SAN FRANCISCO — For the second time in two weeks, a federal judge has concluded that California's sweeping new law barring sex offenders from living near schools and parks does not apply to ex-felons already settled in society.
Despite the pair of rulings narrowing the scope of the law, legal questions continue to cloud the measure, which was approved overwhelmingly by voters in November.
U.S. District Judge Jeffrey S. White, in a brief order Thursday, said Proposition 83's rule forbidding registered sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a school or park cannot be used to govern the 90,000 offenders already released from prison before the measure passed.
White's ruling echoed an earlier decision by U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton, who said it was a "time-honored principle" that new laws apply prospectively unless otherwise specified. To conclude that Proposition 83 should cover people already out of prison, Karlton said, would raise serious constitutional concerns, namely that the initiative was punishing people twice for the same crime.
But several questions remain, and they may not be resolved for years, lawyers said.
Most important, there is still disagreement over the universe of offenders covered by the law. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the law's chief proponent, state Sen. George Runner (R-Lancaster), say it was meant to cover all those released from prison after its passage.
Runner likened that application of the law to what occurred with Megan's Law, which required certain sex offenders to register their addresses and other information with law enforcement agencies. That information is available to the public on the Internet.
"Like with Megan's Law, people in prison at the time it passed were required to comply with the restrictions once they got out," Runner said. "It's a form of regulation."
Others argue that Proposition 83 should apply only to those whose crimes were committed after the Nov. 7 election.
State Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown has taken an altogether different position. He argues that Proposition 83's residency restrictions, while not requiring previously released offenders to move now, would apply to them if they chose to relocate.
Judge Karlton has said that interpretation "borders on frivolous," but he made no definitive ruling on it.
Nathan Barankin, a spokesman for Brown, said the attorney general hopes a court will ultimately resolve that question and specify just how, or against whom, the initiative should be enforced.
