ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459

Monthly Meetings
Q4: 12/9 in Los Angeles [details]

Other Events
ACSOL Conference: June 15/16, 2018 in Los Angeles [details]

ACSOLCalifornia

Los Angeles DA to Co-Sponsor Tiered Registry Bill

Los Angeles District Attorney (DA) Jackie Lacey has agreed to co-sponsor a tiered registry bill along with the California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB). A copy of the draft bill was distributed during today’s CASOMB meeting.

As expected, the draft bill proposes dividing registrants into three tiers based upon the offense for which the registrant was convicted as well as his/her risk level. For registrants in the first two tiers, their duty to register would end in either 10 or 20 years after release from incarceration provided that they have not committed a subsequent sex offense. Registrants on the third tier would continue to be required to register for life.

In addition to tiering, the bill proposes that registrants convicted before 1987 would be automatically removed from the registry. It is estimated that about 10,500 registrants are eligible for automatic removal.

Registrants convicted in 1987 or later would be required to petition for removal from the registry near the date of their annual registration requirement. The petition would be reviewed by law enforcement to ensure eligibility and then sent to the DA’s office in the county in which the registrant resides. The DA’s office could either agree to removal or object based upon a belief that “community safety would be significantly enhanced by the person’s continued registration”.

If the DA’s office objects to a registrant’s removal, the final decision would be made by a Superior Court judge. The bill provides judges with guidelines for his/her decision such as the nature of the offense(s), the age and number of victims, whether any victim was a stranger, criminal and relevant noncriminal behavior before and after conviction, current risk of sexual or violent re-offense and completion of a CASOMB-certified sex offender treatment program.

According to CASOMB, the District Attorneys, Police Chiefs, and Sheriffs (in large jurisdictions only) have agreed to the draft bill, however, minor changes could be made to the bill prior to its introduction in January 2017. An author for the bill has been selected, however, the identity of that author was not revealed during the meeting. The tiered registry bill is expected to be modified during the legislative process.

Superior Court Judge Brett Morgan, a new CASOMB member, expressed concern during today’s meeting regarding the role of judges in the proposed bill which he described as an unfunded mandate similar to that found in Proposition 47. Judge Morgan added that despite his concern, he believes the state’s judges will be able to adequately address the requirements of the tiered registry bill.

During the public comment section of the meeting, ACSOL president Janice Bellucci acknowledged that a large amount of effort was required to draft the tiered registry bill. She added that ACSOL members, including registrants and family members, will lobby in the State Capitol regarding that bill, however, it has not yet been determined whether ACSOL will support or oppose the bill.

Draft Bill

 

Join the discussion

  1. ReadyToFight

    As Drafted now, this thing is worse than what we have currently and only serves to slow our momentum.
    Leaves plenty of room all over the place for them do whatever they want to us and our families.
    ANY new actions should be about rehabilitation and education.
    When I signed, they said here…sign this and you can still have a normal life, after 7 years you can get a good job and move on with your life (2001). If I’ve learned anything, it’s that the system can NEVER be trusted.
    And this bill only seeks to enslave.
    The Registry lives and breathes off the 288.
    I’m going to bite my lip for know, but I Will say that if something EVER happens to one of my children because of this Registry, Hell will be a comforting thought to those in my path.
    Our Lives Matter, Our Children’s Lives Matter…..Rise Up!

  2. USA

    Disappointing: I’ve just read many of your comments and I’m very disappointed. I’ve never seen anything like this. Every one of you is seeking a bit of compassion and understanding, but your attacking one another, arguementative and most of you (in my opinion) seem to enjoy posting your wrong of making people’s lives a living hell. As noted, this is a proposal. Please also note that if I where a lawmaker, I would read this rhetoric. Very sad.

    I’m 20 years out on a battery charge (wobbler) with summary probation. The charge was reduced to a misdemeanor, expunged and no legal issues prior or after. I’ve never met anyone for a static 99 ? Guys, I bet thousands of you have never had a static 99? I can’t even imagine. Stay positive, stay focused and you won’t get anywhere fighting with one another. Support one another! You could still be banned from parks and beaches!

    • Timmr

      I remember you saying in previous posts you were denied a CoR. What reason is there to believe the DA and judge will grant you termination of registration under this proposed law? If he/she thinks you are still dangerous, how is this law going to change that? It still looks like the decision in tge end is still up to them. I am not trying to dash your hopes but please look at the bill more closely and let me know where it says if it indeed would make a difference for you. It doensn’t look that way to me, but…

    • Tobin's Tools 2.0

      IF I were a lawmaker, I’d actually be very proud of the disagreement going on. This is the intent of the First Amendment. As it is, this law has a lot of bad things in it, so I personally can’t blame those upset with it. Namely:

      (1) unpublished offenders will be published if they fall into the Tier 2 or 3 categories

      (2) relief through the Certificate of Rehabilitation is removed

      (3) use of the Static-99R scam

      In my opinion, the Static should be limited to periods while on parole or probation. BUT the Static-99R should NOT be used to determine tier level! Using the Static for any other reason than parole/probation begins to resemble ‘The Minority Report.’

      *** Also troubling is that this bill puts equal penalty to offenses under 667.5 and 1192.7. Tier 2 should be limited only to the violent offenses under 667.5. At least in my opinion. ***

  3. Mr G

    this bill would will help destroy the growing influence of SO. currently, the list of SO are growing that they are starting to gain momentum including from other allies such as families and friends. Everyone has voter power. This growing power is starting to conflict with social and political policies . If the politicians can implement this band aid tier system, then it will separate the masses. People will fall off and no longer support. After all most people are just like sheep and are looking for greener pastures. If we the sheep are out of the lions claws, why should we put ourselves in harms way? The government on the other hand, will continue to erode the citizens rights through fear, because after all, who would support the modern bogyman?

    • Exactaly Mr. G

      Yes, that is exactly what would happen, but no one here has stated that for the fear they will be labeled an outcast from the outset should they be released. Security for oneself is above security for all….

      Additionally, divide and conquer is the way to defeat peoples as seen throughout history in man’s world of conflict regardless what the conflict is and where it takes places.

    • Davidh

      Mr G:

      There are no other reasons than you state why this is occurring. Does anyone really believe they are secretly admitting their failures, does anyone believe they are trying to help our lives??? if they were remorseful or trying to lift us up–they wouldn’t be giving us more of the same!

  4. DPH

    Hmmm, at least the Capitol will get more than just the bill from the CASOMB, food for thought. 33 yrs for me, since HighSchool

    • Timmr

      I hope so, DPH. I hope they get the message we are not taking this lightly.
      By the way. It looks like the 1987 rule only takes out the DA review process. Tier III offenders, as defined by 290(d), who’s offense was prior to 1987 will still be lifetime registrants. Someone said they are all getting off automatically, but I disagree, the wording says otherwise.

  5. USA

    Guys, I respect your comments. Yes, I attempted to obtain a COR in OC. (Expunged offense/summary probation). The DA was out of control. I’m hoping if this tiered system passes, there will be parameters instituted that make this/or our petitions black and white. Stay positive

  6. Judiciary bought and people still suffer

    Political sex offense movements like this will continue regardless with those who are elected into office, e.g. DA’s, Sheriffs, Judges, et al. They will want to seek higher office pimping themselves to the power through those offering the money. Don’t believe me? Read this article about the state level judiciary being bought through elections, which is a Ron Book lobbyists dream. This bill is a political ploy of the largest degree.

    A popular vote for the Supreme Court? We’re already there.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-theory/wp/2016/11/21/a-popular-vote-for-the-supreme-court-were-already-there/?utm_term=.7f3570e7c11d

  7. ExpatRFSO

    You guys have gone back and forth as to whether this bill would make the roughly 33,000 people, or whatever it is, not currently visible on the public website visible. What I read seemed to indicate all tiers will be on the public website. Did we come to a consensus on that yet? Mike r? USA?

  8. She is doing it in Sacramento

    Bill would prohibit sex offenders from entering school grounds

    http://myvalleynews.com/regional-news/bill-prohibit-sex-offenders-entering-school-grounds/

  9. Anonymous Nobody

    With the further detail in this post, this tiered registry bill is even more of a horror that I already thought and already opposed completely. This thing is a prosecutor’s dream! This thing is just fraudulent. The way this is set up, it is fantasy to think there is real relief — and especially to think it will be easy to get or any easier than a COR.

    Look at it, they are setting it up like applying for a COR, sending it to the local prosecutor’s office to consider challenging. The prosecutor’s office should have no say, the state is the one to do this automatically once you have done your time and no further convictions — no further conviction once your time is done from your LAST conviction only on a registerable offense, not any old sex offense, not from any conviction being used to nix all relief counting from the first conviction. Anything more that the local prosecutor’s office doesn’t like is just too bad. Registration is a state law, not a local law. And then the court does not need to be involved other than for a challenge over a denial — for this to be a matter for the court, considering the judge’s reelection, to consider the crap from the prosecutor, just like it does not for a COR, is an abomination? And you think you will be getting off the registry!?

    This thing is being set up just like a COR, which has long been proven to be just about impossible to get. Any time the prosecutor complains, the court sides with them and rejects the COR. The same is going to happen with this, where does anyone see something different going on? This bill is a prosecutor’s dream.

    This is what I said previously, even without knowing this additional crap. This is a TERRIBLE bill, a horror of a bill — and all because we have failed miserably in approaching this, we have NOT produced our own draft bill for consideration, so there is no other idea out there but that of the prosecutors.

    Jackie Lacey is a horror for us, I am already very familiar with her and her attitudes. That she supports this bill should be a BIG sign it is a very bad bill of for us. I know her as a hate monger and very highly political. She likes this bill because it allows her the ability to stop anyone from getting relief if she doesn’t want it.

    I cannot support this bill. And seeing promotion of this kind of crap from this group too many times, I am about to drop out of here too — even as we have been being cheerleaders for this crap, and refusing, absolutely refusing to look at the details and realize the devil in them. We are here cheering on this horror of a bill, this fake relief. Even the damn new name of this group indicates a very limited effort, it does not indicate flat out opposition to registration and all the collateral punishments as wrong after one has completed their sentence, any probation or parole. I don’t care whether this punishment is constitutional, it is wrong nonetheless and we must fight it, constitutional or not. We should not be not only supporting but downright cheerleading for a prosecutor’s dream bill rather than producing our own alternative, which should basically be as it once was — automatic means automatic, it just happens at the end of the time, with no application and review, unlike the “automatic” in this bill — and prosecutors to nix it. and the same for those after they have done their time on registration. And the time is the end of parole or probation. That’s what parole and probation is for. And it doesn’t help to have BS “assessments” for your time to register, that will only be used against you; it should be automatic time set by the offense, but the registrant can apply for a reduction and be assessed for that.

    We cannot be supporting 10 more years of parole for someone convicted of stupid misdemeanor indecent exposure, for god’s sake, even though those people can apply for a COR in seven years, not 10! We cannot be accepting 10 years MINIMUM for any offense even as all research shows hardly any recidivism for any offense, including sex offenses, after five years — and of course much of that time was on parole or probation anyway.

    And if you want to compromise, say registration for five years, including time on parole or probation, not 10 years or more after that.

    And if we miss our chance here to have registration reduced to ONLY those offenses for which the federal government requires registration, then this group should disband as impotent. THIS, NOW is the time to scram all over about that, this is the time for that – anyone with any level of understanding has to know that. But we are NOT! This is what this discussion about tiers is about, it is the entirety of the issue of how to bring registration into the land of sanity; but this tier bill drafted by the prosecutors is not that.

    How can this group be supporting a bill calling for tens of thousands of people in California to be subject to registration even as federal law does not require those offenses to register?! This bill is the time to get those offenses out of registration in California — conform to federal. Instead, we want to make those offenses register for at least 10 years, and then create a lot of money spent on applications, prosecutors, courts to decide whether they should continue to register even though they have done their time.

    This bill, and how this group has approached it — and I now realize for years — I atrocious.

    Only very naive people will think this bill is a stepping stone to improving it later — it is not, only people who know nothing of politics, nor what direction this country is going, will think that. There will be only ONE crack at this, and when we get it wrong, all we will be able to do about that is to be sorry.

    We must conform to federal NOW and so eliminate registration for all except those required by federal, and compromise to make this registration for the rest the minimum federal requires. And then take our fight to federal.

    But since this group clearly is too impotent to do that, I’m afraid this group is just a waste of time, just piddling around the edges and cheerleading — and fantasizing that the courts will save us, even in the face of The Donald to make SCOTUS firebreathing, off the deep end lunatics for the rest of the lives of many, maybe even most of us here.

    • Curiouser

      Actually, I believe this is WORSE than attempting to get a COR. First off, when you attempt to get the COR, the prosecutor will most likely oppose it. The prosecutor will send out an investigator, interrogate your neighbors, employers (if you’re so lucky as to HAVE a job), and do anything possible to drum up something new against you, because they cannot go back and examine the details of the underlying conviction. The prosecutor can only seek to show you have NOT been rehabilitated. The burden of proof lies on the registrant to show he or she HAS been.

      Under this bill, once the prosecutor (who works for an elected official) opposes….and they WILL oppose in about 99.99% of the cases, that triggers a hearing in front of a judge (another elected official), where the prosecutor can essentially re-litigate your entire underlying conviction! Also, the hearing requires the judge will then apply a series of prongs that are pretty much taken directly from the questions in the Static-99r. This essentially makes a “Tier 1” person attempting to get relief from registration nearly impossible, and in my opinion, considerably harder than getting a COR under the existing format. And we all know how many of those are currently granted. Orange County has never granted a COR that relieves a person from the requirement to register. Ever.

      Oh, and by the way, this bill would eliminate the ability to be relieved from registration requirements by obtaining a COR at all (See proposed bill language at 290.5).

      I was hopeful when this bill was announced, and even more so when I saw my violation would qualify me as Tier 1, and relief would actually be in sight. I now believe bill will make relief even more unlikely. I cannot envision a scenario where a prosecutor will fail to oppose a petition. On top of that, this bill actually arms the government with yet another weapon against relief. Once a judge agrees with the prosecutor that the public will be safer with us remaining on the registry, the judge would be able to set a time establishing how long you must wait until you can even TRY to reapply. All the way up to FIVE YEARS!. Are you seeing this, New York?

      Hey, if you really want proof of what this bill is really designed to do, just take a waltz over to the California Sex Offender Management Board website. Look who is on the board. Three posts are vacant, including one representing criminal defense attorneys. What we DO have is representation for prosecutors, parole, probation, law enforcement, and sex abuse victims advocacy. And Tom Tobin. Not exactly folks in our cheering section. There is simply no way these individuals would propose ANYTHING to make our situation more equitable to those of offenders of any kind. It is just not in their nature. They are of the same mind-set as the idiots who post comments to SO stories and say things like “If ya’ll don’t like the way things are, ya shuddn’t a done what ya’ll did.”

      I don’t seek mercy from these people or their ilk. Just make things equal. Serve time, pay debt, move on. There is no empirical evidence that offenders of this nature are any more likely to reoffend than any other offenders. We know from actual, empirical evidence that we are, in fact, LESS LIKELY to reoffend than nearly any other class of offender. That tired old smoke-and-mirrors garbage has kept this infernal contraption breathing for far too long. Do you realize a murderer can apply for a COR a full year sooner than even the most low-level sex offender?

      The board trumpets this bill because it will allow some 10,000 persons to immediately fall off the registry because their convictions occurred more than 30 years ago. While I would be happy for any who fall into THAT category, what’s to say there aren’t some fairly heinous offenders amongst them, some far more egregious than a Tier 1? More power to the 10,000 who would receive “immediate” relief. I fear for the 60,000 who are hoping for the “ultimate” relief this bill “promises,” along with those for whom it allows for NO relief.

      There may be an answer to this, but in my opinion, this bill is not it. At this point, I would be more willing to take my chances with the status quo than to hitch my wagon to this proposal. As a potential “Tier 1” person, I am not stating my opposition to this bill to be altruistic. I am selfishly saying that I do not believe it will, as proposed, help me in the slightest. I don’t think it was intended to do that for any of us.

      Blessings to us all.

    • steve

      “We must conform to federal NOW and so eliminate registration for all except those required by federal, and compromise to make this registration for the rest the minimum federal requires. And then take our fight to federal.”

      Why so another group gets screwed? PC 288 (A) is a life membership for the feds which is what most are convicted of here. The ca system it’s a tier 2. Either way someone gets screwed, right now EVERYONE is getting screwed.

  10. Bill Arthur

    One big advantage of the new bill versus COR is that you can move to CA from another state where you have done your 10+ years on the registry for a crime that is Tier 1 in CA, register in CA, and then immediately go through the process for removal. I believe Janice referred to this on the conference call, noting that for the COR you have to live in CA for 5 years, regardless of your prior experience in another state. I live in Illinois, another of the all lifetime states and, this might be a dream come true. I know in Oregon that have inserted language making their proposed new laws inapplicable to anyone moving to Oregon, presumably to discourage sex offenders coming there from all over. Hopefully, no one in the CA legislature thinks of this. Is what I have said correct? Comments welcome from the experts.

    • Curiouser

      And while that may be true, Bill, I fear that while the mechanism for removal for Tiers 1 and 2 will be in place, it will be a frozen engine. This bill simply puts too much power in the hands of people who will use it against us. As I mentioned above, it isn’t about mercy or compassion. The Board has spent a lot of hot air talking about how bloated the California registry is, with huge numbers keeping law enforcement from focusing on the ones they believe need the most attention. Yet what they offer is a registry that can be bottled up at the whim of a prosecutor seeking to make a name for him/herself, and judge too concerned about re-election or promotion to do what this tiered proposal is supposedly being fashioned for.

      In short, you may be able to move here and submit an application for removal immediately, but I am deeply concerned with the ability of those in control of the instruments to let the machine do what it is allegedly intended to do.

      I’ve come to believe what many have said thus far on this topic. The writing is being clearly written on the Circuit walls: This concept of registration for a very few is clearly punishment above and beyond what any other class of offenders must endure. As such, it is illegal and unconstitutional.

      • Timmr

        Not only that, but it will be too easy for the legislature, spurred by some mediocre representative desiring their name in prominent and everlastic script attached to a bill promising to save children, to start moving offenses up the ladder from tier one to two, from two to three, just as offenses that were once eligible for a CoR were excluded by the legislature almost without notice of what happened. We can be for or against this bill, but we can’t sidestep the issue that the registry is a cancer without some judicial or other powerful surgery to keep it from mushrooming. Without some chemotherapy provided by the supreme law of the land administering judgements of ex post facto punishment, involuntary servitude or bill of attainder, this form of socially sadistic policy will keep growing back after cutting again and again. Do we have all the time to keep hacking away at this monster, or do we find a way to focus a lazer beam at its root. Just wondering.

  11. Rick

    This bill is wrong wrong WRONG. While bill above does point out one positive thing that might help someone who moves from a different state into CA, we are still ignoring the fact that it’s at the expense of 30,000 people who WILL be elevated to Tier III. Bill also minimizes the fact this “tiered” proposal also eliminates Certificates of Rehabilitation. Some people who are now or may be eligible for C of R under current law might be elevated to Tier III if they score high on the Static 99. So yes 10K are helped. But at the same time, 3x the amount of people are elevated to Tier III (30,000) and then you got 6x the amount elevated to Tier II (60,000). Not exactly a great tier bill guys. Plus all the problems of this bill evolving to Adam Walsh status because IT IS unfunded. This dumb bill is like opening a new can of worms. It is after all written by police and prosecutors. This ought to be a warning to you all. I am just very disappointed at this bill. This bill is NOT in our best interests.

  12. KM

    I want to point out that the draft bill WILL require Tier I offenders to be published on the website with no recourse!

    The draft bills

    290.46 (d)(2)

    and then theres the part that states that anyone previously not required to be on the website must be given 30 days notice and then…BAM on the website.

    • M

      This terrible bill will take me from currently unpublished to Tier III because of my Static 99R score. So for me, this bill will make life horrible. How can ACSOL even CONSIDER supporting this bill? It helps some, but it also will make lives horrible for those who are classified as Tier III.

  13. Lll

    Since the public has no problem ostracizing from society even the most low level offenders, I see no reason not to have a humane way of disposing of one’s self .The humane society could terminate an unlucky dog at the same time. I would be lying if I said I had not considered this option for the last 17 years I have had to register for a misdemeanor with a 1203.4 dismissal.

Leave a Reply

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  • We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please send any input regarding moderation to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 

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

Please answer this question to prove that you are not a robot *