Megan’s Law and Eviction Case

Jamie Dono argues in her letter Jan. 24 to not drive people identified under Megan’s law elsewhere and “make them someone else’s problem.”

I agree that this rational concern is one of many problems with Megan’s law. However, it misses the point of the recent eviction case in Costa Mesa.

In that case, the landlord had received a number of complaints about the tenant from other tenants. The flier distributed by the Police Department identifying the tenant as a “high-risk sex offender” was merely an additional concern of the landlord.

The tenant argued that the landlord was not allowed by law to remove the tenant once the flier was distributed. If that is true, someone identified as a “high-risk sex offender” becomes part of a specially protected class who does not have to comply with his duties under his rental agreement.

Even before the fliers, the landlord testified, he had decided to give notice to the tenant to move. The tenant did not suddenly become untouchable because the Police Department distributed fliers.

The court specifically found that using information from fliers distributed by the police to remove somebody from their housing does not violate Megan’s law. That may or may not be good social policy, but it clearly is the way the law reads.

If any changes are to be made to the law, those changes should be made very carefully. Giving someone protected status can adversely affect other people’s rights to enforce obligations. I have mixed feelings about Megan’s law. I understand the purpose it is meant to serve. It does, however, seem to have the affect of making it difficult for a few people to find a place to live. I am sure, however, that it does not relieve someone listed on the database or identified on a flier from his contractual obligations.

RICHARD COOMBS, Orange. The writer was the attorney for the landlord in the Costa Mesa case.