ACSOL's Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Next Call: March 8 (Tiered Registries) - Feb 8 Audio added
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459, Time: 5 pm PT

Monthly Meetings Q1 2017

Mar 18 (date change) in Los Angeles [details]
California

CA Sex Offender Management Board Discusses Revisions to Tiered Registry Bill

Although the tiered registry bill has not yet been introduced in the state legislature, members of the CA Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) discussed today possible significant revisions to that bill. The deadline for the bill to be introduced is Friday, February 17.

First, CASOMB recommends that the bill be revised to allow some, but not all, individuals assigned to Tier 3 to petition for removal from the registry after 20 years. This opportunity would be limited to individuals whose offenses are Tier 1 or Tier 2 offenses, but who are considered high risk. The decision whether to allow removal would be made by a Superior Court judge.

Second, CASOMB recommends that no juvenile be required to register for a lifetime. Instead, juveniles would be required to register for 5, 10 or 15 years depending upon their tier level.

In addition to the two significant changes, CASOMB will request three clarifications in the tiered registry bill. The first clarification is that anyone convicted of either PC 269 or 288.7 would be placed in Tier 3. The second clarification is that juveniles would not be listed on the Megan’s Law website regardless of the offense for which they were convicted. The third clarification is that anyone convicted only once of PC 647.6 would be placed in Tier 1, however, anyone convicted of multiple PC 647.6 offenses would be moved to Tier 2.

The CASOMB recommendations and clarifications are expected to be discussed next week with the bill’s sponsor, Los Angeles District Attorney Jackie Lacey.

Also during the meeting, a CASOMB member reported that there are currently 104,027 registrants. Of that total, there are 6,385 registrants listed as transients which is 55 fewer people than last month. That number may or may not be attributed to the recent repeal of residency restrictions in several cities in southern California.

Join the discussion

  1. PIA

    More BS a Jerk off judge would have to approve after 20 years ? like the Judge would know PERSONALLY a “offender” after 20 years and have a REASON to NOT let someone off. Reason he wouldn’t want someone off is to LINE his wallet with a RE-Election, after 20 years, LET IT GO !!!!!!!!!!!!!

  2. USA

    Great work! I have to ask? How will individuals with expunged offenses be tiered? I have a Wobbler PC 243.4 (a) from 21 years ago/Summary Lrobation. The offense was reduced to s misdemeanor pursuant from 17 (B) and expunged 15 years ago?

  3. G4Change

    So the deadline to introduce this bill is TOMORROW??????? Is someone going to introduce it?

    • Janice Bellucci

      The tiered registry bill, like many other bills, has been slowed down in the Office of Legislative Counsel. This happens every year due to the deadline for bills to be introduced. It does not reflect upon the substance of the bill. As previously stated, the author of the bill is Senator Ricardo Lara who will introduce the bill as soon as it has been finalized by the Office of Legislative Counsel. The deadline for doing so is tomorrow, February 17.

      • G4Change

        I pray that it is introduced on time.
        I look at this as a big first step and not a final step. My hope is that one day ALL people who have lived law-abiding lives after paying their debt will have a way off the registry. We have to remember that these laws didn’t happen all at once. They were piled upon us one by one over the past 2 decades. So we can’t expect one bill to solve it all at once. It’s going to be a step by step process. But, if we can’t take that first step, then we’ll never start making progress.
        Thank you, again, Janice for you and your team. You give us hope!

        • David

          If SCOTUS decided that Registries were unConstitutional, that would, indeed, end many of these laws all at once.

          • James

            Well, the SCOTUS has deemed registration to be constitutional, so don’t expect any changes there.

  4. ab

    No recommendation for tier one offenses to automatically expire off the registry after a given number of years? Its been mentioned that people in the first tier can petition to be no longer required to register, but that’s not good enough. Additionally it should be possible for everyone in tier two to be downgraded to tier one. Finally everyone even on tier three must have opportunities to stop registering after certain points in time and/or when certain facts are determined.

  5. J

    This CASOMB board really listens, studies and then acts accordingly. If only our politicians would do the same.

    • Tobin's Tools 2.0

      I disagree. Here is why:

      If CASOMB really “listens, studies and then acts accordingly,” then why are they continuing proposal to use the Static-99R to keep someone on the registry (who would otherwise fall into Tier I) for at least 20 years? Worse yet, why would CASOMB rely on such a flawed test [Static-99R] to be the superseding factor in determining whether someone is classified as Tier III?

      The tiered registry integrates, by giving more credibility to, “the static risk assessment instrument forsex [sic] offenders (SARATSO), pursuant to Section 290.04, as defined in the Coding Rules for that instrument.” See Cal. Penal Code 290(d)(3) of the draft bill.

      Note how CASOMB expertly phrased the above excerpt by specifically avoiding the phrase “Static-99R.” The draft bill gives CASOMB and SARATSO — the latter of which which includes representatives from CDCR and the California Attorney General’s Office — wide discretion in selecting a replacement for the Static-99R when it is eventually discredited. Maybe in 10 years, Karl Hanson will come out with the Static-100. By then, how many rights have been violated by the Static-99R? In sum, this tiered bill would permit SARATSO to come out and use any type of future “static” test, without legislative approval.

      By demanding a registry predicated on “empirical evidence,” I propose that ACSOL oppose any integration of an actuarial instrument — such as the Static-99R — that lumps all types of offenders (violent/non-violent and first-time/recidivist) together. If ACSOL allows the Static-99R to be used, it is — indirectly — advocating, though covertly, for a registry that would still lump all types of “sex” offenders together.

      Even for violent offenders, the Virginia legislature has discredited the Static-99R (not even accounting for its use on non-contact offenders — which CASOMB intends to do):

      http://leg2.state.va.us/dls/h&sdocs.nsf/fc86c2b17a1cf388852570f9006f1299/20d0de7a436ff22c85257863004afe71/$FILE/HD5.pdf

      In a *published* medical journal, professors from USC and Duke Medical School have discredited the Static-99R:

      http://jaapl.org/content/jaapl/38/3/400.full.pdf

      In a published opinion, the New York Courts have discredited the Static-99R:

      http://www.courts.state.ny.us/Reporter/3dseries/2009/2009_29290.htm

      Yet CASOMB and SARATSO still peddles the Static-99R scam, often referencing to Karl Hanson’s very own work to “validate” his very own “accuracy.” (Do you see what’s wrong with this?)

      It should be pretty obvious to anyone (at least anyone with some basic common sense) that 10 questions can’t predict human behavior… especially more than five-years into the future.

      Life is not “static.” And very few things are definitively “set in stone.”

  6. Tobin's Tools 2.0

    It’s a step forward.

    However, if the Static-99R’s shelf life, as well as its alleged predictions, is/are only good for 10 years, and it is being used to denote someone as “high-risk,” then why does someone have to wait 20 years to petition a judge? At most, someone classified as ‘high-risk’ (who would otherwise fall into Tier I or II) should be able to petition at the 10-year mark. There is no logic to CASOMB’s premise.

    I say this because if not for the Static-99R labeling me “high-risk,” my first-time/non-contact offense would fall squarely into a Tier I offense which would remain unpublished. Currently, I am not even published on the website. But if the CASOMB draft passes as-is, I will be classified as a Tier III offender (which I think is unfair). Furthermore, I would go from being unpublished to published.

    I know that I am not alone here.

    • Lll

      Tier recommendations make no sense they have some misdemeanors registering as tier 2 or 3. I’m not currently residing in CA. But it is a tiered state, all registrants are classified as tier 3 except 56 in the entire state. Static 99 at work here.

      • Lll

        Tier 3 is registration every 90 days in Oklahoma by the way. The court is also not recognizing my 1203.4 as an expungement although people vs. fields I believe does. (Those with an out of state expunged conviction are not supposed to register according to state law.) Currently being fought judge has refused to quash.

  7. KM

    The Way I see it is once this first bill passes and people realize the sky doesn’t come crashing down on them..it will open pathways to more common sense reform.

  8. Alex Payne

    So Casomb has done nothing to address the fact that we would all still have to PETITION A JUDGE (and he or she would have to approve it) before we are taken off the registry? That means thousands of dollars towards attorney and psychology assessment tests that most of us 290s don’t have! Then on top of it all, no guarantee that a judge (who is elected by voters) will rule in our favor! This tiered registry isn’t a step forward… it’s a step sideways lol. Plus, it gives District Attorney offices more power (which is why the DAs want this bill). More power = more jobs and budget for the DAs to challenge our expensive petitions!! Open your eyes people!!

    • KM

      I don’t think you understand how this will work…yes its to a Judge’s discretion but that discretion is subject to review by an Appellate Court. Judge’s won’t arbitrarily deny a right provided by the legislature.

      • but...

        … A judges’ discretion is rarely reversed by appellate courts in CA unless it is an “abuse of discretion.” This very flawed Casomb bill only establishes guidelines (though quite a few that make relief even more restrictive) that a judge “MAY” consider. Meaning a judge has a lot of leeway to either reject or grant a petition. I could be wrong, but judges will protect their career over taking a risk, however small, to let a 290 move on w/ one’s life. This Casomb bill is not just!! It needs A LOT of work!! Otherwise, I think many of us agree this bill is not an improvement!!

        • Tobin's Tools 2.0

          The standard for abuse of discretion in California is that a lower-court’s decision must have been proved to have been “arbitrary or capricious or ‘exceeds the bounds of reason, all of the circumstances being considered.'” People v. Welch, 5 Cal.4th 228, 234 (1993). It’s a standard that provides high deference to the discretion of a lower-court judge.

          This is one of the many reasons why this tiered registry is a bad idea. It gives a lot of power to *elected* judges. When it comes to reviewing a judge’s discretion, appellate courts rarely reverse the rulings of lower-courts.

  9. KM

    Yet at the same time we have California legislatures introducing legislation to make the registries more restrictive and even put EVERY registrant on the public website:

    http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB558

    Please, everyone go to Quirk-Silva’s Facebook page and make her understand shes just fear mongering
    https://www.facebook.com/QuirkSilva65th/

    • NPS

      You’re fear mongering. It does NOT attempt to put EVERY RC on the public website. This bill is related to only those offenses (listed in the link you provided) that can apply for exclusion. In other words, those convicted of those PCs are/were already on the website, but can apply/had applied to be excluded. The proposed bill is trying to negate that exclusion.

      There are many PCs that are automatically excluded from the website and are not subject to public disclosure. This proposed bill does not change that.

      That being said, I hope this bill doesn’t get through committee. There’s no need for it as RCs are the least likely to re-offend regardless of public disclosure or nondisclosure.

      • Thoughtasweak

        We all know that RC’s are least likely to reoffend, but why not have a bill that will remove RC’s from the registry especially when it’s lifetime now?

        To be honest, I don’t see complete abolishment of the registry anytime soon. If we showed the state that sexual offenses do not increase, and more studies are done PROVING that registries don’t work, the complete abolishment of the registry will eventually happen, but certainly not in the near future.

    • Friend of ACSOL

      This bill is worthy of fear and ACTION.

      It looks like this bill intends to eliminate the ability of low-level offenders (such as misdemeanants) to be excluded from public disclosure. This is huge, especially if it is applied retroactively.

      This bill will ruin thousands of people’s lives, since public disclosure (public shaming) is one of the most consequential aspects of being on the registry. Once something is posted on the internet, it never disappears.

      • NPS

        I agree; it’s worthy of action. But it is NOT worthy of fear.
        Fear is what drives people to make irrational decisions. Fear is what legislators use to buy votes from the uninformed public. Fear is what created all these unconstitutional laws to begin with.

        • Friend of ACSOL

          I was referring to healthy fear – or rather, concern. My use of the word “fear” was in response to the statement that there was no need to “fearmonger.” The bill actually does scoop up all the registrants who are not currently listed on the public website, as far as I can tell – which is a concern, indeed.

          However, if the tiered registry bill passes, it would supersede AB558, since Tier I registrants would not be posted publicly.

          • Timmr

            I took you to mean ‘concern’ or ‘worried’. There is nothing harmful about those emotions or indeed fear, if we can use them to motivate us to constructive action. I will prepare a letter and plan on taking a trip to Sacramento. This is the ongoing problem as long as registration is considered a valid form of regulation. These types of bills will keep coming up. Some other emotions that come up are depression and anger.

          • Son of Liberty Child of Freedom

            I concur with Friend of ACSOL & NPS

            Fear in it’s Negative sense is a Feeling based in and a Emotion that Springs Forth from the Fountain of the human minds Dark Depths.

            Like all Emotions Positive or Negative they are Contagious to those who witness them or Know of them.

            I petition The Eternal Father Possessor of Heaven & Earth Who formed Light & created Darkness be with us and Fill (bara) us with Courage, all say amen.

            As Yehovah Lives, so should we

    • AP

      Will this bill work retroactively? Will those already excluded be put on the site?

      • AP

        And will Janice be fighting AB 558?

      • Timmr

        Unlike Melendez’s modified bill from last year, that specifically stated it did not make it retroactive, this proposed bill looks like it will get rid of the exclusion retroactively.

        • AP

          Thank you for the response. That is indeed very frightening.
          I can only hope that it doesn’t get passed or the new tiered bill will get passed and supplant it.
          Sigh, this is awful news.

    • Timmr

      KM I sent an email to the Assembly woman from her web site. I don’t have facebook. Neither does my wife. Thank you for the notice.
      Quirk-Silvas is from Orange County. What is it about Southern California that produces such hateful legislation against registrants and lack of compassion for their families? The tiered registry will get a lot of people off the list if it passes, but even more so will be the kick back reaction from the SoCal politicians to make more draconian legislative restrictions on the people who remain and feel freer to make the time people do have on the registry as miserable as possible.

      • NPS

        It’s a good thing that 5 of 7 California’s executive branch are Bay Area politicians. (It was crazy Loretta Sanchez of OC who whined about the Bay Area running everything in the state.) Only Becerra and Chiang are from Los Angeles.

        I kid you not, there is not one city in the Bay Area that has residency or presence restrictions on the books, and it’s Bay Area legislators (Bill Quirk and Loni Hancock) who voted against all those anti-registrant bills the past two years.

        I just read an article in the San Jose Mercury news about Southern California being the most hateful region in the country. It could be from SoCal’s roots of supporting the Confederacy and slavery during the Civil War. Hate breeds hate.

        • Timmr

          Living in Southern California for so long, I think you are spot on, especially outside of truly urban areas in the middle class suburbs. The other day a truck flying the Confederate battle flag trolled by my house. I don’t have time to go through all the examples of hatred I have seen expressed through the years, suffice it to say, I seriously would like to move to the Sacramento area or north coast, where there is some sanctuary Yet, if I move, I will have to go through that public notification thing about a ‘registrant just moved into your neighborhood.’ I don’t want to go through that again. Maybe, if I truly do get off the registry some day, I will reconsider that move. Still, there is a lot of good people here, and you have to fight injustice where it lives. A southern strategy for Southern California. There are a lot of things I would like to get involved in, but this Albotross hanging around my neck keeps me from doing it fully.

        • New Person

          I think So Cal is simply ignorant.

          Politicians down here know that. We voted to increase taxes. That’s how ignorant we are as a state. Ignorant people don’t comprehend higher level logic and are too lazy to research it. So for Politicians, scare mongering is an easier feat to be recognized and seem like you’re on the side of the people.

          Look at CASOMB. Not even their research work can make an impact for registrants. The only reason why there’s this bill is because the number of registrants have grown and the state can’t keep up. The penalties and disabilities stay the same. The minimum of 10 year period to apply off the registry remains the same. (The max additional time is 5 years, but you need a lot of information to petition rather than the fact you haven’t re-offended.) Lifetime registration remains for tier 3.

          Heck, a judge didn’t care about the implications of the IML. That judge came from the northern district of Ca.

          The whole state doesn’t like us. Sure there are pockets here and there, but on the whole, they don’t like us. Fear mongering >>>> facts such as less than 1% recidivism.

  10. JC

    I wonder what the chances are of them actually filing it today to meet the deadline. Then my next question would be what’s the timeline. I understand it has to go through a revisions process and to different committees however when would this take effect and we start seeing the changes personally?

  11. AP

    Can we PLEASE get main-page post on AB 558?
    This should have it’s own post and comment section!

  12. Les Mis Life

    The bill will have revisions. It is important not to let up (or agitate) those who tinker with the language that will make it to the final version. A lot can/will happen between now and the one that gets voted on…

  13. Ranger11bv

    Didnt a butt load of states say that juvinille SO registration is unconstitutional???

    https://www.google.com/search?q=juvinille+sex+offender+registration+unconstitutional&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

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. Moderation 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. Feel free to leave your contact info here.
  • 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, 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@all4consolaws.org
 

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

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

My Tickets is currently in testing mode. No financial transactions will be processed.