Sex Crimes

Although the topic of campus rape has made national headlines, the state of California is no doubt the most aggressive when it comes to addressing sexual assault on campuses. Last month, California Attorney General Kamala Harris and University of California President Janet Napolitano released a Model Memorandum of Understanding on Campus Sexual Assault (“Model MOU”) which serves as a guide for college campuses and law enforcement agencies to facilitate better coordination in dealing with campus sexual assault cases. The Model MOU is intended to help campuses comply with A.B. 1433, which was signed into law last October 2014. A.B. 1433 requires colleges to report certain violent crimes (e.g. sexual assault and hate crimes), occurring on or near campus, to local law enforcement, with the permission of the victim. Prior to A.B. 1433, Governor Jerry Brown also signed into law S.B. 967 (“Yes Means Yes law”) in September 2014. That law requires California universities that receive public funding to require students to get “affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity.

Going further, as of present, the state of California also has a “college campus sexual assault assembly package” coming down the pipeline. The package consists of 3 bills aimed at California state schools which receive public funding:

A.B. 967– This bill was introduced by Senate pro tempore Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles) in April and would set a minimum of two years academic suspension for students found responsible for rape and forcible sex acts. The bill passed the assembly 62-4 and is currently headed to the state Senate. It should be noted that while this bill imposes punishments that should be doled out by school disciplinary boards, school boards operate independently of the criminal justice system. You could in theory, be punished under both and receive suspension/expulsion and jail time under California Penal Code 261. Opponents of this bill are concerned that different boards operate differently as well, with school punishments ranging from community service to expulsion.

Earlier this Week, the California Supreme Court decided unanimously that blanket, statewide bans on where sex offenders may not live (“Jessica’s Law”) violate the constitutional rights of parolees in San Diego County. Jessica’s Law (aka Proposition 83), named after a 9-year-old girl who fell victim to a sex offender who failed to report his whereabouts, was proposed via a ballot initiative in 2006. Due to Megan’s Law, those who have been convicted of a sex crime must register with their local law enforcement agency.

Jessica’s Law therefore barred registered sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a school or park where children gather, regardless of whether the crimes actually involved children. Sex offenders subsequently challenged the law in court, claiming that it made it impossible for them to find a place to live. The court recognized that the law made over 97% of rental housing in San Diego unavailable, and ruled that the consequences of the law were so severe, it hampered rehabilitation and caused homelessness. Although the unanimous ruling immediately affects only San Diego County, it will certainly pave the way for the same policies in major metropolitan areas, including San Francisco.

Articles Posted in Sex Crimes

State Legislatures Coming Down on Campus Rapes in California Universities

California Supreme Court Says Sex Offender Residency Law is Unconstitutional

What to Do If You Are Charged With a Sex Crime