ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459
Date: Sept 26, Time: 5 pm PT – New Tiered Registry Law

Monthly Meetings

Q4: 10/14 in Los Angeles


Tiered Registry Bill Passed by Assembly Committee

The Tiered Registry Bill (Senate Bill 421) was passed today by the Assembly’s Public Safety Committee. The final vote on the bill was 5 in favor (Chairman Jones Sawyer as well as committee members Rubio, Quirk, Santiago and Gonzalez-Fletcher), one opposed (Lackey) and one who did not vote (Flora).

During deliberations on the bill, the bill’s author (Senator Scott Wiener) stated the reform of the state’s sex offender registry “is long overdue”. He added that the registry was originally meant to be a tool of law enforcement. Law enforcement now believes that this tool is no longer effective because it includes too many people. Sen. Wiener also noted that there is a broad coalition of support, including law enforcement and district attorneys, for reformation of the registry. Further, Sen. Wiener stated that the registry has resulted in significant negative impacts upon both registrants and their families on issues such as housing and employment.

Two district attorneys testified in support of SB 421. Nancy O’Malley, the Alameda County DA, stated that SB 421 is a “very strong public safety bill” and urged members of the committee to vote in its favor. Jackie Lacey, the L.A. County DA, thanked Sen. Wiener for his leadership as author of the bill. She noted that the Tiered Registry Bill will help law enforcement keep better track of sexual predators.

Following the testimony of the two district attorneys, more than 75 people spoke in favor of the Tiered Registry Bill. Most of those individuals were registrants or family members of registrants.

“This is a significant victory for registrants and their loved ones,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci. “We are now very close to obtaining freedom from the registry for many people who do not pose a current danger.”
The Tiered Registry Bill will next be heard by the Appropriations Committee and if the bill is passed by that committee, it will be voted on by members of the Assembly between September 5 and September 15.

Amended Version – July 13

Join the discussion

  1. Kim

    Yeeeaaaaaa!! Congrats to everyone involved in a very long road…keeping positive thoughts for a signed Bill!

  2. AlexO

    Wonderful news! Thank you very much, Ms. Bellucci, and everyone else involved!

    • Hopeful

      May God bless Janice, Chance, Frank and the myriad others involved in advancing our cause! Thank you from the bottom of my heart.

  3. TM

    Excellent news and awesome effort by everyone involved, I definitely sent my letters!

  4. Robert R.

    It’s happening. It is really happening! What a pleasure to see that long line of support.
    Bless all of you that showed up.

  5. G4Change

    Praise God! Thank you, Janice, and all for your continued diligence and hard work.

  6. Aero1

    Now what how many more hearings are left before the bill is signed anybody know ??? …thanks

    • AlexO

      I believe it’s two more votes. Then it’ll be rushed to the governor’s desk for his final signature into law.

      • Ray

        Is there a chance he won’t sign it? Or if it’s gone through so many hearings that he’s confident that it’s worth signing?

        • Lake County, CA

          All bills that get to him have been vetted by many committee’s, so it’s hard to say what he will do. I’m betting he will sign it especially since he won’t be running for Governor again. He’s getting old and politics is likely over for him.

          • Ray

            Thanks for your reply. I’m happy for today yet still nervous. Would the next two hearings face more conservative panels that need even more convincing that this is a good bill?

        • Thoughtasweak

          We have been told that because it has bipartisan support, Governor Brown will sign it.

    • wonderin

      “The Tiered Registry Bill will next be heard by the Appropriations Committee and if the bill is passed by that committee, it will be voted on by members of the Assembly between September 5 and September 15.”
      Then it goes to the Governor.

  7. Definition of SP

    I want to know what they define as a sexual predator. Is it tier 3 merely, those who are repeat offenders, SVP, combination therefo or what? Does someone have it offhand to refer to without having the bill to be read again?

    • AlexO

      For the moment, it’s repeat offenders, violent crime (defined by enhancement codes), and a Static-99 score of 6+. I believe any single one of these can put you into tier 3 with the last revision, May 26th.

  8. CS

    Three more steps?? I guess our odds go up everytime it’s passed, sure does feel good to see this happening, Thanks to everyone. Keep the positive vibes coming, we’re all worth it. Never thought I would see the day.

  9. Kim

    Wait…Fletcher voted yes? Wow. Wish I had stayed!

    • Neil B Fisher

      I am happy for the safety committee’s vote of 5 to 1 in favor. And there is also some old sayings out there one being three strikes your out and the other being three times is a charm so this being this is the third try I beleave that the old registration law of lifetime for all is out and the new Tier system will be in and that is a charm for many.

      I have been relaiting to the board for over 6 years and most of what I was attempting to accomplish is coming to bare at last and I am somewhat tired and l hope to God it goes into law.
      This I know is a Godsent for a great many and I know that the state knew much more than it every shared to the general public regarding its registration law was built around false and misleading information and propaganda and in time a few law suits prevaile do to the state always knowing this and still did nobthing about it and by this allowed for so much grief and harm to be placed upon the low threat , low level non dangerous offender offender .
      Now its waiting time again . I have never in my life seen so much making mountains out of mool hills in my life as sex offender laws ,rules and regulations. I hope the other three states open it’s eyes and follow the right path and change their law of lifetime registration and start the Tier system there as well.
      Thank You
      Neil B Fisher

      • Neil B Fisher

        I was wondering regarding this who had one or more 290.1 violations failing to register . I read for each misdemeanor violation add one year before being allowed to b removed from the list and for each felony violation add three years before being allowed to be removed from the list. This appears not to be any kind of law enforcement needs,p nor it is not for any kind of protection of the community nor , prevention it appears to me to be only for punishment as to make it appear that the new law is not being weak on crime. It appears to be up to the point of being cruel and Unusual Punishment and the U.S. Constitution is supposed to protect the individual from this kind of abuse.
        And would not an individual be allowed to to get a PC 1203.4 setting aside or is that a crime that is not allowed a PC 1203.4

  10. Arax

    OMG! So happy! I left the Capital early before the second round but so grateful that the members of the committee saw the need for change and voted appropriately! Of course our numbers were impressive! Thanks Janice and team

  11. Marty

    Such an amazing day! Thank you to Janice for her incredibly hard work and to everyone else fighting to bring this world back in touch with reality! May the light at the bottom of this Pandora’s Box continue to shine brighter every day!

  12. David

    Congratulations!! Great work, Janice, Chance, Frank and so many others who journeyed to Sacramento to address the Committee! Many thanks to all who called and wrote their assembly members!!

  13. Rodney

    Closer and closer.

  14. DPH

    WOW! Alot of us were there, more than ever Frank?
    Way to go positive, three more spots to go to pass/sign. WOW
    Not happy about the bill killing Level 3’s no longer able to petition to a L-2 via DA.
    Maybe more work to do if Gov. signs and passes on to 2019.
    Thanks be to all that wrote, called and as Janice stated upstairs, Show Up Stand Up & Speak Up
    seemed to be a large showing for the day.
    Sat. In Berk. don’t forget.
    Alot of people fully overflowed that larger room and got in line, wow.

    • Not a good move, but it was political

      I think that is bunk you cannot petition to go from 3 to 2. Should be able to do that if you can substantiate it.

      • steve

        Well here’s the rub…the 6th circuit said you can’t apply tiers to anyone without an INDIVIDUAL assessment. This could change everything for those who get screwed here. It’s a wait and see…if I were you and who knows 288 (a) might end up in that situation, I would be seeking representation. Granted the 6th circuit isn’t our jurisdiction it seems some courts are already using there ruling.

  15. LJ

    Awesome news! That was real exercise in democracy today–and progress on road to restoring civil rights to many. Great to be witness to history!

  16. jo

    see that distant glimmer? that is light, at the end of the long, long, long, dark tunnel.

    thx J

  17. Popeye

    This is so encouraging.
    Over thirty years ago, after my conviction and initial registration, that was it. Only had to update registration when moving, not annually. The list was only for law enforcement. Then they developed a way for the public to apply to see the list if they went to the PD. Then they wanted almost a pint of blood for DNA (and for spreading around crime scenes?) There were no travel restrictions. Then the laws named after children started and the way got narrower and narrower. The Senate vote and this vote has gotten my hopes up. My experience with fighting against Prop 83 in 2006 and the small number of people that were involved gave me little hope for any future change.
    I am proud and in awe of the people who showed up today.
    I am proud and in awe of the people who showed up today.
    Yes I am!

  18. Popeye

    If you wish to see the video of the SB421 activity including the awesome people who showed up to support navigate to:
    It is almost at the end of the session.

    • Nondescript

      Thank you for the video link.

      Bill 421 starts at the 2hr:48 minute mark. Where is the real opposition to this bill? Have they given up the fight? It was all histrionics and unintelligible pleas for mercy. You have the mother of a dead child holding back tears while talking about the fiscal impact of the reclassification of registrants ( as if she really cares) and a gentlemen at the microphone yelling about dirt and blackmail. What the hell was that all about?

      The rest of those that attended in favor – I applaud you.

      California is gonna have a tiered registry. I think its a done deal.

    • Nicholas Maietta

      I have set aside a dedicated Youtube channel for items as well as consolidating videos like the one you just linked to. Thank you for the link. I’ve already got a few videos up, including the IML protest in Oakland last year. The YouTube channel is

  19. Aero1

    It’s not over so don’t get comfortable keep your boots laced up cuz it’s still a long tread up that hill like the previous person posted before me theres a small glimmer of light in a really really really dark tunnel that’s really really really long I’m not being negative just don’t want everybody to get their hopes up to get them crushed keep your game face on and if the bill doesn’t pass look on the bright side nobody cares about the registry no more live ur life the way you want to as long as you’re doing what they tell you to they have no power over your lives be free

  20. Follow the $$$

    Question for those who have read more deeply and understand the nuances of amended bill. Amendments to 290.46 appear to specifically address Tier 3 and Tier 2 with regards to Megan’s Law disclosure. However I cannot find any section addressing Tier 1 registrants. Can someone fill me in on how a Tier 1 registrant would be listed if passed?

    Got my felonies reduced to misdemeanors via 17(b) but even if that doesn’t count my offenses were not violent so per 290 (d)(1)(a) I should be Tier 1. Please let me know if I am reading this wrong.

    • Nondescript

      You are reading it correctly. Bill 421 is only an amendment to PC 290. If you notice in 290, there is no language pertaining to those convictions that are NOT listed on Megan Law Website. It was only when Megans Law passed that they had to start cherry picking which convictions to disclose. Tier 1 registrants will not be disclosable to the public by way of the State or National online public registry. Tier 2 will be listed but only by zipcode ( no red dots on a street map showing exact address) Tier 3 will have their exact addresses listed.

      Once a felony is reduced to a misdemeanor (because misdemeanor punishment was imposed at the time of sentencing), it is now, WAS then, and will always be a misdemeanor conviction.

    • AlexO

      At the moment, tier 1 will not be listed at all.

      • Kim

        Were talking ALL Tier 1s? Misdemeanor or or otherwise?

        • AlexO

          It’s all inclusive. If you’re tier 1, you will not be listed on the net. Keep in mind that’s the current language of the bill.

  21. cool RC

    Actually, that light is a train light. Get ready to be run over

    • kind of living

      Cool RC ,,, lol that’s a fact Bro , I hear that train acommin I hear it commin down the tracks , I aint seen the sun shine since I don’t know win

  22. steve

    Another interesting argument Runion used, or should I say lame argument, was that there would be no way to know if someone you hired as a tutor was taken off the list. Here’s a tip for your Ms. Runion be a parent and teach your children good and bad behavior as well as monitor what’s going on.

    • JAB

      Exactly Steve! It is the responsibility of good parenting. I have never had an issue of implementing fingerprinting for jobs when it involves minors. That will solve that issue, but Runnion will throw another wrench into the mess!

  23. Stephen

    I was reading that some wanted to put 288(a) in tier 3 how close was that

    • GRR

      That’s what i’m afraid of. I’ve been living back and forth from Nevada to California now for 28 years. (released from 90 days work furlough in 89) 288(a) California

      In Nevada i was assessed a tier 1. Lowest level. but you may or may not know the Adam Walsh Act is on hold in Nevada but if instated (it’s already passed) 288(a) is tier 3 life time with no way to get off. Insane.

      I’m keeping my fingers crossed they don’t throw a 288(a) in tier 3, especially if you cannot petition to go from a tier 3 to tier 2

    • Bay area RSO

      From what I gather reading comments here from the past year, 288(a) makes up the bulk of the RSO. Correct me if I’m wrong though.

      So, are 288(a) the ‘violent’ molesters that was mentioned on the telecast that they wanted to up to tier 3?

      • steve

        The DA (Lacey) addressed that and said something like “it is not true the most violent are tier 2” I understand that as, she knows 288 (a) is in tier 2 but doesn’t equate them to the most violent. which is good for us.

        • JAB

          Just really going to be pins and needles for all 288 (a)’s. This would be completely unfair as it is not a violent felony, it’s a serious felony, there’s no force or intimidation. This would be a real kick in the jaw. Definitely praying.

  24. Harry

    There is a major point that is being effected and it the education of facts not only for the causes of RC in California and for the nation, as well. Again, I thank you ACSOL team, active RC/families and Jesus.

  25. Joe123

    A step in the right direction! Tiered registry for now shows a shift in attitudes which allows for further push back against these laws. At the end of the day, we want to push back so much that the registry returns to what it was back in 1950, for violent repeat offenders. Those are the only offenders that it may truly serve a public purpose to monitor. Keyword ‘Violent’ offender, which there are few of on the current registry.

    • David

      I was convicted in Florida where any physical contact in a crime is considered “violence”. So, by their standards, my consensual relationship with an underage teen was “violent L&L assault”. (I have no idea what Tier that will translate to here in Cali.)

  26. Ralph

    Does anyone know how it will work if this passes? Some people such as myself were labeled a SVP automatically due to the age of the alleged victim based off SORNA. The charge itself was a 290, but the fact the article said that SVP’s will have to register for life leaves me unsure where I’d fit in. Would we get a review to determine if we should be labeled SVP’s?

    • David Kennerly, Thank you for not confusing me with John Wayne Gacy

      It’s a good question, Ralph. As you know, according to California penal codes (and every other state’s and the federal government) having a victim under the age of fourteen (in California) means that your crime is viewed as “sexual violence” and they also get to call you a “predator,” too.

      “If the victim of an underlying offense that is specified in subdivision (b) of Section 6600 is a child under the age of 14, the offense shall constitute a “sexually violent offense” for purposes of Section 6600.”
      (Amended November 7, 2006, by initiative Proposition 83, Sec. 25.)

      Now, and confusingly, to indefinitely civilly commit someone under the sexually violent predator statutes does require a civil commitment trial and a finding of a “diagnosed mental disorder that makes the person a danger to the health and safety of others in that it is likely that he or she will engage in sexually violent criminal behavior.” A lucky few manage not to be found to be a “sexually violent predator” and, thus, committed to involuntary confinement at Coalinga State Hospital.

      So there is an immediate definition of “sexual violence” for the purpose of criminal charging and a more restrictive definition of it (and a procedural and judicial finding) as it relates to civil commitment.

      I can’t be sure, and I would love to hear others’ opinions about this, but I believe that SVP, for the purpose of keeping someone at the proposed Level 3 Tier, would mean that the person had previously been civilly tried and found to be a “sexually violent predator.”

      I don’t believe (and find it hard to believe, given the descriptions and discussions of the proposed law) that anyone with a victim under 14 is ineligible for Tier 2.

      • David Kennerly, Thank you for not confusing me with John Wayne Gacy

        Let me add this: I believe that this does mean that anyone who has been civilly committed in the past will NOT be eligible for Level Two and will have to be Level Three.

        This is certainly an injustice since there are many in Coalinga who simply had the bad luck of timing (by being released from prison when they were looking to fill CSH up after its construction) and bad district attorneys who pursued civil commitment.

        • Timmr

          So the state is saying those committed can not be reformed. Being in a mental hospital and being on the registry equals two official strikes against you.

          • David Kennerly, Thank you for not confusing me with John Wayne Gacy

            Yes, if you were found to be guilty, err, “mentally disordered/dangerous” in a commitment ceremony, err, trial.

            A handful of people do manage to not be committed and found dangerous when they eventually get this trial, a trial which happens no sooner than two years after being interned (or should I say “interred”?) in CSH. So those people who were at CSH but not eventually committed would not be Level 3 for reasons of being “sexually violent predators.” “Sexually violent predator” sounds like someone who is more likely to eat their victims than to have sex with them, doesn’t it?

            • Timmr

              The media (including government communications) has a skill in mangling the language to bring about an emotional response. Sexual predator, child molester, sex offender, they are all used interchangebly in the court of public opinion, where, because we no longer value separation of powers, we are re-sentenced continually.

      • Ralph

        Yes, I believe you’re correct. One of the crimes listed in the article (aggravated Sodomy) would automatically label one a SVP, so it appears being labeled a SVP in itself does NOT disqualify one to be removed from the registry. Its my opinion that it has people that are civil committed (also labeled SVP’s) in mind. My understanding (which could be wrong) is that anyone not locked away can eventually get off the registry (in either 10 or 20 years). It would be great if someone at acsol could report on this.

      • Timmr

        288 (a) is lewd and lascivious acts with a minor under 14. 288 (a) covers a lot of behaviors as long as it is not intercourse, but I don’t think it even now gives one an automatic SVP designation. It use to be a “serious’ category, as opposed to dangerous. Don’t know what category it is in now. There are legal definitions and there is common usage to describe this crime as child molestation. The common perception is more important to the politicians. That term draws a picture that blurs the details and the events surrounding the crime and the person, so people can draw the worst possible image. I wouldn’t be surprised there will be a push to put all 288’s in tier three, as adherance to moral outrage type of lawmaking, but that would really be pointless in freeing up law enforcement resources, because, yes 288 (a)’s do make up the bulk of the registry. And put that together with the fact that most of these sex crimes are within families, putting 288 (a)’s on lifetime is not even addressing people’s fear of stranger danger.

        • David Kennerly, Thank you for not confusing me with John Wayne Gacy

          As soon as someone is called “a sexually violent predator” on t.v. then no one will be sympathetic to them. That’s the real intent of doing such “violence” to the English language by the abuse industrialists.

          Essentially, it makes it impossible to have an intelligent or informed conversation with just about anyone on this topic when words such as “sexually violent” or “predator” are in play.

          • Nondescript

            I think there is an agenda to make sex and sexuality the new modern day plague. We are not quite there yet, but it is becoming obvious that words like “predator” and “offender” are carefully chosen to be subconsciously associated with sexuality. Repeat it enough and it becomes a negative emotional contagion that spreads.

            I see a lot of these predator reinforcements during these hearings too. How many times have we heard someone say ” we can’t just let these people/predators run loose without being monitored”. It is as if registrants ( another lousy label) are wild animals about to let out of a cage.

            Of course, it could all backfire over time and produce an unforeseen consequence- one day, being labeled a “sex offender” may be a status symbol that is coveted. We live in strange times, and I think they are going to get a lot stranger.

            • Timmr

              They do use analogies to animals a lot. They do have a low opinion about humanity in general. Just look at the comments after the article about the sheriff who opposes the tiered registry; the remedies, castration, extermination, caging, endless surveillance, these are the concepts they use, quite brutal and disgusting language. Sex is the new Big Bad Wolf. It needs to be controlled, regulated (animals are never punished, they’re regulated) on the campuses, in the military, in the church, on the high seas, on foriegn beaches, in the mountains on the plains. They have created a war mentality of citizen against citizen, wrap it in moral finery that appeals to both political parties. Sieg heil viktoria. This is the country my children are inheriting.

              • New Person

                High and frightening recidivism rate… 4 times more likely to re-offend than a convict who does a first sex crime (which makes no sense in direct comparison b/c it doesn’t compare re-offense for the same same).

                The SCOTUS in 2003 painted us like animals who need to be controlled, and thus a threat to public safety. We are not treated as individuals, but just one group… of animals. But we’re treated like undomesticated animals. Domesticated animals are considered pets. If you harm a pet, then that’s an atrocity. If you harm a registrant, then that’s just an anomaly and he/she probably deserved it.

                1203.4 states you’re a rehabilitated person (at least that’s what the Alameda county Judge stated in his opinion in the 1963 (?) Banks case). The continuance to register states otherwise.

                Spreading false information and often is key here.
                1. “high and frightening” recidivism rates
                2. “4 times more likely to re-offend” than another convict who commits a first offense.

                We already know point 1 is false by Dr. Ira and Tara Ellman. We know point 2 is also a misconstrued statement as Wapo’s Michelle Lee pointed us into that direction of not comparing apples-to-apples (sexual crime re-offense vs first time sex crime of a known convict). Also, I identified that the denominations were completely different and skews the end results b/c contextual volume was omitted.

                Again, using incorrect information or statistics that aren’t comparable, but sheds a terrible light are both ingenuous is propagating that sex offenders, as a whole, are “gravely” dangerous.

                But no one is fighting back in the legal courts. The fighting is done outside of legal courts where it doesn’t change any laws. Dr’s Ellman wrote a research paper. Ms Lee wrote an article, giving three pinocchio’s to Justice Alito’s statistical quote. Aside for the Michigan court, no where else do we see statistics being bandied about to refute being “a threat to public safety”.

                CASOMB has tracked registrants. For the past few years, the recidivism rates hovered around 1%. Once failure to register was no longer accounted as a re-offense, then the recidivism rate dropped to under 1%. Instead, all we see are more laws stating how monstrous all registrants are despite the actual statistics. No one cares for CASOMB and its work in the California system. It’s just there for show. Why? B/c we’re wild animals who cannot be rehabilitated and still a “threat to public safety”.

                To those convicts who can earn a 1203.4, they get to receive the benefits of starting over again. Sure, some felons cannot own firearms until their charge is reduced to a misdemeanor. But registrants do not share all these benefits other convicts get. Why? We’re animals and cannot be rehabilitated.

        • kind of living

          we better start pushing for ways to protect our selfs , because cops are hating on us more and they pretty much was not going to be there for you on time as it was , now here in the real world the witch hunters are really mad and anyone left as RC will be looked at as if we are Singleton or Gacy , the cops here pretty much just looking for a body on a call to a RC in trouble , maybe the Gov will give us M4″s lol

          • mch

            Self protection for registered citizens? We’re at a little disadvantage here, not many ways we can protect ourselves. Keep doors locked, be always vigilant, never answer your door. Personally, a fresh can of wasp and hornet spray is handy for the two legged pests that seek to do harm, it shoots up to 25′, can be accurate and will completely cripple the pest. Buy a two pack, one for the home, one for the car. A little dab’ll do ya!

            • kind of living

              mch … Lol that was great , but come to think of it that might just work , a two pack for them critters , wal mart lol , its not no m4 or 357 but it might just work , thanks

    • Lake County, CA

      What year and state did this happen in? The more info you provide, the better the answer you might get. Being labeled a SVP is a difficult situation to be in. Of course the label does not always fit the crime. But with this label, you will always need the advice of an attorney. There is no way around that. This website and all other websites cannot provide you legal information. You can get opinions at this website, but those opinions here should not be used as legal advise. The President of ACSOL is Chance Oberstein and he would be a good attorney that might be able to talk with you. 949-365-5842 He has positive internet reviews.

  27. New Person



      Comments on that post’s website are very harsh.

      • AlexO

        Harsh and very ignorant of the facts. The top comment was especially ironic, mentioning “emotions” as the reason why this bill is going ahead.

        • kind of living

          Kelly says there is no such thing as to much monitoring ! is what one of the most powerful forces in the state says , what a D bag on a power trip , his grand ma better watch her back because he may have withdraw , it would be like if witch hunters became unplugged lol , sorry sometimes I have to at least try to joke

  28. Anna

    Such wonderful news!!!

  29. T

    That’s great news, but don’t relax on this, gotta keep pushing, gotta keep moving, you gotta keep fighting no matter what to disprove the falsehoods, and fallacies that are being spread about registrants and to make continuous changes to these SOR laws and if possible push to end the public notifications due to public misuse, and vigilantism and let law enforcement deal with notifications, and if that doesn’t work then the public notifications gotta to end once and for all.

  30. Roger

    Thanks to all of you who shared the exciting experience of seeing how laws are made in the real-world, stepping away from our computers for a day and making the jaws of legislators drop when 75+ of us stated our support one by one.

    I hope more of you will join us next time. It is a great feeling to see a bill we support move forward, knowing we had a part in that.

  31. kern county

    you guys are talking about whos in tier 1 2 and 3 and what gets reported on the internet. first off one of the reasons for a tiered registration is so they can keep a better eye on the predators so correct me if im wrong isnt most registrants but not all but a majority 288(a)? if thats the case it will accomplish nothing. second question is what dwtermine 10 registration and 20 year registration. if tier 3 cant be reduced to tier 2 is tier 3 still life time? has anyone actually read the bill theyre voting on?

  32. Patsy

    Great work everyone. Another step. If this really happens, then we will learn what steps to take individually I understand. We each will need representation, right? Nothing will be automatic? Do I understand this correctly?

  33. David

    Janice et alia, please let us know if and when we need to send letters and make phone calls to the Assembly’s Appropriations Committee members.
    (I am assuming that it is too early to lobby our district Assembly members in advance of a floor vote.) ✉ ☎
    And a zillion thanks for all that you do!!! 👍

    • Janice Bellucci

      Yes, it’s a little early to send letters to members of the Appropriations Committee as they will soon be leaving for a one-month recess. Letters are better sent just before they return in late August. We will notices out to remind everyone to send letters as well as to make phone calls.

  34. Stephen

    What do they gain by trying to put people who are 288(a) in tier 3 if the whole point is getting people off the registry

    • AlexO

      The illusion that good has been done. For the children, of course.

  35. Al

    Hi everyone,
    I participated yesterday, and it was an amazing feeling and rush being part of a historical movement.
    Yet , I’m a little confused on the tier placements.
    Not seeking legal advice, but if someone can tell me if PC 288(c)1 is or could be considered a tier 1 or 2?

    If anyone can dare some guidance or point of view.

    Thank you all!!! Let’s keep this movement going.

    • Mot

      I am also concerned about the 288(a) as mine is listed as an ATTEMPT since it was a sting and the person on the other end of my chats was a 36 year old male cop. Does anyone know if they are going look deeper into the charge or just look at the 288(a) and rule us all as a group. I know they has to be degrees or will we be getting back into the ALL 288(a) ARE ALIKE AND GROUP THEM TOGETHER as is being done now.
      Thanks for any information that has been gleaned from the reading

      • James A

        Typically, attempts are treated like completed crimes. That it was a sting makes no difference.

        • Joe

          There may be one difference…. if memory serves, one can get an expungement / dismissal under PC 1203.4 with an attempt. PC 1203.4 explicitly excludes “any violation of subdivision (c) of Section 286, Section 288, subdivision (c) of Section 288a, Section 288.5, subdivision (j) of Section 289, Section 311.1, 311.2, 311.3, or 311.11, or any felony conviction pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 261.5″. A violation

          I seem to remember there being discussion about being able to get an expungement / dismissal for attempted 288(a) – the typical charge for an online sting. Theoretically one should even be able to apply for and receive a CoR with that, as a dismissal / expungement under PC 1203.4 is a requirement for a CoR. However, that is fairly useless in terms of terminating registration as PC 290.5 excludes anyone with a conviction for 288(a) from relief , as opposed to a violation. A conviction for a section includes violations and attempts.

          Section 311.xx was added as of 1/1/2014 (can’t remember if it is commission or conviction).

          Again, I am writing this from memory…. and not sure if this is helpful to anyone.

          • mch

            You are correct. One can and has (me) gotten the clearance via 1203.4 for attempted 288(a) or 664/288(a)

            • Sun

              My Case is 664/288(a) which was the NBC sting operation
              Please be kind to give advice what I can do with my case.
              Which tier this category will fall into ? 1,2,3 ?
              What other options I may have ? Joe and mch exchanged info on a dismissal / engagement under PC 1203.4 ?
              Who can better guide me through this please? Any legal individual you recommend?
              Any support is greatly appreciated and certainly wish you all the best and thank you for supporting each other.
              mch, where you also in the 644/288(a) and were you able to use the PC 1203.4? If yes, would you please help me or anyone if you can share a case number or the attorney who did that successfully?

              • Interested partying

                @Sun …. I was also part of an NBC tocatchapredator sting.

                Since then I have gotten the 1203.4 which dismisses your conviction but you will still have to register. Chance Oberstein is a great lawyer to discuss this with, his consultation usually runs around $100 but it is money well spent. If you want to find another lawyer find one that would specialize in post conviction SO.

                In terms of the potential tier the document is not final … but a straight 288(a) would be tier 2 … what an attempt means in terms of a tier is still a question as I read the document.

                Good luck

                • red cross

                  @Interested partying

                  I read your comment to the Sun, thank you, very informative.
                  I am also same like you guys with the NBC case….288(a).
                  I had hired an attorney in 2009 who was supposed to relieve me from registration which as you know is impossible with our case…..
                  My attorney stated that his goal was to stop the registration for me and still is. So he is waiting to see the outcome of the final approval (hopefully) of the honorable Governor. This means about Oct. 2017 if I am not mistaken.
                  Should I wait to see what would be the outcome of that, meaning if 288(a) will be Tier 1 and see how this will work for me before I try to do the 1203.4 (which dismisses my conviction)? Or, should I do the 1203.4 step right away?
                  1203.4 does not stop us from registration, which we know. However, does this mean we can apply for any job (none Government jobs) and “legally” claim that we did not have any Felony? The Background check does not show any record?. For example trying to find an apartment to rent, would that be without any issue (Since the forms does ask if you had a previous conviction). what real benefit we will have and what it does not do for us.
                  I have read the benefits but want to see if I am missing something!
                  I would like to know based on your vast knowledge of such cases and talking to friends who had the same situation what would be your wisdom and action steps please.

                  • SB 421

                    Red Cross-

                    The final wording should be by ~Sept 15. 288(a), even attempted will not be a Tier 1. Some even want it tier 3, but there’s so many.

                    Even 647.6 relief is a concern for Cal legislators.

                    If there’s any last minute hitch on the bill, it will be about 288(a) / 647.6.

                  • AlexO

                    There’s no reason to wait to get your expungement (1203.4). In fact, I’d try and get it before this law goes into effect in case they do something goofy with expungement eligibility.

                    Expungement won’t help you with registration directly, but it will certainly look favorable to have it when you do file for removal. And in the mean time, it will help with jobs and housing, as you have mentioned.

                • Sun

                  If I get expungement 1203.4 I understand my criminal record is going to be removed from the public access but as a 228a I still have to register .dose my information still show on the web page as sex offender? Or would they no longer show me on the web site according to megan’s law?

                  • Interested partying

                    @ Sun … getting the 1203.4 does not remove public access to your conviction. It dismisses your conviction but the information remains available to the public.

                    Additionally, you remain a RC and your information remains on the internet.

              • Interested partying

                @red cross …. first let me start with I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.

                My experience is that getting the 1203.4’dismissal has had little real impact for me. Still have to register and while officially the conviction is dismissed there is no real way to seal your history. I have not tried to get an apartment since I received the dismissal so can not tell you any experiences with that.

                I had to go to appeals court to get the dismissal. However, I got it in the hope that if/when the law changes having the 1203.4 and possibly a COR will allow me to exit the registry ASAP. The 1203.4 dismissal is required to be granted by law and therefore in my opinion no reason to wait to get it.

            • Mr. D

              @Red Cross – I would encourage you not to wait for the governors office. Jerry has never issued a pardon for a registered sex offender her and never will. Also, pardons are issued each Xmas eve and Good Friday. If you’re able to obtain your 1203.4 I would encourage you to do so ASAP. Good luck!

              • NPS

                I was at the Berkeley meeting this last Saturday, and it was mentioned that a Certificate of Rehabilitation will no longer guarantee relief from sex offender registration. Apparently this was decided just this past weekend. It is now completely off the table. So if you thought about a CoR, apparently it won’t relieve you of the duty to register.

                Correct me if I’m wrong if you were at the meeting, but the lawyer that was there was very specific on this.

                • Joe

                  Based on what? Assuming that SB 421 passes? Yes, in that case PC 290.5, which deals with CoR and ending registration, is replaced with the tier specific petitioning language. For all those not previously relieved via CoR. Those who are currently eligible for ending registration with a CoR would all be in Tier I and thus subject to the same 10 year waiting period, but no longer required to prove a vague moral and upstanding life. Win!

                  Did the attorney state that even in the event that SB 421 does not pass, registration is no longer terminated with a CoR even for those offenses not excluded by PC 290.5?

                  If so, based on what? “Who” decided “this” last weekend? PC 290.5 is current law and cannot be repealed just like that.

                  Can you clarify, please?

                  • well...

                    Tier I, unless their “static” score places them into Tier III.

                    There are people now who will qualify now, under current law, for relief from 290 via the Certificate of Rehabilitation at the 10 year mark. People that now, aren’t even published on the Megan’s Law website.

                    However, if the static isn’t struck down, and SB 421 comes to law, people with high static scores will be placed into Tier III.

                    • Joe

                      There are tens of thousands of people who used to be eligible for relief (with a CoR or dismissal) and now aren’t, many who did get relief and got pulled back in, tens of thousands who weren’t broadcast (in a time when there was no internet) and now are, some who are currently not on the web site and will be, etc etc.

                      Welcome to the wonderful ex-post-facto world of 290.

                      That this could possibly happen to a few people is tragic indeed. However, your continued campaign against this bill (I am guessing the same person under many many user names), your willingness to deny relief to so many who have had to live with this for so many years and have experienced it morph into the monster it is today, in order to enjoy the very anonymity and hope that they are denied, makes you very unsympathetic in my eyes.

                      I have opined before that I believe the Static-99 has merit but ONLY for 10 years, or even less. To assign lifetime risk category based on an instrument that clearly states it is no good past that decade, a risk instrument that has the name STATIC in its title when risk is entirely dynamic, is ridiculous. But it is not the concept that is lacking, it is being mis-used by the legislators. That should be easy to challenge.

                      But that everyone should go down with the ship because yes, some might not get a spot in the lifeboat – that is not cool.

                      My opinion.

                  • NPS

                    I don’t know the attorney’s name that was speaking (it was a woman). It wasn’t Janice as she was unable to attend. During the meeting, she received a text that stated just what I mentioned about the CoR. So it’s very new news. She mentioned that she would be okay with that because of the tiered registry setting the standard for relief of registration which would be much easier than attempting a CoR. I was still planning on getting the CoR anyway even after removal in 2020 (I would be a tier I). It was just a way of cleaning up my record beyond the 17b and 1203.4 (which I already have). Thus, I hope they didn’t take away the application completely from registrants.

                    • Joe

                      Currently, PC 290.5 relieves SOME who receive a CoR from 290 registration. SB 421 replaces that section with the petitioning process for the tiers, providing the same relief for most.

                      There is nothing in SB 421 that affects the application and requirements for a CoR. It simply no longer has any effect on the requirement to register.

                      A CoR is an arduous task – at least in its current form, as it is the one and only way to get out of registration. When it no longer provides that sweet relief, it is a lot of effort and hoops to jump through, most likely a lot of money – just to get the opinion of a judge – who doesn’t know you from Adam – that you are “rehabilitated”? Just to put the Certificate on your wall? Naaah… I wouldn’t. But you are not me.

                      Guy I know got a CoR, and with that automatically applied for a Governor’s pardon. Has no interest in that whatsoever. CoR stopped registration, a 17b reduction restored all rights and obligations (2nd Amendment, jury duty, etc). Life is good…. the governor’s opinion about his rehabilitation? “He can put that where the sun don’t shine.”

  36. Bruce

    Great news! A little worried though to what tier I’ll be placed at. I don’t have a subdivision c (specified) offense; but rather, I was required to register per 290.006. First time offense, but I score 6 on the Static 99. The way I read the bill and the way it amends 290.006, am I placed in Tier I since a Court must specify Tier II or III placement? Or does the 6 Static score supercede? Just worried right now.

    • AlexO

      It’s still unclear as to how people will be placed who are now post conviction (all 100k+ of us). At the time of conviction the court will seem to have various leeway on how to place people. And a score of 6+ seems to be auto tier 3. But the bill did previously have language that those who were placed in tier 3 solely due to their Static-99 score, wouldl have been able to petition to be moved to tier 2 (and then removed) after 20 years. Not sure where all that stands at the moment.

    • similar situation as you

      I’m also a 290.006 offender. Like you, first-time (and non-violent) offense over six years good now with no other offense. Not on the website; but not sure what happens after the tiered bill. CDCR gave me a “6” Static-99R score; but after looking at the scoring sheet and reading the Coding Rules, it sure looks like they scored me one point too high. I am actually a five, so it looks the I am in Tier I? So any advice on how to get this issue fixed with the DOJ?

      Also, from reading the bill, it looks like all 290.006 offenders are placed into Tier I “…unless the court finds the person should register as a tier two or tier three offender and states on the record the reasons for its finding.”

      Surely if they classify you or me into Tier III, I hope that they do *not* use an erroneous scores to place us in the third tier. Also, my 5 score should be less, as it’s been over six years now and I am no longer under supervision.

      With regard to 290.006, the new bill states: “(b) The person shall register as a tier one offender in accordance with paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Section 290, unless the court finds the person should register as a tier two or tier three offender and states on the record the reasons for its finding.”

      But when you refer to paragraph (1) of subdivision (d), it says “(B) This paragraph does not apply to a person who is subject to registration pursuant to paragraph (2) or (3).” Then when you go to paragraph (3), it says “(i) The person’s risk level on the static risk assessment instrument (SARATSO), pursuant to Section 290.06, is well above average risk, as defined in the Coding Rules for that instrument.”

      But then, like what you said, the new 290.006 says “(b) The person shall register as a *tier one* offender in accordance with paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Section 290, *unless* the court finds the person should register as a tier two or tier three offender and states on the record the reasons for its finding.”

      So I think you *might* be right. A 290.006 offender is not subject to paragraph (3), unless a court makes the determination. But then again, who knows how DOJ interprets the bill’s wording. Hopefully they do not use the bogus Static-99R to place people into Tier III.

      And what about for those of us who were not given accurate Static-99R scores??

      • AlexO

        On which question do you believe an error was made?

        • similar situation as you

          I don’t know to which question they gave me an extra point. I did ask my parole officer when I was still on parole (not on it anymore, thank God); but they just gave me the runaround.

          Looking at the “risk factors”/questions, there is no way I could have gotten a “6.” But if I were to guess, it would be to whether I had a male victim. I had none. Also, I scored “low” on the LS/CMI, as well as my other psychological assessments… inconsistent with the Static. It’s only the ridiculous Static that flags me “high risk.”

          Nevertheless, how do we get inaccurate Static scores fixed? Was it not the responsibility of CDCR, probation, and/or the Department of Justice to record our scores correctly? These scores will end up meaning something. They need to take responsibility for scoring us correctly!

          • AlexO

            Yeah, the Static-99 is pretty bogus. I scored a 4 while scoring very close to zero on the other assessments. Reading the Static-99 tier descriptions, Above Average (score 4 & 5) states that people in this category usually have all sorts of issues and priors in their life. Everything aside from my current crime, I was fairly saintly. So yeah, these scores are BS, especially that first question. Technically, a release a day before your 35 birthday (or any of the birth dates in the options) will get you that point and possibly a risk bump.

            1 – What was your age when you were released on parole?
            2 – Prior to your sentencing, have you ever lived with a lover for 2+ years?
            3 – When sentenced for this crime, did you also have any non-sex violent charges in your conviction?
            4 – Did you ever have any non-sex violent convictions prior to your sex conviction?
            5 – Did you have any prior charges OR convictions before your current conviction? How many?
            6 – Did you have every had any sentencing dates for anything prior to, and excluding, your current conviction?
            7 – Have you ever had any non-contact sex convictions prior to and including your current conviction?
            8 – Were any (if any) of your victim(s) not related to you (blood or marriage)?
            9 – Were any (if any) of your victims(s) strangers to you? (defined as having known the person for less than 24 hours prior to your crime)
            10 – Were any (if any) of your victim(s) were male?

            What would you answer for all of these questions?

            If you seem to score less than the score you were given, contact a lawyer and let them know the situation. Getting dropped to that 5 could potentially make a pretty big difference going forward.

            • similar situation as you

              Yes, there is no way I can score 6. They made a mistake.

              I’ll wait and see how the new tiered bill places me. If it’s like how Bruce said, then 290.006 with no other prior offense will not be affected by high Static 99. Bill specifically says that 290.006 offenders require that a Court state “on the record” the reason for bumping 290.006 offenders to Tier II or Tier III, so 290.006 first-timers are Tier I are default it would seem. Otherwise, CA DOJ would be abusing its authority because them having bumped up without a Court finding does not *seem* permissible by proposed bill.

              • AlexO

                Are you sure? Yes and no answers can give you a higher score. For example, answering NO on the question seven (was this or other sex convictions a contact crime?) is a +1.

                If you have the money, I’d contact a lawyer now about re-evaluating your score rather than waiting. You don’t want to get into a situation where you’re placed into tier 3 because of your score and then fighting to get that score lowered and then fighting to now get bumped down a tier.

                Here’s the current score sheet, if you haven’t seen it yet.


                • similar situation as you

                  Yes, I’m positive my score is one point too high. Crazy thing is that when I was on parole, the parole supervisor assured me that he would get the score fixed. Never heard from him again.

                • Jay

                  What does it mean by “any unrelated victims “? Does this mean Victims not related to you by relationship ? Seems strange that it’s worse if your victim was not related to you. Or does it mean any other victims other than your conviction ? Thanks

                  • AlexO

                    Related means by blood or marriage. So a family member. Unrelated could mean a complete stranger or an acquaintances/friend to whom you’re not legally related to.

                    The reason why an unrelated victim and stranger victim are both +1 is because statistically speaking someone who offends against a family member will not offend on a non-family member, and vice versa.

                    What that means, is that the person who offends against a stranger has a much great scope of potential victims against whom to re-offend, and thus a greater risk.

                    • similar situation as you

                      Just to add, Karl Hanson has never released the 1970s individual data set behind the Static-99 and/or Static-99R. Hanson et al. maintains that it is a ‘trade secret.’ Furthermore, CA DOJ has only “studied” the Static-99R’s ostensible accuracy for only a five-year period. Yet they want to use it to determine *lifetime* “risk?”

                      Take a look at the *unpublished* study that they are relying on to sell the Static-99R scam:


                      Note page 7. To define “recidivism” and inflate the Static-99R’s figures, Karl Hanson — who is in conflict of interest in this *unpublished* “study” (as he is one of its developers) — did the following to increase the scope to the definition of ‘recidivism:’

                      “Any recidivism included all crimes (sexual, violent, non-violent), as well as all technical offenses (e.g., breach of conditional release), regardless of whether they were sexually motivated.”

                      So the Static-99R is lumping all types of sex crimes, both contact and non-contact, together!

                      JUNK SCIENCE!

                    • kind of living

                      @similar that is how they got the motorcycle helmet law in , was that the state put in all head injury’s , not just the motorcycles injury’s , so the state has been using this trick for a long time , just like they will lump SO’s with all crimes ,

                    • Bruce

                      Interesting points kind of living and similar situation. I took a “Practical Research” college class in 2015 before I graduated this past May and the professor cautioned us about using unpublished papers. I don’t plan to go to grad school, but it ends up that class now pertains to real life. Unbelievable as it is, CA is really relying on an unpublished source to impose Static 99 junk on us? Also, I Googled one of the authors of that Static 99 paper (the main one?), Seung C. Lee and found his Twitter. It’s unbelievable because the guy is a Ph.D STUDENT at where ever “Carleton University” (accredited??) is:

                    • Timmr

                      @Bruce. Great point. Look what kind of rigorous checks need to be done to approve a pesticide or food additive. You would think with if it saves just one child they would take at least as much effort .

                    • similar situation as you

                      Very interesting Bruce.

                      If I am not mistaken, Karl Hanson, the developer behind the Static-99 scam, too, works/worked for the Carleton University that you mention. FYI, Carleton University is a school in Canada. And I assume that Seung Lee *may* be Hanson’s student?

                      If you look at Lee’s followers, note that Karl Hanson has a Twitter:

                      Hanson’s last tweet was on Jun 23, less than a month ago, saying “Today is my last day at Public Safety Canada. Independent professional activities resume in September.”

                      So Karl Hanson no longer works for Canada’s government? Did the Canadian government get smart and see his junk science for what it is? Or am I being hopefully optimistic? Nevertheless, I find the inclination to reply to Hanson’s tweet to say, “Good riddance. Take your junk science with you.”

                      There is fear that the Static-99 is here to stay. And the worst case scenario is that Hanson seeks employment opportunities in the United States to further propagate his Static-99 cancer.

                      (Can we expect California to hire Karl Hanson to do some statistical m̶a̶n̶i̶p̶u̶l̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ … I mean “tweaks?”)

            • David Kennerly, Thank you for not confusing me with John Wayne Gacy

              I think that Static-99 is wide open to a legal challenge if they pass the Tier law. It’s so obviously, egregiously inadequate and irrelevant to the task.

              • Expose it as soon as you can

                I agree with that and it could be in any state that uses that exam for official purposes, not just CA. You can only hide by the “Ancient Chinese secret” formula so long before you have to expose the man’s workings behind the curtain pulling levers, etc. Calgon take me away!

              • kind of living

                @Bruce ,,, thank you , I went to the twitter , that was kind of funny after the comment that >>>”Expose it as soon you can” , right above my comment here lol , I had know idea he really might be in on the real secret ,

    • Trader Joe's

      By its design, the Static 99 screws us 290.006 offenders because speaking for all 7 of us in my therapy group when I was on probation for 3 years, we all were young and non contacts ranging from stealing underwear at the laundromat to secret video recordings in a dressing room. I know for a fact that we all have 4s, 5s, and 6s. We all have jobs and are pretty stable. Most in relationships, but all of us have family support. I keep in contact with all of them. We formed a close recovery bond. I can’t imagine that any of us deserve to be placed in tier 3 because of a dumb “Static 99” score.

  37. SS

    Which tier would be this code ( “664 P 288.A” with charge of “attempt” ) by this bill? No any other records. Thanks

  38. kern county

    maybe there are some smarter than i that can aswer this question. i found a static 99r sample questions. out of 10 questions i only answered yes to one. do you start at 0 on the static 99r? or a minus? plus? next question it asks how old were you at time of conviction is it better to be younger or older? i was approximately 28 . where is the line drawn at on the static 99r score to go from 1 to 2 or 2 to 3? thank you very much janice. this wouldnt be possible if not for your hard work! thanks in advance

    • AlexO

      You start at zero. The older you were at the time of relase the better as you can get negatives Time of release means released on to probabtion (conviction in this case) or on to parole from prison (the time in prison doesn’t count so it’s after your release in this case). Since you were 28, you get a 1 to on that first question.

      FYI, if your conviction was only for possession of child pornography, then you shouldn’t have a score at all.

      • kern county

        alexO if i understand you correctly, and ofcourse i know this is all fluid it can change at a moments notice. if being 28 at time of release from jail gives you one point and the only other yes out of the ten questions is the victim was a male which means two yes’s does that mean that thats a static 99r score of 2? if so where does that fall in tier 1 2 or 3 btw i am a 288(a). i would try and figure it out myself but alot of the bill is in legal jargon plus its multiple pages! thanks

        • kern county

          okay i now see a score of 2 is low moderate. like i said i had a 288(a) exactly 20 years ago this year. never been in trouble before or after that one incident. i think a 288(a) automatically puts me in tier 2 or 3. God i hope not 3. but if it is tier 2 and this year is the 20 year mark then hopefully i wont be registering much longer! like the saying goes we just have to wait and see!!

          • AlexO

            You’re understanding of this is correct.

            Not sure about which tier you’ll be in. Prior to this last round of votes/amendments, you would’ve likely been placed in Tier 2. Not sure now. We’re all keeping our fingers crossed that 288a won’t be pushed into Tier 3 as that would continue to greatly clog the system, which is the exact opposite of the intent of adapting a tiered system in the first place.

            • David Kennerly, Thank you for not confusing me with John Wayne Gacy

              Why is there a question about 288(a)? If the below is the current version of the bill then I see little reason for concern.


              If, however, it is because 288(a) and 288a are two different offenses, as I realize they are, and the bill under consideration does not actually mention 288(a) but only 288a (and my word search shows that this is indeed true) then I would proffer one explanation: they used 288a to mean 288(a) by mistake. But they also intend that 288a, itself, be included (oral cop).

              288(a) is lewd acts upon a child and 288.a is oral copulation, btw.

              Looking at the bill, it seems unlikely that they would only refer to oral copulation, a very specific act and not “lewd and lascivious with a child”, a much more general range of offenses.

              I think they screwed up! But, even so, 288(a) must surely be intended as well as 288a.

              Yes, law is the language of hell and even the lawmakers screw up. Not surprising considering that they’re almost always idiots.

              I’ll be very curious to hear from our legal beagles on this to check my sanity.

              • AlexO

                That seems to be the case with the currently posted bill but several people have reported hearing at this last vote that there was an amendment and push to move 288a’s into Tier 3. Not idea if that was just talk on the floor or if they’re actually doing that. I keep checking daily to see if a newer version of the bill will be posted but so far nothing.

                • Timmr

                  I am not even a legal mut, but I see that 288(a) is included in the violent felonies –oh bother — what was that code number for violent felonies?

                  • David Kennerly, Thank you for not confusing me with John Wayne Gacy

                    It’s a “violent” felony because “sexual violence” now means having sex with someone who cannot legally consent. No need for knives, guns, handcuffs, acid-throwing or fists, just an unforgivable difference in age.

                    • Timmr

                      Bothersome, that distinction between physical force, verbal threats, persuasion or consent. Let’s just call them all the same thing. That get’s the most people locked up.

              • David Kennerly, Thank you for not confusing me with John Wayne Gacy

                I’m much more concerned with the latitude given the courts in determining our eligibility for relief by this bill.

                Such as:
                In determining whether to require the person to register as a tier two or tier three offender, the court shall consider all of the following:
                “(1) The nature of the registerable offense.
                (2) The age and number of victims, and whether any victim was personally unknown to the person at the time of the offense.
                (3) The criminal and relevant noncriminal behavior of the person before and after conviction for the registerable offense.”

                Also: “successfully completed a Sex Offender Management Board-certified sex offender treatment program.” Did I ever actually successfully complete that? I’m not sure that I did. I had a tendency to speak my mind and they didn’t like me much.

                Those are some golden opportunities to be royally screwed by the courts. They stipulate no ages, no number of victims only that they can be “taken into consideration.” And “noncriminal behavior?” The “nature of the offense?” It was obviously a crime. That’s what we’re talking about here. Yikes!

                Those all add up to ‘disparities in justice.’ Counties will matter, DA’s will matter. Judges will matter.

                And we’ll be doing lots more jumping through legal hoops and genuflecting before the courts.

              • RFS

                search “subdivision (a) of Section 288”

                • David Kennerly, Thank you for not confusing me with John Wayne Gacy

                  Oh, you’re right! I missed it. I was looking for 288(a), spelled in that way.

                  So it says:

                  “A person is a tier three offender if any one of the following applies: [A-I] …
                  (F) The person was convicted of violating subdivision (a) of Section 288 in two proceedings brought and tried separately.”

                  So, that clearly doesn’t apply to someone who has been convicted of only one proceeding.

                  Unless this version, said to be the latest on the Legislature’s own website, is not the most recently amended.

                  • RFS

                    The 07/13/2017 version of the bill is available and so far this still looks the same with regards to 288(a)… so far!

              • Bill421

                As currently written within SB 421, under section 290(c) and 290(d)(1)(A), a single offense/conviction of 288a(b)1 or 288a(b)2 [Oral Cop] will be classified as Tier 1 (exempting a 6 or higher Static score) in accordance to it NOT being listed as a “serious or violent felony” under 667.5(c).

                Under 290(d)(1)(B), “subdivision (f), (g), (h), or (i) of Section 288a” and (c) and (d) per 667.5(c) is Tier 2.

                288(a) is listed under 667.5(c) and, as currently written, would be a Tier 2.

                California having both codes 288(a) and 288a is very confusing.

              • Lake County

                I have always had a feeling that the tiered registry would be litigated for years after it passed. Since so many involved in law enforcement and the courts make mistakes with Penal Code numbers, they will likely be fixing this Bill for many years to come. I only hope that the original intent of the tiered registry is not lost. I’m greatly hoping SB 421 passes for now just to get some people off the registry, but with the SG/DOJ letter to SCOTUS declaring many new restrictions in Michigan since Smith v Doe are actually punitive, I am even more hopeful that the public registry will soon end for most everyone.

          • David Kennerly, Thank you for not confusing me with John Wayne Gacy

            Unless they changed something in the bill very recently then you are not Level 3 simply by virtue of a single conviction of 288-whatever. Could be multiple counts but not more than one conviction. Sounds like you have but one conviction. I don’t know about your Static-99 but otherwise, Level 2.

            • 288(a)Relief

              David Kennerly, AlexO or anyone want to opine on:

              “or if community safety would be significantly enhanced by the person’s continued registration”
              Vs. say the COR criteria? (4852.13(b))

              SB421 burden of proof would be on petitioner by a preponderance of evidence.
              This is where DAs will/could deny 288(a)s.

              • Joe

                “SB421 burden of proof would be on petitioner by a preponderance of evidence.”

                I would say the exact opposite.

                Under the CoR, the very few people who were even eligible to apply for one, had to convince a judge, or prove that, “The person shall live an honest and upright life, shall conduct himself or herself with sobriety and industry, shall exhibit a good moral character, and shall conform to and obey the laws of the land.” ( 4852.05.)

                Could this be any more vague? Very difficult. Plus, this process takes into account ALL conduct since conviction. A less-than-impressive life (easily caused by the label and stigma, kind of a catch-22) will fall short. Certainly any criminal conviction will.

                Sobriety is specifically mentioned (since this language is from the late 1800s). I have heard, with my own ears, an otherwise totally sympathetic, judge say to a petitioner’s attorney “you know Mr. X was arrested (!) for a DUI six weeks ago. Come back in 2 years”.

                On the other hand, under SB 421 it will be up to the DA to convince the judge that it is a public safety benefit (from sex offenses) to continued the petitioner’s registration.

                THAT is a tall order, given the fact that petitioner either is a) a misdemeant or very low level offender AND has AT LEAST 10 years sex offense free in the community, or b) petitioner has committed a serious offense but has AT LEAST 20 years in the community without any further sex offense.

                I would love to be a fly on the court room wall of a DA making that argument…

                Should people fall off the list automatically? Yes. Should there be a list in the first place? No. Is SB 421 perfect? No. But it is pretty darn good given the status quo.

                • 288(a)Relief

                  Thanks Joe.
                  An attorney who specializes in post conviction work and spoke at the June14th/15th ACSOL conference on SB421 responded:

                  “In any type of post-conviction petition process, the burden of persuasion is always on the petitioner. The standard is probably by a preponderance of evidence.”
                  To my question ‘if the the burden of proof is more on the DA to deny.’

                • New Person

                  On the other hand, under SB 421 it will be up to the DA to convince the judge that it is a public safety benefit (from sex offenses) to continued the petitioner’s registration.

                  THAT is a tall order, given the fact that petitioner either is a) a misdemeant or very low level offender AND has AT LEAST 10 years sex offense free in the community, or b) petitioner has committed a serious offense but has AT LEAST 20 years in the community without any further sex offense.

                  I would love to be a fly on the court room wall of a DA making that argument…
                  I’ll re-state my story again: 1203.4 cannot be denied if you successfully complete probation. I did. The DA and probation recommended to the judge that I not be granted 1203.4. My lawyer asked the judge, not under record, what he was going to judge and the judge said he was going to deny my 1203.4.

                  I did everything they asked for, including probation. Probation stated I did everything they set upon me, but still recommended that I don’t deserve the 1203.4 – very contradictory.

                  It was an appellate lawyer that told my lawyer that the judge cannot deny me 1203.4 as it is stated by law that I be granted it for successfully. So we went back in again. Again, the DA recommended against the granting of the 1203.4. The judge tried to console the DA by saying that there’s nothing he can do b/c it’s the law to give me 1203.4. Reluctantly, the judge awarded me the 1203.4.

                  I don’t want any DA or judge to be a part of the release from registration. If one DA and/or judge behaved like this to someone who’s successfully completed tasks set before them only to be smeared to be unqualified, then rest assured that there are others like them.

                  • SB 421

                    New Person- Great example on how the the court sees any SO.

                    ** SB 421 is basically an expanded COR with relief –and will be nearly as hard as a COR now.

                    It’s supported by DAs and LE. They are not your friend. This is a good bill for pre-87 convictions and minor ‘public indecency’, etc.

                    Few if any judges are going to relieve a 288(a) or a contact offense. It’s rarely going to happen, 20 years or not.

                    I support SB421, but people need to see it realistically.

                    The legislature is CYA and shifting the burden to Judges -who cringe at even giving a limited few SOs a mandated 1203.4!

          • Joe

            “exactly 20 years ago”

            Ah, but therein lies the rub… the Static 99R can only be used as a risk assessment tool for 10 years after release into the community. It says so itself in its preamble somewhere.

            By definition, “risk” is dynamic. The risk that my house burns down changes constantly with external (distance to fire hydrant, climate, etc) and internal (smoker in the house, age of electric system, etc) factors. If anything changes, my insurance company will take that into account.

            Yes, the Static 99R has found that offenders with certain characteristics have offended at different rates, and based on that projects risk. The underlying meta studies are publicly available and sound legit. But it ONLY does so for 10 years. After 10 years in the community it makes no claim to be a valid risk assessment tool.

            My point is, to assign lifetime (easily 60, 70 + years) risk based on an instrument that makes no claim to assess any risk beyond 10 years in the community, h3ll, one, that even has the word “Static” in its title, is ludicrous.

            The biggest swing is the offender’s age at release. And that can NEVER change. And for the next 10 years, yeah, I would guess that a 20 year old offender would re-offend at a greater rate than a just released 60 year old offender, and the study supports that. But when the 20 year old guy is 60 and has lived a law abiding life for 40 years it is absurd to still score him as the 20 year old just released from prison. And again, the Static 99R is not attempting to do this. It is probably pretty accurate and correct. It is the legislators who are inaccurately using it.

            There will be, no doubt, challenges to the lifetime Tier III placement based on the Static 99R, should this bill passed. I would be shocked if this were not an easy challenge to win. But then again, I have said this about many aspects of PC 290. Nothing in this area of law is shocking any longer.

            • AlexO

              It looks like they may have removed that “10 year” comment from the rules. I remember reading that on their webpage earlier this year or last. Then this bill started to get steam and someone mentioned they removed that “not to be used 10+ years later”. I went back to check and couldn’t find the reference to it in any of the documentation I looked at. If true, it looks like the lawmakers are arbitrarily making amendments to their own study in order to continue making use of it. That seems insane!

            • Bruce H.

              Well I do remember reading a post w/ links from N and VA state governments saying the Static 99 is NOT accurate, so even they don’t use it. Also, the 1970s sample that they use is considered top secret by Karl Hanson. Other than that, it’s really stupid to use Static 99. IF a 6 plus score is even accurate within a 10 yr period, then label a person Tier 3 for 10 yrs, drop them to Tier 1, and let that person petition as a Tier 1. The state isn’t even using the Static 99 the way it was designed. The Static 99, and whatever so called revised version, must be exposed as the junk science it is.

              • similar situation as you

                Unfortunate thing about the Static-99R scam is that according to risk factor 3, non-violent crimes are scored *more*, while violent crimes are scored less. So if you had committed a non-violent crime, you score more than someone who had committed a violent crime. Logic would dictate it ought to be the other way around. But there is nothing logical about the Static 99 tests.

      • Hopeful

        Alex o- u said if ur only 290 conviction is cp u won’t have a static 99 score. That is my charge (311.11a) and I have a static score according to sharper future and parole. Where does it say cp is exempt from static?

        • AlexO

          CP isn’t specifically exempt. But the Static-99 was specifically calibrated to only measure people who had direct victims. With CP, there is no direct victim. You’re charged with possessing illegal material. You were given a score in error. Speak with a lawyer to have it removed from your record.

          Of course if you created CP by say using a cam to secretly recorded your victims, then you can be given the Static-99. Though I don’t know if 311.11a would be used as the charge in such a case.

          Bottom line, if your CP charge is because of downloads, you shouldn’t have the score.

          • Hopeful

            311.11a is Simple possession for personal use. Where can I golfing the info ur referencing?

            • AlexO

              I’ll try and find out tonight. I learned of this from my rehab program director. He’s been in the business for over 30 years now and keeps up to date on his certification and training on pretty much all things involving us. We had one gentleman in our program, in my group, who was in the same situation as you. He had this error corrected and no longer has a Static-99.

  39. Jm

    Out of curiosity. A level 1 offender who is able after 10 years to be removed from the registry – does this do anything to allow expungement of the record? My concern is wanting to be able to pass a background check to obtain new employment. As is I can’t seem to pass a background check. I believe this is due to two things – my record comes up and the registration. If this only removes the registration portion wouldn’t it still be a situation where my record still shows and I still cannot pass a background check? Or does SB421 also become a way of expungement? My crime was pc 311.11(a) misdemeanor after January 1st 2014. (Which seems to say I cannot get this expunged due to the law change as of that date)

    • AlexO

      To get an expungement you must have been granted probation instead of prison. Because of your misdemeanor, I’m assuming you got probation.

      Technically, 311.11a is on a short list of codes that cannot be expunged. However, judges can still allow it if you’ve completed your sentence without issues and haven’t had any criminal trouble since. A friend and a member of our rehab group was recently able to get his 311.11a reduced to a misdemeanor and get it expunged. He did all the paperwork filing himself.

      So I’d go ahead and try to get it done. Maybe contact a lawyer. Some lawyers will tell you it can’t be done because it’s on the “no list”. But that’s obviously not true. It’s just harder because the judge and DA have a lot more desecration to allow this (expungements are otherwise nearly automatic if you’ve done everything well during your probation).

      As far as the bill itself and expungements, it doesn’t effect expungements in any way as the two are independent. Getting an expungement doesn’t directly effect your ability to get off the registry and vice versa.

      • Joe

        “Technically, 311.11a is on a short list of codes that cannot be expunged.”

        311.xx were added to the list of codes that cannot be expunged as of 1/1/2014 (can’t remember if the date is the commission or conviction). Anyone before can get expungement and be relieved of registration with a CoR (after a mere 7 years, I believe).

        • AlexO

          Maybe that’s the difference. I’m not sure when my friends conviction was. Likewise with the few other people in the program who were able to get 311.11a expunged. If you’re doing the work yourself for filing, doesn’t seem like there’s any reason not to try. Worst that happens is you’re told no.

          • Joe

            The difference that determines eligibility for expungement / dismissal under PC 1203.4 is:

            – for PC 288(a) or any other of those 28x sections: violation vs attempt
            – for PC 311.xx: pre vs post 1/1/2014

            I suppose attempted PC 311.xx would be eligible for expungement regardless of date. Is there such a thing?

            • Lake County

              Attempted cp possession? Wow that would be an interesting charge.

          • MS

            If ones 311.11 conviction date was after 1/1/2014…you can’t have it expunged. I was able to have my conviction expunged in 2016 because my conviction had been before 1/1/14. I used recordgone…very reasonably priced in my opinion. It’s 10 year wait for a COR. I think there might be an exception (only 7 years) for those convicted of a sex offense in the 90’s or earlier. I’m foggy on it but I’m pretty darn sure anybody convicted in the 2000’s will have to wait 10 years.

            • John4

              If this bill were to pass does any know if their gonna go by the conviction date or the day of registration. Also, I’m not to good interpreting any bill so could someone kindly help me out here as to what tier I would possibly land in. Felony baterry 243.4, 23 years ago, obtained a 17b reduction and 1203.4 dismissal, internet exclusion the whole time. Any help would greatly b appreciated. Thanks

              • AlexO

                It depends which charge you have for section 243.4. In general, section 243.4 is Tier 1 except if you have “a felony offense described in subdivision (a) or (d) of Section 243.4.”

                I think (keyword: think) because you got a 17b reduction, you might be placed into Tier 1 even if you violated section (a) or (d) as the bill refers to these as “felony” for Tier 2 and a 17b makes it a misdemeanor for all purposes.

                Because you got qualified for 17b, I’m assuming you did county time and not prison. In which case, the time should start ticking at your conviction.

                • John4

                  AlexO…. thank you for that interpretation and your time. Yes, I was sentenced to county time. Many thanks.

        • Jm

          Yeah, I was charged in November 2011. It took 3 years of going to court to finally get a plea offer. I accepted it based on the fact that the charge would be a misdemeanor 311.11(a) with no jail time, 2 days of community service, around $300 in total fines and 2 years of informal or court probation. This allowed me to keep my job. Of course it also means I’m stuck in a dead end job now and if I lose it I’m in trouble. If only I received a plea deal and signed it a year earlier.. hmm… It’s amazing how a plea deal or conviction signed before 1/1/14 is totally different..

          • AlexO

            Yeah, there’s a few BS like this that has to do with a timeline. The first question for Static-99 is time sensitive like that as your score is calculated at the time of your release (at sentencing for probation and after your release from prison onto parole). So that means if you’re close to your birthday for one of those age thresholds on the test, you can get a better score if you’re able to prolong your sentencing until after your birthday. How stupid is that?

            • JM

              Ridiculous.. I hope someone challenges the addition of those specific set of charges to 1203.4.

  40. James A

    This will have no effect on expungement or background checks. It will, however, reduce the period of time that registration will appear on a background check. There are 2 types of background check: the more common credit bureau check (that is limited to 7-years of reporting of the event) and the fingerprint type (for only certain jobs and that is not limited to 7-years).

    • Jm

      So are you saying that someone who received a misdemeanor 311.11(a) charge and is on the non public registry attempts to find employment after 7 years from conviction (or in my case signed plea agreement) that most likely they would be able to pass a background check? I work as a retail manager and always believed that the background check companies checked with the specific county you live in to obtain your background information on your criminal record- thus in turn with it not being able to be expunged meant failed background checks for the rest of my life unless the law change that stopped me from being able to expunge based on the specific charge was overturned. Am I incorrect in this assumption? For me the registration although annoying isn’t the largest burden. (I’m not publicly disclosed) The largest burden is wanting to be able to obtain new employment. I’d also like to be able to travel freely again. (Side note, I wonder if anyone has tried to renew their passport since the new change that indicates are passports are to be marked) seems they haven’t implemented a process yet. I wonder if they’re denying registrants renewals or if they’re just issuing them regular non marked passports.

      • Stephen

        How many more adaments does the bill have to go threw before it becomes law

        • AlexO

          Two more rounds of votes. So potentially zero to any amount of amendments before it goes to the Governor.

      • Popeye

        My recent passport renewal looks normal.

        • JM

          Thank you! Time to renew then before they start stamping them with a Scarlett letter..

      • James A

        The most common background checks have to comply with the Fair Credit Reporting Act and can only report for 7 years from the event. If listed on a registry, that is an ongoing event, so, until off that registry, that 7-year timer keeps restarting. If it is a government run background check (meaning with fingerprints), that will report every conviction with no time limit.

        But, even that is not absolute: I worked at an airport and passed a TSA-background check with my CP conviction. Federal law specifies which offenses are disqualifying, and the only sex offense is forcible offenses (10-year disqualification). So, there is hope!

        • JM

          Thank you James! My conviction was just under 3 years. This gives me some hope to get a better job 4 years or so from now! Light at the end of a tunnel!

  41. Ray

    Does anyone know that, if this bill becomes official and that I will someday no longer be on the California registry, will I still be on the NATIONAL registry?

    • AlexO

      No. The national registry pulls information from state registry. If you not longer have to register with your state, you won’t be on the national list. Keep in mind that if you’re dual registering because you traveled to another state for a period of time, it may cause some issue as each state has its own guidelines on how to get off. I have no idea if “registering out” when you’re leaving the state as if you’re moving will mean you’re no longer registered with that state.

    • David Kennerly, Thank you for not confusing me with John Wayne Gacy

      The “national registry” is just an aggregate of state registries and is not an independent registry in its own right. They defer to the states and should no longer count you as being a Registrant if California releases you. It’s a peculiar beast that appears superfluous. I suspect that it exists as a database simply to connect up with all of the federal law enforcement entities and databases and international entities such as Interpol.

  42. USA

    I think this is wonderful news. I strongly support the bill and I believe it will pass. I have an expunged misdemeanor battery and it’s been 20-22 years. I need to remind people it’s hope and much better than today’s laws! Best of luck

  43. Matthew

    The bill published an amended version in case anyone was wondering if any changes were made. Obviously, it could keep changing but this may look like one of the final changes.

    • AlexO

      It looks like the only change is a positive one for juveniles. They added that a juvenile can’t be placed into tier 3 unless there are certain circumstances (a lot more so than adults).

      The part about Tier 3 people who are Tier 3 solely because of their high risk score still seems to be intact despite reports that at the last hearing it was going to be removed. It still might be, but not yet.

    • Mot

      SO, what is a 288(a) at tiered 1 or tiered 2 in the current SB421?

      • Tiers

        As currently written:

        288a(b)1 or 2 = Tier 1 [10 years].

        288(a), 288a(c) thru (i) = Tier 2 [20 years].

        Two separate 288(a)s = Tier 3 [Life]

        6 or higher score on STATIC99R = Tier 3 [Life/petitionable].

        • Mot

          My conviction was in 2001 and I have been out of prison since 2003 and at that time there was no Static99. So not sure what now applies to me. My crime had no contact. the ‘victim’ was a 38 yr old male cop, no restitution paid. Did my time and parole and the conselling and the ‘pissmopraph’ (sp?) and the monthly poly and never failed and have not had anything but a traffic ticket since release. And you are saying Still a Tier 2?

      • Tiers

        Here is a sample of the STATIC99R Coding Form:

        Here are the coding rules / instructions:

  44. Jon

    This language in SB421 concerning 647.6 is unsettling:

    “(c) On or before July 1, 2019, with respect to a person who has been convicted of the commission or the attempted commission of any of the offenses listed in, or who is otherwise described in, paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 290 and who is a tier two offender, and with respect to a person who has been convicted of the commission or the attempted commission of Section 647.6, the Department of Justice shall make available to the public via the Internet Web site his or her name and known aliases, a photograph, a physical description, including gender and race, date of birth, criminal history, the community of residence and ZIP Code in which the person resides”

    Does ANYONE know conclusively if this means that ANY 647.6(a) regardless of whether it’s a misdemeanor will be made public on the site?

    • Jon

      The way it reads is definitely seems that 647.6, regardless of whether it’s Tier 1, will be made public on the website.
      Janice and Co have not really been able to give a definitely answer which also leads me to believe that a clause has been made for 647.6 that will put on the website.

      If ANYONE actually has the DEFINITIVE answer to this, that would be of enormous help.

    • AlexO

      When this part was added earlier, Janice commented to your kind of question that the bill would still NOT publicly publish any Tier 1 people. Right now, that’s about as conclusive of an answer as we’re going to get. I’m sure once the bill is signed into law Janice and others will comb deeper into it for final analysis.

      I don’t recall in which thread it was though.

      • Jon

        Yes this is true, but Janice reiterated merely that Tier 1 would not be on the site. Which is the general rule as stipulated by the bill.
        However upon deeper scrutiny the way that part has been phrased it sounds like all Tier II AND those convicted of 647.6 will be publicized. Which suggests an exclusion for 647.6 from the rest of Tiered I registrants.

        It just doesn’t seem to make sense to re-emphasize that clause about 647.6 the way it does in the Tiered Bill unless it means all Tier II PLUS all those convicted of 647.6.

        I hope I am incorrect, however we’ver never gotten a CONCLUSIVE answer to this.

        • AlexO

          I guess we’ll see. Hopefully 647.6 will not be disclosed as I have that as well.

        • AlexO

          Posting again because I found Janice’s specific reply to this amendment. It’s almost at the bottom of the thread here. This question and answer is approximately 19 days post the amendment in question.

          June 13, 2017
          We need clarification on how 647.6 applies to the Tiered Registry as amended.
          Will Tier 1 647.6 misdemeanor registrants be published on the public site as possibly written in the Tiered Registry bill?

          Please, this question has been asked for weeks without a real answer. We need clarification.”

          “Janice Bellucci
          June 13, 2017
          As currently written, SB 421 does not require individuals on Tier 1 to be listed on the Megan’s Law website.”

          This seems like a very clear answer to this direct question. If Janice retracted her answer or clarified it after this post, I don’t believe I’ve seen it.

          • someone who cares

            This is how I read it, too. IF you have a 647.6 AND are a Tier II, it will be listed. Otherwise, if Tier I, I don’t think it will. My interpretation.

          • Tiers

            It seems with a 647.6 conviction you are only in tier 2 by: “Section 647.6 if it is a second or subsequent conviction for that offense that was brought and tried separately.

            290.46(a)3(c) states ” who is a tier two offender, AND with respect … 647.6″

            So, I interpret this to mean Tier 2 with two separate 674.6 for public web site.

            A single 647.6, low score would be non posted Tier 1, (right?)

          • Jon

            I hope that’s correct. I’m not trying to discredit what Janice said, it’s just that the language of the bill is confusing.

            • AlexO

              It’s very confusing to us layman, which is why I’m not going to guess on it and just go with Janice’s answer for now as she’s the clear legal expert on these forums. If this changes, I’m sure we’ll all know as 647.6 is fairly common and would effect many people.

              It’s pretty insane how technical law can get. There was a case recently (not sure if its been resolved yet) against a company over overtime pay. If the company loses, they’ll have to pay out $10 million or so. The key to the entire case? A single Oxford comma.

          • Tiers


            It seems with a 647.6 conviction you are only in tier 2 by: “Section 647.6 if it is a second or subsequent conviction for that offense that was brought and tried separately.

            290.46(a)3(c) states ” who is a tier two offender, AND with respect … 647.6″ Both must be true. Otherwise it would say “who is a tier two offender OR with respect…647.6”

            So, I interpret this to mean Tier 2 with two separate 647.6 for public web site.

            I suspect this was added to show/clarify how 647.6 (ie 2 convictions) could still be posted.

            A single 647.6, low score would be non posted Tier 1, (at least how I interpret).

            • Jon

              I still have an issue with the way the bill references 647.6 specifically with Tier II in the part about public disclosure. What is the purpose of adding 647.6 there when it’s already listed with the prerquisites for Tier II in the previous section?

              Why is 647.6 singled out and not the other penal codes that constitute a Tier II classification? Since multiple counts of 647.6 is previously stated that qualify for Tier II it seems extraneous to reiterate anything about 647.6 unless it’s meant include all convictions regardless of Tier assignment.

              This is just how I read it. I hope that Janice can definitively clarify this for us but I fear that she might not know for sure either.

              • AlexO

                They mention it again in Tier 2 because its an exception to the rule. Normally, 647.6 is tier 1 unless you have it twice. Everything else is tier 1 unless you have certain enhancements (still all the same codes as tier 1 but with extras). These enchancements make you tier 2 or possible 3. 647.6 is the only one that can wobble between the two tiers.

                Also, the section in tier 2 about 647.6, is in regards to public registration, not duration on the registry. So even if 647.6 will force public registration due to the language in tier 2 section, you’ll still be tier 1 in regards to your registration duration, unless you have multiple convictions.

                The one thing part about 647.6 that I could see them splitting it felony vs misdemeanor. One is more about the “annoy” part and is generally given in a non-contact situation, where’s a felony is much more serious. Them treating both as the same would be odd.

              • Tiers


                We wont know definitively until the bill passes AND Janice/Lawyers weigh in. But keep in mind that LE legislation follows the principles of ‘proportionality’:

                Do you think a contact offense of oral sex with a 15 year old [288a(b)(2)] and similar would be placed in Tier 1, non-disclosed tier and the ‘lesser’ offense of 647.6 would be more severe in Tier 2?

                It’s not certain, but at this point not likely.

      • Sounds like history repeating itself

        Sounds like Nancy Pelosi talking about ACA in 2010 when you have to read the bill after the bill has been passed and signed into law to know what is in it. Better know what is in the final bill when the final vote is taken before Jerry signs it with his Bic pen.

  45. TG

    I was convicted in 2001 of misdemeanor possession of CP. I think that would place me in tier 1.

    But my conviction was in Michigan. I have lived in California since my conviction.

    So the way I read 421, since my conviction was from out of state, I would be in tier 2, despite the charge for which I was convicted.

    What do you guys think? What do you think 421 says about out-of-state convictions?

    • AlexO

      I believe you’re still Tier 1.

      “(4) (A) A person who is required to register pursuant to Section 290.005 shall be placed in the appropriate tier if the offense is assessed as equivalent to a California registerable offense described in subdivision (c).

      (B) If the person’s duty to register pursuant to Section 290.005 is based solely on the requirement of registration in another jurisdiction, and there is no equivalent California registerable offense, the person shall be subject to registration as a tier two offender, except that the person is subject to registration as a tier three offender if one of the following applies:”

      Your offense has a California equivalent, 311.11a. So it should be treated as such for the purposes of tier placement.

    • Tiers

      per 290(d)4(B) It would only be a Tier 2 if “there is no equivalent California registerable offense.” misd CP is an equivalent California offense falling under Tier 1.

  46. someone who cares

    TG ~ What is the California Penal Code for your offense?

  47. kern county

    im curious if all this is gonna retroactive? if my offense was in 1997 if in 2018 ill no longer have to register!! i guess time will tell!

    • James A

      The whole point of this is retroactivity.

    • AlexO

      It is. You’ll be at the 21 year mark so you’ll be able to petition for relief immidietly, provided you don’t have the hard tier 3 placement.

    • Timmr

      Opps, you better not think you will automatically be off the registry and can just stop registering. That can land you in jail. You have to petition/get permission to be off. Be careful.

  48. C

    It’s impossible not to speculate on which tier our convictions put us. I’m so technology dependent that when I go to Ralph’s and can’t immediately spot what I want among the shelves, my instinct is to hit Control +F and my search results will stand out in highlighter yellow.
    Likewise, I long for an app into which I can plug the penal codes and date of my conviction. Animated lights flash as the results are calculated:

    You’re Off the Registry!

    Or not so great:

    SORRY (sad trombone)

    Tier 3.
    You’re a Life Time Registrant.

    The app could be sponsored by law firms specializing in registry relief and peripheral organizations such as Reputation Defender.

    On a related note, I receive regular direct mail offering registry relief from various law firms. The last one actually creates a sense of urgency with the headline, “Tired registry about to become law. Will you be ready? Call today!”

    Glad to see the legal community is aware and gearing up.

    • kern county

      too funny!!

      • Stephen

        I believe the registry bill will go into effect in 2019 so 2018 you will have to register the California DOJ says they need a year to get into complaince with the new law

    • Nicholas Maietta

      It is possible to convert the penal code system into a question ans answer format, just making it far easier to navigate. Im so poor that i nave to work on projects that pay money but if i was sponsored for a couple months enough to pay rent, i would do this not as an app, but as a website, which an app could talk to.

      • Timmr

        Maybe try a gofundme account. I would put something in that. I am in tight straights myself right now. Would be good if some can band together and lift up one another, so that some can do projects like that. It’s not the traditional rugged idividualism, but in order to survive we might have to break the mold and traditions and find something that works, we are all out in the wild on the road wandering between hostile communities in some physical or metaphorical sense, even those that own a home and have an income, for now, are doing that metphorically, always looking over our shoulders and hording against the next possible restriction. Would be good to have a crew pulling together and steering a ship for a change instead of floating on our own little flotsam or remote desert islands.

        • kind of living

          @Timmr,,, I like the way you think man , I am all for pulling as many of us together as we can , we should have along time ago , we talked about that sometime ago , but no one wanted any part of it , lol all the same Bro it would be cool

  49. RE: STATIC-99R

    I was revisiting the Static-99R’s [new] Coding Rules and found something interesting, but yet troubling, on page 13:

    “Our research has found that, in general, for every five years the offender is in the community without a new sex offence, their risk for recidivism roughly halves (Hanson, Harris, Helmus, & Thornton, 2014). Consequently, we recommend that for offenders with two years or more sex offence free in the community since release from the index offence, the time they have been sex offence free in the community should be considered in the overall evaluation of risk.”

    Then here is the kicker:

    “Static risk assessments estimate the likelihood of recidivism at the time of release and we expect they would be valid for approximately two years.”

    VALID FOR APPROXIMATELY TWO YEARS?? Then why the hell is California going to use the Static-99R to label people for LIFETIME registration?? This sh** is bogus!

    Take a look at this bull**** for yourself (page 13):

    • David Kennerly, Thank you for not confusing me with John Wayne Gacy

      We make lemonade. The Static-99 may actually be a FEATURE, rather than an insuperable impediment, to our relief from registration.

      Let me explain, and given the present context in which we will not get anything better than the Tiered proposal in its current form. The addition of the Static-99 is a perceptual safeguard to those requiring, what they see as, a valid, scientific regulatory mechanism that will limit relief to those posing the most danger. More importantly, it provides the appearance of having taken society’s concerns to heart and makes the bill’s passage possible and gives the lawmakers who support it political cover. Without such procedural bones to throw to the hysterics, it would not pass. Of course, it is no such thing (a valid, scientific regulatory mechanism) and that can be readily demonstrated; it’s not even difficult to establish its lack of scientific viability and there are many experts who have provided precisely the arguments needed to refute it.

      So that’s what we do, AFTER the bill becomes law. We get Static-99 thrown out on its ass through the courts. THAT’S a strategy!

      • Bruce H.

        Hope you are right Dave, but don’t know if Janice would be on board. Sounds like a lot of work. But it is really upsetting to see people like Karl Hanson and Seung C. Lee write “studies” that seem to make the Static 99 (R) more valid than it really is. I mean I remember reading a while back that it was good for only 10 years after release. But now to read it is only good for TWO YEARS after release? Man that is a whole different level of confession.

        • RE: STATIC-99R

          Also, don’t forget this unpublished ‘study’ that only examines the Static-99R for a five-year period:

          Let that sink in. FIVE-YEARS. It’s troubling because the state wants to use the Static-99R to determine LIFETIME risk. But regardless, any “study” would be moot given that Hanson’s Coding Rules clearly states that the Static-99R is only “valid for approximately two years.” Two years or five years? Both are wholly inadequate given its intended use under 290(d)(3)(D) that you cite. SB 421 is not even following the very Coding Rules that it proclaim ought to be adhered to. Hypocritical at best.

          Furthermore, Karl Hanson either authors or co-authors most of the “studies” that boast the Static-99R. The unpublished ‘study’ that you mention, just like many of the other ‘studies’ by Hanson and cohorts, shows that Hanson acts in complete conflict of interest because Hanson is a Static-99 “developer” while authoring/co-authoring many of said ‘studies.’ Hanson has a vested interest in ensuring the Static-99R’s success. So those Hanson authored/coauthored ‘studies’ are hardly unbiased. Even in studies that aren’t authored/co-authored by Hanson, his work is often cited because he has a monopoly over Static-99R “analysis.”

          *But* here are just some of the many sources that are critical of the Static-99 “risk” assessments:

          1. Even for violent offenders, the Virginia legislature has discredited the Static-99R (not even accounting for its use on non-contact offenders — which this tiered bill intends use for):


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

          3. In a *published* opinion, the New York Courts have discredited the Static-99:

          It should also be noted that our [once] nation’s highest law enforcement officer, Eric Holder, once spoke out against “risk-assessments” such as the Static 99R. A link is found here:

          “In 2014, Eric Holder, then the U.S. attorney general, articulated the uncertainty swirling around these tools in a speech given to the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers’ 57th Annual Meeting. ‘Although these [risk assessment] measures were crafted with the best of intentions, I am concerned that they may inadvertently undermine our efforts to ensure individualized and equal justice,’ he said. ‘They may exacerbate unwarranted and unjust disparities that are already far too common in our criminal justice system and in our society.’”

          The inherent flaw of the Static 99R is found right in its name: static. Life is not “static.” People learn and change for the better. The Static 99R does *not* even take into account *current age*, nor does the Static 99R take into account years of offense-free behavior while free in the community. And it’s been proven time again that offense-free behavior in the community is the most significant “risk factor” not even addressed by the Static 99 tests.

          • Bruce H.

            Thanks for the reply. I hope that Janice fights the Static 99 tests. It should really be clear that if SB 421 says Static 99 tier 3 registration must be based on the “Coding Rules,” and the Coding Rules say its only accurate for TWO years, then the Static 99 is not an appropriate tool to up people to tier 3. That’s on top of EVERYTHING ELSE that’s wrong with the damn Static 99 (R)!

    • Bruce

      Did whoever wrote SB 421 even take the time to read the Static 99 (R) Coding Rules? That excerpt you cite is a bombshell. It explicitly says that static risk assessments are only “valid for approximately two years.” So how can 290(d)(3)(D) put tier 1 and tier 2 into tier 3 because of “well above average risk, as defined in the Coding Rules” when the Coding Rules itself says the Static 99 is only good for two years, therefore not appropriate for the lifetime tier use? It’s so absurd on top of everything else that’s wrong with the Static 99. How could Nancy O’Malley have defended this stuff? Did she even take the time to read the Coding Rules?

  50. Matthew

    Anyone hear of a date for the next vote? I am thinking it should be sometime in early August?

    • Janice Bellucci

      There is no date yet for consideration of SB 421 by the Appropriations Committee. The entire legislature will go on recess from July 21 thru August 20. We expect the Committee to consider the bill between August 20 and September 5. If the bill is released from the committee’s suspense file, it will be considered on the floor of the Assembly between September 5 and September 15. If the bill not released from the suspense file by September 15, it will be dead.

      • AlexO

        Oh man. I hope after all this time and work it won’t simply die like that.

        • TG

          SB 421 is not in any suspense file. It’s been referred to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. They might put it in the suspense file, but that hasn’t happened yet

      • Matthew

        Thank you for that info. I think we would be crushed if it died.

        • Timmr, not an expert

          If it is any consolation, I think if there is any concerted opposition to the bill it is what has already surfaced. This bill has not snuck up on anyone. There has been much publicity over it.
          It may be helpful to repeat the serenity prayer over a few times.

      • David

        Thank you for this update. Please keep us posted. ☺

  51. James A

    Here is the Assembly’s calendar for the remainder of this bill cycle:
    July 22 through Aug. 20 Summer Recess
    Sept. 1 Last day for fiscal committees to meet and report bills to the Floor.
    Sept. 8 Last day to amend on the Floor.
    Sept. 15 Last day for any bill to be passed.
    Basically, Aug. 21 to Sep. 15 will be the busy periods for this bill. Four weeks. Appropriations Comm. could hear this bill either Aug. 23 or 30.

  52. kern county

    september 01-september 15 is what i heard

  53. Joe


    SB 421 is on the calendar of the Assm Appropriations Committee on August 23 – next Wednesday (Session resumes August 21).


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. 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, 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

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

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