Judge OKs, Adds to Pedophile Injunction

Legal Theory

Posted Aug 3, 2007, 02:15 pm CDT
By Martha Neil

Two Santa Clarita lawyers who sought an injunction to protect their daughters and other local children from associating with a self-admitted pedophile got everything they sought from a California judge today—and more.

They had asked for a temporary restraining order to prevent Jack McClellan, a 45-year-old who admittedly is sexually attracted to children but apparently has committed no crime, from spending time in areas in Santa Clarita where children are likely to congregate. Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Melvin Sandvig went much further, barring McClellan from being within 10 yards of a child within the entire state of California, reports the Los Angeles Times.

The two lawyers contend that McClellan, who reportedly lives in his car, presents a clear and present danger to children. "What we are seeking to restrain is not speech. It is conduct," said Anthony Zinnanti, who filed the request for an injunction with fellow attorney Richard Patterson.

"The order Sandvig granted prevents McClellan from coming within 10 yards of a minor child, and it says that he may not harass, threaten, follow or loiter around any minor child," reports the Times. "He also may not photograph, videotape or post on the Internet images of a minor child without parental consent."

McClellan was neither at today's hearing nor represented by counsel. However, he will have an opportunity to challenge the order and present evidence at an undetermined future date. Further details are provided in an earlier ABAJournal.com post.

Comments

Report Abuse

Posted by Ron Mepwith - 1 year, 1 month, 1 day, 20 hours, 52 minutes ago

The judges decision seems not only draconian, but unconstitutional. Some judges are carried away by their perception of their power.
Posted by Tony Colleluori - 1 year, 1 month, 1 day, 3 hours, 59 minutes ago

I don’t have a problem with the 10 yard restriction, however the rule forbidding posting of non-pornographic images of children, is clearly unconstitutional. It also has the ability to chill other bloggers whose content is edgy.
What really bothers me is the appearance of grandstanding by the court. We have proposals for laws in NY city that forbid adults without children to even step foot in certain parks during certain hours. We have to find ways to protect children without infringing on the rights of adults...even creepy adultslike McClellan.
Posted by Tony Colleluori - 1 year, 1 month, 1 day, 2 hours, 27 minutes ago

You know on second thought. I am wrong. Even the 30 foot rule is a bad ruling. The judge is setting this guy up for a contempt ruling. This homeless guy can’t go to a place to eat, a hospital, or doctor, he can’t even go to a public restroom. Nope. Sadly this is not the way to solve this problem.

This is proof positive that we have to stay as vigilant in protecting our freedom as we do in protecting our children.
Posted by Vicki Stewart - 1 year, 2 weeks, 1 day ago

Let me see if I can understand this..We are concerned about the rights of a this person who clearly admits her is attracted to children and states if pedophilia was legal he “might” act on it. I would encourage you to read the history of Joseph E. Duncan who is incarcerated in Coeur d’ Alene, ID. Check out the article on MSNBC. If you want to know where thought first start, check out his blog, The Fifth Nail.
Joseph Duncan was released on a 15,000 bail on April 5, 2005 in Becker County, MN. He was also banned from any Becker Co. parks. A pedophile is a pedophile whether they have committed a crime or not. Should are main concern be about his constitional rights?

Commenting has expired on this post.

ABA Journal - Law News Now

Legal Theory