{"id":2012,"date":"2020-02-14T09:47:33","date_gmt":"2020-02-14T15:47:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/?p=2012"},"modified":"2020-02-14T09:47:33","modified_gmt":"2020-02-14T15:47:33","slug":"alliance-for-constitutional-sex-offense-laws-v-california-department-of-corrections-and-rehabilitation-cal-ct-app-3rd-2020","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/2020\/02\/14\/alliance-for-constitutional-sex-offense-laws-v-california-department-of-corrections-and-rehabilitation-cal-ct-app-3rd-2020\/","title":{"rendered":"Alliance for Constitutional Sex Offense Laws v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (Cal. Ct. App. 3rd 2020)"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"introduction-wrapper\">\n<h2 style=\"text-align: center\">Alliance for Constitutional Sex Offense Laws v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, No. C087294 (Cal. Ct. App. 3rd 2020)<\/h2>\n<p><strong><strong>Nature of Case: <\/strong><\/strong> Plaintiff, a civil rights organization, brought an action for a writ of mandate in California state court in the wake of a voter-passed ballot initiative which expanded parole eligibility for people serving prison terms for non-violent offenses. The Defendant, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, was tasked with carrying out the measure and promulgated regulations that excluded anyone convicted of a sex offense from the benefit of the ballot initiative on public safety grounds. Plaintiff&#8217;s alleged that the Defendant&#8217;s regulations violated the plain text of the ballot initiative in that people who were serving sentences for non-violent sex offenses should be eligible.<\/p>\n<p>The California State trial court found for the Plaintiff, and the state Defendants sought review.<\/p>\n<p><strong> Holding: <\/strong> California Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court&#8217;s decision. The Defendant&#8217;s regulations carrying out the ballot initiative, insofar as they excluded individuals convicted of non-violent sex offenses from parole eligibility, contradicted the plain text of the initiative.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<h2 style=\"text-align: center\"><em>Case Documents<\/em><\/h2>\n<ul class=\"default\">\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/61\/2020\/02\/California-Court-of-Appeal-Decision.pdf\">California Court of Appeal Decision<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/61\/2020\/02\/Sacramento-Superior-Court-Opinion.pdf\">Sacramento Superior Court Opinion<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2 style=\"text-align: center\"><em>News and Related Materials<\/em><\/h2>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>California Court of Appeal decision finding that California state regulations excluding those convicted of non-violent sex offenses from parole eligibility contradicted plain text of a ballot initiatve, and thus was unlawful.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/2020\/02\/14\/alliance-for-constitutional-sex-offense-laws-v-california-department-of-corrections-and-rehabilitation-cal-ct-app-3rd-2020\/\" class=\"more-link\">Alliance for Constitutional Sex Offense Laws v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (Cal. Ct. App. 3rd 2020)<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":836,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_genesis_hide_title":false,"_genesis_hide_breadcrumbs":false,"_genesis_hide_singular_image":false,"_genesis_hide_footer_widgets":false,"_genesis_custom_body_class":"","_genesis_custom_post_class":"","_genesis_layout":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[9],"tags":[42,102,136],"class_list":{"0":"post-2012","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-sorn-cases","7":"tag-9th-cir","8":"tag-california","9":"tag-parole","10":"entry"},"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2012","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/836"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2012"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2012\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2012"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2012"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2012"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}