

frank-lindsay_national-sex-offender-public-registry.jpg
National Sex Offender Public Registry
Frank Lindsay, plaintiff
Santa Ana adopted its ordinance at the urging of the Orange County District Attorney's office (OCDA), after DA Tony Rackauckas co-wrote with county Supervisor Shawn Nelson the sex offender law the county Board of Supervisors adopted in April 2011 and which served as the model Orange County cities used to craft their own. They required registered sex offenders to get the permission of the sheriff or local police chief before stepping foot on parks or recreation areas lest they risk misdemeanor fines or arrests.

Sana Ana's ordinance went further, banning sex offenders from getting within 300 feet of a "children's facility," which was defined as day care centers, parks, schools, Discovery Science Center, Boys and Girls Club of Santa Ana, KidWorks, the Bowers Kidseum and some libraries "for the apparent purpose of observing a child or children under the age of 18."

But the county's ordinance and those of the cities of Irvine and Lake Forest have gone on to be successfully challenged in court. Those challenges have been upheld by the state appellate court, and the state Supreme Court recently let the appeals court rulings stand. The Orange County Sheriff's Department has stopped enforcing the county ordinance, and Lake Forest repealed its own.

The suit against Santa Ana is the seventh RSOL has been involved in regarding the sex offender ordinances of recent years. City officials could not be reached for comment at press time.

Email: mcoker@ocweekly.com. Twitter: @MatthewTCoker. Follow OC Weekly on Twitter @ocweekly or on Facebook!


My Voice Nation Help
26 comments
mmdfaca
mmdfaca

The reaction to any of these stories is emotional, not rational.  The sex offender registry does not help society, it harms society, and the ex-offender trying to find work and housing.  The more stable the ex-offender's life, the better off society is.  It is the instability in anyones life that causes issues that can quickly escalate to a crime, depending on you genetic makeup, social perceptions and subsequent thinking patterns.  Alcohol is almost always involved and it is never treated as the root of the problem.  Putting someone in jail without treatment, simply forestalls the inevitable.  Even though sex offender recidivism is relatively low at 5.3%, successfully dealing with any substance abuse issues halves that 5.3% to under 3%.  Shaming and ridiculing an ex-offender for the rest of their life, after the sentence has been served is putting society at a higher risk because of the consequences of the ex-offenders being homeless and unemployed.  Much better to have these people working and residing inside during off hours than to have them crawling out of a bush at 5 am. behind you at a bus stop.  Unemployment triggers relapse in addictive personalities.  Not good for society either.  It is time to respond to this growing problem over 800,000 now in the U.S.) in a positive manner that makes society safer in a very practical way.  As long as there is a public website that berates these people and publishes their pictures, society is working against itself, not to mention that 95% of the time and money spent by law enforcement "monitoring or watching those on the list" is a waste of time; an actual crime is happening elsewhere.

tongue_twister_for_t
tongue_twister_for_t topcommenter

Department Of Justice:
DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW

Summary:

Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

For the purpose of Section 242, acts under "color of law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official's lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.

The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.

TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

gregbpc
gregbpc topcommenter

Public urination is  a lot different than child molestation.  They need to better define offenses as "sex crimes".  For serious offenders, just keep them locked-up, that is another option to keeping them away from certain places.

shellystow
shellystow

The real point here, besides the legitimate constitutional concern, is not whether a previous and already punished offense was high or low on the seriousness scale. The point is that restrictions such as these serve no purpose but to get politicians elected and to create a false sense of security. They do not deter the risk of sexual crime to children. Children are not at risk of sexual harm from strangers, repeat offenders or not, lurking in public places waiting to grab them. They are at risk from those in their lives in close, often familial, relationships. If a specific registrant committed his offense by lurking in parks, playgrounds, etc. and took or tried to take a random child, then make those places off-limits for him as part of his supervisory conditions. Leave everyone else alone to walk their dogs in the park or pick up their kids or grand-kids from school or go swimming in public beach areas.

andrew.m.love
andrew.m.love

Sex Offender is too broad a category and some have very low recidivism rates. Did he commit statutory rape once and serve his sentence? Let him in the park. Did he produce/distribute child pornography or molest dozens of kids over a few decades? Keep him away from the park.

sinkin000
sinkin000

CALVIN_H,do you realize that there are a lot of people in prison for things they did not do? If the statue of limitations are up on what really happen our power crazy DA,S will add whatever charges they want and if you end up with a bad attorney and a judge like Lance Jensen you will go to prison for a long time. Even if Lance Jensen knows the added on charges are not true. This is what happen in Orange County when nobody is looking. So think before you type. Know the facts.

rsojoe
rsojoe

WOW! Way to go Frank!

Calvin_H
Calvin_H

Uhm, no, he is not suing to overturn these unconstitutional bans. The California Court of Appeals has already done so. All he is suing for is for the City of Santa Ana to stop violating the law and the Constitution.

For that, the headline should read "Frank Lindsay, Patriot and Defender of the Constitution, sues Santa Ana".

But that does not generate as many clicks as the word "Sex Offender", now does it?

RocketJ
RocketJ topcommenter

Tony 'Creator Of Unconstitutional Law And Therefore Responsible For Wasting Taxpayer Monies Defending Said Law Who Also Bungled The Kelly Thomas Murder Case' Rackauckas is up for re-election. Oh for a none of the above check box.

meheecan-cris-doner
meheecan-cris-doner

majority of sex crimes happen between persons that know one another. instead of paying so much attention to strangers at the park, you better watch out for uncle whitey and his little friend whitey. btw white people account for most reported and unreported sex crimes. deport them back to Europe, ha!

whateveryousay
whateveryousay topcommenter

This could all be avoided if people didn't rape or molest other people.  

People ruin people.

 1979 seems to be a terrible year for some kid.

whateveryousay
whateveryousay topcommenter

@shellystow  "Children are not at risk of sexual harm from strangers, repeat offenders or not, lurking in public places waiting to grab them."

Are delusional?  Kids are abducted and molested by strangers all of the time.  


Calvin_H
Calvin_H

@sweetliberty17761776  - you do realize that 65 million Americans (or 1 in 4 adults) have a criminal record, right? Keep them all in jail? Think before you type.

whateveryousay
whateveryousay topcommenter

@Calvin_H  That dude is a tool.  His crime involved LEWD OR LASCIVIOUS ACTS WITH A CHILD UNDER 14 YEARS OF AGE.  He is in no way a patriot.

MatthewTCoker
MatthewTCoker topcommenter

@Calvin_H Then California Reform Sex Offender Laws is guilty, too; my headline is similar to the one on the press release they sent me, which also did not use "patriot and defender of the Constitution" to describe Lindsay but "sex offender."

fixithair
fixithair

@RocketJ After-election reflection.  what is scary and disconcerting is that Tony won re-election as DA by over 70% of the vote....  I shake my head with dismay. 

Calvin_H
Calvin_H

@Paul - that doesn't even make any sense. But of course, the second anyone has an opinion on this subject that does not involve a bullet to the head or castration with rusty gardening tools, or that differs from the prevalent sheepthink in any way, they must be a sex offender or pedo priest sympathizer. Yawn.

If you have something of substance to say, let's hear it!

fixithair
fixithair

@MatthewTCoker @Calvin_HIf they want to protect children they should get rid of the sex offender registry.


There is an unintended consequence to having an extremely punitive sex offender registry and that is most offenses are committed by family members and those know to the victim. By the registry being punitive against families and not just to individuals doesn't it seem logical that victims will not report abuses in order to protect their family as a whole? So, the punitive nature of the registry by default becomes it's own worst enemy.

gregbpc
gregbpc topcommenter

@Sidd..he obviously missed the Wayne's World reference. lol

Now Trending

Anaheim Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

Fashion

Loading...