This post was contributed by a community member. The views expressed here are the author's own.

Politics & Government

Rejection Of Sex Offender Bill Wrong, Lawmaker Says

"It's unfortunate that some Sacramento politicians don't understand how important this issue is to families in the Inland Empire."

Assemblyman Paul Cook said today that the Assembly Public Safety Committee's rejection of his bill to require sex offenders to have a state-issued identification card in their possession at all times was wrong.

"It's unfortunate that some Sacramento politicians don't understand how important this issue is to families in the Inland Empire," Cook, R-Beaumont, said after Tuesday's 4-2 party line vote on "I will continue to look for ways to keep our children safe."

AB 1695 targeted offenders whose convictions stemmed from a violent sexual attack or the sexual assault of a child. Under the bill, they would have been required to have a driver's license or other form of state identification on them anytime they left their residence.

Find out what's happening in Lake Elsinore-Wildomarwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

According to Cook, that would have enabled law enforcement to quickly identify potential suspects faster during a criminal investigation.

The identification requirement would have been an added component of Penal Code Section 290, which mandates that anyone convicted of a sexual offense in California register their address with law enforcement and notify authorities whenever they relocate. According to critics, the section amounts to lifetime parole.

Find out what's happening in Lake Elsinore-Wildomarwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

Cook's measure was backed by the California Probation, Parole and Correctional Association. It was opposed by the American Civil Liberties Union, California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, the California Public Defenders Association and Legal Services for Prisoners with Children.

An Assembly Public Safety Committee analysis of the legislation noted the groups' complaints against the bill and questioned whether it would withstand judicial scrutiny if challenged in a lawsuit.

"An individual who has not committed an offense in decades will be required, under penalty of a misdemeanor, to comply with this law," wrote legislative analyst Gabriel Caswell.

"What happens if a (sex) registrant who must comply with this provision loses his or her identification? It seems unlikely that the Department of Motor Vehicles will make a house call. Therefore, a registrant cannot legally leave his or her home, for the rest of their life, if his or her identification is lost or destroyed."

Democrats Tom Ammiano of San Francisco, Gilbert Cedillo of Los Angeles, Holly Mitchell of Culver City, and Nancy Skinner of Oakland voted against the bill, while Republicans Curt Hagman of Chino Hills and Steve Knight of Palmdale voted in favor.

"This isn't the first time that I've had my nose bloodied on this issue," Cook said. "It's taken me years to get some of my sex offender legislation passed."

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here

The views expressed in this post are the author's own. Want to post on Patch?