SAN FRANCISCO — The confusion shrouding California's sweeping new sex offender law intensified Monday, when state lawyers abruptly changed position and said the measure bars all sex offenders from moving within 2,000 feet of a park or school.
The shift by representatives of Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer clearly startled a federal judge, who noted that the state had filed papers less than two weeks ago saying the law did not cover those who had served their time and were off parole.
Saying he felt "ambushed," U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White set a hearing for Feb. 23 and ordered state attorneys -- who by then will be working for Lockyer's successor, Jerry Brown -- to submit briefs justifying their new position.
White also extended an order temporarily barring law enforcement officials from evicting sex offenders now living within 2,000 feet of a school or park.
Passed by 70% of the state's voters Nov. 7, Proposition 83 increases penalties and parole terms for many sex crimes and requires felony sex offenders to wear satellite-tracking devices for life.
It also subjects former offenders to dramatically expanded residency restrictions. Previously, only child molesters on parole were barred from living near schools. Proposition 83 extends that prohibition to all sex offenders, even after they complete parole and regardless of their victims' age.
Monday's events stem from a lawsuit filed one day after voters passed the initiative, dubbed Jessica's Law by proponents.
The case involves a registered sex offender in the Bay Area -- identified only as "John Doe" to protect his safety -- who argues that Proposition 83 is unconstitutional because it would impose a new penalty on him more than 15 years after he was punished for his crime.
In addition, John Doe says the initiative's 2,000-foot limit would effectively banish him and his wife from the community where he has lived for more than 20 years and, according to maps prepared by the Legislature, would make most urban areas of California off limits to him.
Saying it was likely that John Doe would prevail in his constitutional challenge, another federal judge issued a temporary restraining order protecting him from eviction. In response, Lockyer's office argued that the suit should be dismissed because the initiative was meant to apply only to future offenders, not to ex-convicts who had completed parole.
