Sheriff’s sex offender sweep of Camarillo and County find all in compliance

order arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;”>On Saturday, May 21st, 2016, Sheriff’s detectives conducted compliance checks at the residences of eighty (80) registered sex offenders throughout the city and county areas of Camarillo. The compliance checks were part of the Sexual Assault Felony Enforcement (SAFE / ELEAS) Grant.

Sixty (60) of the offenders were found to be in compliance with their registration requirement. Eighteen (18) registrants were verified as living at their residence but were not contacted because they were not home. Two (2) registrants were not contacted because the registrant had moved. Sheriff’s detectives will follow-up to determine if those registrants are out-of-compliance.

The Ventura County Sheriff’s Office will be conducting similar sweeps on an ongoing basis, to verify registered sex offenders are living at their reported residences and in compliance with any probation or parole terms.

Residents of Ventura County can visit the Megan’s Law website ( to familiarize themselves with the sex registrants in their community.


15 Responses to Sheriff’s sex offender sweep of Camarillo and County find all in compliance

  1. Ryan Spitz June 9, 2016 at 1:44 am

    Since California law does not require compliance checks, I suspect these compliance visits are largely conducted so officers can get overtime pay and they can generate glowing press releases to show how diligent they are. If a person is not home or doesn’t answer the door they have no recourse except to leave. The law only requires that a registrant show up once a year and re-register his or her address. It also requires that they also de-register from an address they are moving from and register at their new address within 5 working days.

  2. Eliminate Nanny Big Government May 27, 2016 at 2:47 pm

    Citizen Reporter:

    I wanted to respond to your comment of May 27, 2016 at 8:09 am but did not see a way to comment directly to it. So I will here.

    I can’t say I care too much one way or another if your readers are confused about if something is a press release or not. And if any paper gets a press release like this one and does not clearly indicate that it was a press release and that they did not write it, then they are complete fools (so I guess that applies to whatever daily paper you are speaking of).

    But did you just make a capital mistake? Who are you calling “sex offenders”? The people who are listed on the Sex Offender Registries? If you are then everyone in America can call you “liar” for the rest of your life. Or any other derogative name that fit you at one time. I really do hope you understand why.

    As far as “tracking” “sex offenders” goes – all informed, intelligent people, who are not biased, clearly understand why the Sex Offender Registries should not exist. There really isn’t any debate. I don’t think there ever has been among informed people.

  3. JR May 26, 2016 at 10:10 am

    Classic fear-mongering, ignorant reporting. Residency restrictions and registries do no good in preventing or even reducing crime. 0% success rate on these laws. ZERO PERCENT. It is simply political pandering to the ignorant masses.

    I challenge any one person on this thread to provide even one peer-reviewed, expert-written research document to support residency restrictions and registry effectiveness. I will, in turn, post TWO nationally accepted expert, fact-based reports discrediting restrictions and registries.

    You heard that correctly, kids! 2 to your 1.

    I send an additional challenge to this “journalist” (or any journalist for that matter) to report facts over fear. Hasn’t happened yet – so I won’t hold my breath.

    • Citizen Reporter May 26, 2016 at 10:54 am

      “Journalist?” This is clearly marked “Press Release.” We hope you are more careful in your analyses.

      • Eliminate Nanny Big Government May 26, 2016 at 2:34 pm

        I see the big blue rectangle that says “PRESS RELEASE” in it. I don’t think that makes it clear at all that this was a press release. It looks like it might be trying to draw attention to the text next to it (“Get ..”).

        I think you are making the classic mistake of it seems clear to you because you already know what it is. I don’t think it would be clear to most people. People might *guess* that is what it meant. Maybe.

        But as a press release, it was a pretty good piece of big government propaganda. Ever wonder why these criminal regimes need to constantly spew propaganda about their “sex offender” witch hunt? It’s a bit part of selling it.

        Lastly, people who are listed on a Sex Offender Registry cannot accurately be called “sex offenders” or “offenders”. If anyone does that, we can call that person “liar” or any other name that describes any behavior that they’ve done in the past. Maybe “cheater”, “adulterer”, “child beater”, “thief”, or “murderer”. We all get to call each other names! Fun!

        This press release failed in that they did call those people “sex offenders” and “offenders”. It failed there and was inaccurate propaganda. But most big government’s is.

        • Citizen Reporter May 26, 2016 at 3:11 pm

          If we have to explain to you what a “Press Release” is, then perhaps Citizens Journal is not right for you.

          Unlike most other publications, we label press releases clearly so people will realize that someone is trying to sell something.

          We have had people complain about the number of press releases we run, but we don’t run any more than most publications. We just label them and do not do minor cosmetic rewriting like other ones do to pass it off as their own work (no names mentioned).

          • Eliminate Nanny Big Government May 27, 2016 at 5:02 am

            It’s fairly alarming to think that you actually read what I wrote and then somehow think that I would need to have “press release” explained to me. I’m thinking you didn’t read, comprehend, or perhaps are biased.

            But anyway, why don’t you just make it a lot more clear that something is a press release? Also, clearly state who the source was. How about something along the lines of “This is a press release that was received on 5/26/16 at 12:45 PM from John Doe, PR person for XYZ. It has not been edited.”?

            If you don’t label things like this clearly as a press release then people might think that you wrote (as people obviously did). Then, instead of just thinking that you are distributing Nanny Big Government propaganda, they will think that you are the stupid people.

          • Citizen Reporter May 27, 2016 at 8:09 am

            You gotta be kidding. There’s a bright blue icon that says “Press Release.” The local daily newspaper doesn’t label these as press releases, but we do. Why don’t you go after them? You’re barking up the wrong tree. If you would like to write us an informed article on why sex offenders shouldn’t be tracked, we’ll publish it.

      • jason May 26, 2016 at 8:07 pm

        You still havent provided the facts that hes asking for genius!

        • Eliminate Nanny Big Government May 27, 2016 at 5:05 am

          jason: I don’t think they have any obligation to reply to anyone or give anyone any facts. But it sure would be nice if they countered Nanny Big Government propaganda with some actual facts and critique every blue moon.

          The “sex offender” witch hunt has been going full blast for decades now and media is just all too eager to participate in the outrage and fear mongering. They are people who should be interested in facts but they are more interested in attracting readers. That’s dumb America these days. They really just want to be entertained.

          • jason May 27, 2016 at 3:17 pm


  4. Political Prisoner May 26, 2016 at 8:59 am

    In accordance of the California PC 290 Home compliance checks are not required and therefore illegal and only a form of harassment. If the person is not on Probation or Parole they do not have to interact with these checks. Do not answer the door, refuse to speak to them, if you can have a camera or recording device with you, DO NOT TALK TO THEM!

    • Eliminate Nanny Big Government May 26, 2016 at 2:36 pm

      Great advice.

      I think the “compliance checks” are an idiotic waste of resources and worse but I doubt that they are illegal. I expect that unless there is a law that says that they cannot do them then it’s probably acceptable that they visit people under the guise that they are just checking to see if laws are being followed.

      Having said that, I don’t think a single person who is not on probation or parole should ever allow law enforcement onto their property. I think any person listed on a Sex Offender Registry (SOR) should have their property completely surrounded by a wall or fencing and never allow law enforcement in.

      Informed, intelligent people know that the SORs are not REALLY for “public safety”, “protecting children”, or any of those other lies. THAT is why no American should support anything to do with the SORs.

  5. Javert May 25, 2016 at 11:21 pm

    How much did this cost the tax payer?

    What is the public safety benefit of knowing someone’s residence?

    If there were such a benefit – why is this not a requirement for all convicted criminals?

    • Eliminate Nanny Big Government May 26, 2016 at 2:41 pm

      Answers to your questions in order:

      1. Big government doesn’t care much about how much it costs. We have huge debt for a reason. We have crumbling infrastructure for a reason. People who support big government think harassing “sex offenders” is worth it.

      2. There is no public safety benefit. The Sex Offender Registries (SORs) reduce public safety. Nearly everyone listed on an SOR is more dangerous than he/she would be if he/she were not listed. And the SORs do not hinder crime in the slightest.

      3. Because we only care about harassing people who have committed sex crimes. Don’t care much about other crimes. In fact, you can be a lifelong, CAREER criminal and we don’t care where you live. You could have SHOT someone with a gun a year ago and we don’t care. We don’t even care if you’ve gone into schools and shot children. As long as you didn’t touch someone’s rear end, we’re good.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *