This case has been filed on behalf of four parolees, from different counties (San Francisco, Santa Clara, and San Diego), who face parole violations if they do not change their residences as required by the enforcement of Penal Code Section 3003.5, better known as "Jessica’s Law" or Proposition 83. While passed in November 2006, the recent enforcement prohibited residency by any person required to register as a sex offender within 2000 feet of any public or private school, park or other place so designated by a municipality. The Writ of Habeas Corpus challenges the constitutionality of this statute in a number of ways, including its retroactivity, the applicability of the statute to these type of offenders, due process issues, and the unreasonableness of the parole condition. The Amicus Brief filed jointly by CCOSO and ATSA supports the argument concerning the unreasonableness of this parole requirement. The brief outlines how enforcement of residency restrictions such as this are not reasonably related to the government’s goals of enhancing public safety, reintegrating the paroled offender into society and promoting positive citizenship. The authors argue that such restrictions are detrimental to public safety by increasing the risk factors for recidivism and therefore are not reasonably related to the deterrence of future criminality. Specifically, amici provides data showing that residence restrictions hinder the governmental goals and are in fact counterproductive, creating an atmosphere that is harmful to children and other potential victims, rather than beneficial to them.