SAN DIEGO - County supervisors unanimously voted to make it illegal for sex offenders "intent on committing crime" to loiter near schools, parks and other places where children gather Tuesday - a law that some suggested amounted to political grandstanding.

In other action, supervisors also voted to study the idea of putting "alcohol-sensing" ankle bracelets on convicted drunken drivers, and to solicit bids to buy a newer, faster mass-notification telephone warning system capable of warning the entire county of danger when it occurs.

Saying they were plugging a dangerous hole in existing law, supervisors passed a sex offender "loitering" law without debate or comment from audience members at Tuesday's meeting.

But legal and law enforcement officials differed widely on the ordinance - which would affect unincorporated communities - after the meeting.

Some called it effective policy.

Others called it political grandstanding. They said the ordinance's "intent to commit crime" language would make it nearly impossible to prove or prosecute.

The ordinance would make it a misdemeanor for registered sex offenders to "loiter" - hang out with the intent of engaging in lewd, lascivious or otherwise illegal behavior - within 300 feet of schools. The ordinance must be approved by supervisors a second time before it takes effect.

"It's a feel-good ordinance - it appeals to people," said Gary Gibson, California Western School of Law adjunct professor and deputy public defender. "The biggest problem is that once you have to get inside somebody's head (intent), it's hard to prove, unless they tell you specifically."

Gibson's opinion was echoed by University of San Diego law professor Bob Fellmeth, a former prosecutor for both the county and the Department of Justice.

"The 'intent' language makes it problematic," Fellmeth said. "My thinking would be that the ordinance you're describing would be of marginal utility - at best."

Both Gibson and Fellmeth said that registered sex offenders would have to do much more than "loiter" to suggest they were intent on committing a crime. They said intent would only be evident once an offender or person committed an actual crime. And then, they said, there would be statutes - felony statutes - covering those crimes.

But Bill Pettingill, the county lawyer who drafted the ordinance, said it could be successfully prosecuted in court. Pettingill said that the state Supreme Court in 1998 ruled that police officers were justified in arresting persons under a similar law that banned loitering around public toilets for the purpose of engaging in lewd or lascivious acts. The Supreme Court ruling said officers could "infer" intent without an overt act. For example, Pettingill said, officers could know the subject and "know" they were intent on committing a crime.

The Supreme Court ruling, however, applied to police officers' ability to make arrests. It did not address whether prosecuting attorneys could prove that "inferred" intent in court.

Kevin Keenan, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of San Diego & Imperial Counties, said the county's ordinance was overly broad - that it targeted all sex offenders instead of the worst, those who would likely reoffend.

Special Agent Ernie Limon, commander of San Diego County's Sexual Assault Felony Enforcement team, which tracks the county's estimated 4,000 sex offenders, said he did not expect the ordinance would result in lots of arrests.

But he said, "I think that it's going to help us in that it will deter some sex offenders from loitering. You'd be surprised at the number of complaints we get. We get two, three or four of those a month."

Supervisors Dianne Jacob and Greg Cox recommended that the board adopt the law. Both said that there were currently "no laws in the state" to prevent sex offenders from loitering, although Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a bill into law in September that would criminally prosecute anyone who loitered near schools and parks and refused to leave.

"When it comes to our children, we just can't take any chances," Cox said Tuesday.

Meanwhile, supervisors also directed county staff members to work with the district attorney's and sheriff's office to study the possibility of requiring convicted drunken drivers to wear special, high-tech ankle bracelets that could detect alcohol in a driver's system and stop him or her from driving under the influence again.

"They say you can't go wrong giving jewelry as a holiday gift," Jacob cracked. "And as we head into the holiday season, a time when DUI arrests go up, I'm hoping the county will invest in a very special piece of jewelry, called an alcohol-detecting ankle bracelet. It doesn't sparkle. It does something better. It saves lives."

County staff members were asked to report back to the board within 90 days.

Finally, supervisors approved soliciting bids for a new superfast telephone system that could deliver thousands of emergency notices a minute - including evacuation orders.

The county already uses a system called "reverse 911," which it bought after the 2003 firestorms that killed 16 people and destroyed more than 2,400 houses. Supervisors approved buying the system to improve their ability to deliver evacuation notices and other emergency information during disasters.

However, Supervisors Greg Cox and Ron Roberts said a newer system could speed up the county's system. The current system can send out 264 messages per minute. But supervisors said a new system called "mass notification service" can reportedly send out 12,400 messages per minute.

- Contact staff writer Gig Conaughton at (760) 739-6696 or gconaughton@nctimes.com.