Monthly Meetings

Q4: 10/14 in Los Angeles

2017 ACSOL Conference Videos

California

CA Assembly Committee Passes New Tiered Registry Bill SB 384

The Assembly’s Public Safety Committee passed the new Tiered Registry (SB 384) tonight by a vote of 5 to 2. All those voting in support of the bill were Democrats; all voting in opposition to the bill were Republicans.

Senator Scott Wiener was unavailable to present the bill at the hearing because the Senate had not yet adjourned. Therefore, Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez-Fletcher, a member of the Public Safety Committee, presented the bill. During the hearing, Gonzalez-Fletcher stated that she “hesitated to support” earlier versions of the tiered registry bill, but “felt much better” about the current version of the bill because it assigns all offenses involving children to Tier 3.

Also speaking in support of the bill were a deputy district attorney from Los Angeles and a spokesperson from the City of San Francisco. The deputy DA described the bill as both pro-law enforcement and pro-safety. He told committee members that no one will be removed from the registry without a “full screening” by local law enforcement and the local DA’s office.

According to the deputy DA, it is time to change a law that has been in place and not changed since 1947. He added that the registry today is not used to solve crimes.

In addition to this testimony, nine individuals representing nine organizations briefly stated their support for the bill. The organizations include the ACLU, Equality California, CA Attorneys for Criminal Justice and the Los Angeles Sheriff. Although ACSOL attended the hearing, ACSOL did not speak either in favor of or in opposition to the bill. In fact, there was no one present who spoke in opposition to the bill.

If the bill is to become law, it must be passed by the full Assembly and then return to the Senate for a concurrence vote. Both actions are expected to take place on Friday, September 15.

Join the discussion

  1. James

    ““hesitated to support” earlier versions of the tiered registry bill, but “felt much better” about the current version of the bill because it assigns all offenses involving children to Tier 3.”

    Agrhhhhhhhhh….spits on the ground and walks away to dinner…either perturbed or unhappy or something.

    Good Luck to All

    Best Wishes, James

    • Timothy Moore

      This statement clearly shows she wants this bill solely to make life worse for people who had been convicted of child related crimes. She could care less about re-offense rates or ability to rehabilitate and become productive citizens. I don’t know why judges still skip around with this idea that the legislature’s intent is to promote public safety. They made that assumption in Colorado. It is clearly not true and clearly an important test of punishment vs, regulation. Legislators have all the figures available to them and ignore them. It is not innocent good intentions, it is willful hatred. Can’t they see the obvious? Have they, the judges, ever listened to legislator’s justifications for voting for sex offender legislation? I doubt it. They need to examine this “intent” with greater deligence, not just accept it.

  2. steve

    According to Fletcher “All offenses involving children are tier 3” 288(a) tier 3?

    • G4Change

      This is a very confusing quote. I just read the latest iteration of this bill, and there are several offenses including misdemeanor 288 that (according to the text in the bill) would still be Tier 1.
      So, I’m assuming and hoping that this was a poorly-worded quote.

    • RFS

      Yes, this is strange since 288(a) is listed as tier 3 if there are multiple offenses. I don’t see 288(a) single offense addressed anywhere.

  3. JC

    I am sorry to hear this pass. I was enthusiastically positive in the beginning but after the amendments, it was a horrible bill. I read the comments people say about just get it passed then it can be modified. I dont know. I have a conviction steming from asking a person who said they were 18 to send me nude photos. I got a bad attorney. The DA offered probation but against my direction he refused saying it still carried registration. He wasnt familiar with the expungement process apparantly. The DA said that the email I sent was obscene in itself and I walked away with a 16 month prison sentence with 311.11, 311.4, and 288.3 on my record. My only hope was getting a COR. Well now I am confused. I have read the bill several times. First it lists 290.5 and outlines the COR and that it would eleminate the registration requirement for …. then it lists another 290.5 and talks about petitioning for removal after your tier requirement has been met. So which is it? Can someone be removed from the registry if they obtain a COR and its applicable to the crime OR when they meet their tier obligation, or is the COR forgotten and the only way is now the tiers? I find it absolutely ubsurd that I have an internet no contact offense and I am a Tier 3 and a Lewd and Lascivious with someone under 14 is 20 years. I am not saying those RC dont deserve a chance I just dont believe in their lumping everyone in based on the penal code alone. Someone can be like me never seeing an actual image of CP or someone who had a large Terabyte collection and we still get the same charge 311.11. There has to be a basis for fighting this in the courts. What can we do to fight this. The only reason I plead guilty was because I had the hope of the COR. If that is taken away then whay. Is this going to apply retroactively? They say this isnt punishment. Have them live it for a year and see what they say.

    • JC

      I just re-read the bill again for the millionth time and caught the point at the end of the section of 290.5 that talks about the COR. It states it will be repealed in 2021. So I guess that answers that. No more COR for me or most anyone else. I find it ridiculous when Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez-Fletcher, stated that she “hesitated to support” earlier versions of the tiered registry bill, but “felt much better” about the current version of the bill because it assigns all offenses involving children to Tier 3.
      288 offenses, lewd and lascivious under 14 years of age is a Tier 2. She doesn’t even understand it. Am I reading this correct????

      • Atheistically Yours

        She was a sexual abuse victim herself. I doubt she will ACTIVELY SUPPORT ANY registry repeal legislation!

        • David Kennerly, Poster Boy For Whatever Pisses You Off

          So she claims…

          • Margaret Moon

            Thank you for adding this, you saved me the trouble.
            She is also spouse of Nathan Fletcher whose claim to fame is Chelsea’s law. Oh! And his very lucrative position with Qualcomm, who just happens to manufacture the insides of “ankle bracelets.” He hasn’t won any of the elections he has run for recently… they need the press.

        • Tim Moore

          Well it looks like she thinks being a victim earns one a degree in sex offender management. I guess I am an expert in internet crime, because my credit card was once stolen off the web.

  4. Anonymous

    So they “felt better” about supporting a law that still applies lifetime registration to a broad group of people who’s crimes have varying degrees of severity and who have varying degrees of rehabilitation success, regardless of how it violates the federal constitution, being cruel and unusual, and the California constitution, blocking an individual’s ability to remain private.

    I’m happy some will find relief through this law, but it feels like they just chipped a piece out of the gargantuan, crushing concrete block that is SORA.

    This law changes nothing for me for now except for possibly enabling further, harsher additional punishments (Since I’ll be tier 3) with one hand while using this law as a shield from criticism with the other.

    Seems like pursuing the constitutional option makes more sense. I haven’t seen ACSOL’s official stance on the idea. May have missed it.

    • C

      For reasons unknown ACSOL is seekingly agnostic toward this bill. I guess they just don’t feel strongly enough one way or another, or, hopefully, have a strategy in mind.

  5. steve

    I guess all we can do now is pray Snyder goes in our favor and the whole “assigning tier levels without an individual assessment” is unconstitutional. I don’t think it’s time to worry yet.

  6. Nicholas Maietta

    I can’t support this bill the way it is. This goes against the original purpose of even going to a tiered system in the first place. Take down the f*ing registry already.

  7. JC

    Sorry to keep posting but I thought of another reality that came up. I have tried twice now to get my Contractors License. The second time appealing the decision all the way up to the administrative court. I was arguing it was NOT related to contracting and unless they can prove it did they could not deny my license. Well, the Attorney General ignored that fact and kept saying I hadn’t proved rehabilitation yet as I was still on Parole. In my argument, I didn’t have to prove rehabilitation since it didn’t apply it shouldn’t be a consideration in the first place. The judge told me that once I prove I have the certificate of rehabilitation to reapply and then they couldn’t argue the charge anymore. She set my next application date to when I would be eligible for COR. Well, guess that getting that License is out of the question as well. Thank you, California.

    • AlexO

      No, you should still be good. the CoR is still there. It just no longer attached to the registry. It’s general intent was to allow people to get state license like you’re trying.

      • JC

        But will attaining the COR get me off the registry???

        • AlexO

          No (but maybe it will be grandfathered in like 311.11 for expungements?) It will however allow you to much more easily get various licenses, provided you’re not trying to open a daycare center (registration will still forbid you from direct contact with minors).

      • hh

        I know we aren’t suppose to ask this and I should call Janice but my husband and I are in the midst of making some pretty life changing decisions. Selling our business and thinking of moving out of the country. We were hopeful that we wouldn’t need to move or have to move or even want to move. After reading this new potential law I believe it puts my husband into tier3 now. He plead to two counts of 289d at the same time. Can someone clarify based on how it reads now , is he tier 3 ? Our address isn’t listed , if it became listed , we would for sure be ran out of our community. We live next to a police officer and live in a very very conservative gated community , where their mercy doesn’t even reach you leaving your trash cans out for more than 12 hours.
        What’s odd is his static 99 is low risk.
        Maybe I am reading it wrong and it’s just saying if he had repetitive cases / charges he would be in tier 3 or all 289d are put in tier 3?
        I know , I know it can change but we might get the heck out of here sooner rather than later. We are truly trying to stay calm but it’s like telling someone you have 3 years before your life explodes after dealing with this already for almost 15.

        • AlexO

          It looks like currently he’d be placed into tier 3 which would be full internet disclosure.

          (Q) The person was convicted of violating paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) or subdivision (d), (e), or (j) of Section 289.

          His Static-99 doesn’t really matter as it’s either 6+, which is auto Tier 3 regardless of the charges, or it’s lower and doesn’t effect anything per this bill.

          • hh

            That’s what I thought. What a nightmare this is. I honestly never thought it could get any worse. Boy was I wrong.

          • hh

            I was hoping I was reading it wrong and only multiple but separate convictions would put him in tier 3. Guess I read it right.

        • Laura

          That is really unfortunate hh. I can definitely empathize with you. My husband will be put into Tier 3 as well; but not because of the offense. His offense is a Tier 1 offense; but his five year old Static 99 score is “6.” He has no other offense before or after (not even a traffic ticket). No internet disclosure at the moment; but we are bracing from him going from no disclosure to Tier 3 in a few years.

          What’s amazing is that when he goes in to register (I come with him every year), the detective always says how he’s amazed the judge made him register. Now what will be even more amazing is how my husband will soon be Tier 3. When his employer finds out, then how is he going to keep his job or even make ends meet?

          We both think this is a bad and arguably selfish bill. But we hope it helps at least some of you.

          • Not Really @ Laura

            It sounds like you may have the perfect case to test one of my favorite arguments.

            If the offender is so risky as to deserve a 6 score, then why is it there are no DNA hits to cold cases implicating him? The point would be to use the Freedom of Information Act to get the results of DNA database searches of his DNA that never implicated him. The reason being to balance (or cancel out) the 6 score.

            The spouse of the registrant might be able to make the best case because of damage to the marriage/family when he is assumed dangerous to the 6th degree. So it harms you more than him when you committed no crime. Crack the door then kick it open.

        • Not Really

          I don’t understand. Is his picture published? It would be very easy to find him even without the address. The general location is shown and any of your neighbors who looked in their neighborhood would likely see the listing and recognize his picture if they were that concerned. Have you tried to find him yourself on the registry site?

          Maybe they know but never mention it? Before moving, if it comes to that, you might ask your policeman neighbor if he knows about the registration and then take it from there. No, that won’t be easy to do, but moving isn’t easy either.

          • hh

            It has our zip code and he purposefully goes in there to register ,looking not himself , not clean cut at all. He’s a professional who wears a suit most days so I don’t think our neighbors would have associate him with that picture. We’ve lived here for 6 years and no one ever has to this point.
            I’m just heartbroken to know things can only get worse with this bill for so many. Like many other never a crime before and never one after in 38 years and now all the sudden he’s so scary and a threat our address needs to be put online ? I’m more scared for my own safety , I work from home , I already worry if someone somehow found out what they might do to our home and now having our address listed, I’m terrified.

    • M

      I just got my license after being denied 5 years ago. I was on probation at the time and being a SO they will always make things difficult. Just keep trying. I did get an expungement so legally they could not deny my license again.

      • Jf

        How where you able to get an expungment? I have been told that any sex crime was not expungable.

        • AlexO

          What was your year of conviction, which codes, and did you get probation? All these things play into if you can get an expungement or not.

  8. M Speechless

    So……CP misdemeanor is Tier 3……?

    A political legislative approach may be necessary, but after Colorado and elsewhere, there better damn well be some CA court cases brought to bring this whole cash cow registry system down.

    The legislature will never base this on empirical evidence and facts. Just a continuation of rampant unending myth, fear, punishment, and CYA BS.

    Good for Senator Scott Weiner, but by the time amendments get into these bills, it’s the same or worse than status quo.

    That’s about as positive – not much – that I (and we with me) can muster after seeing another red herring. Maybe I’ll feel better later, but as is, don’t bet on it.

    And we’re supposed to roll over in thanks to people in legislature who don’t even take the time to learn the facts.

    Ridiculous. Sickening.

    • ExpatRFSO

      I believe misdemeanor CP to be tier 1:

      (1) (A) A person is a tier one offender if the person
      is required to register for conviction of a misdemeanor described in subdivision (c).

      And no internet:

      PC 290.46
      (2) This subdivision shall apply to the following offenses and
      offenders:

      (U) A felony violation of Section 311.11.

  9. cool RC

    I agree. I can’t support this bill when we have a chance to remove registry.

  10. HopingForHope

    This is catastrophic for so many us whose good lives will be totally destroyed, not to mention spouses and children. So much for trying to live the good life. There’s no reward in that.

  11. KM

    Hurray, finally a real light at the end of this tunnel.

    • AlexO

      For whom?

      • NPS

        Definitely a light at the end of the tunnel for me. I was mandated to register under 290.006, which is tier 1. I also have a 17b and 1203.4; thus misdemeanor = tier 1. I’m still going to file the CoR in 2020 as that will be my 10 year mark.

        The problem is, there are very few of us in our community that will be tier 1. My guess is less than 20%. I truly believe that once this passes (and it will), the fight will still continue. It won’t mark the end of ACSOL.

        • deegoh

          People, I am sorry for what may be taking place in our collective lives; I have read the bill and plan to read it again for reassurance. It seems so odd that every time I randomly check for updates regarding the Tiered registry, I find something new. Currently I am unclear with the language in the bill, but being a praying man of faith, I have to believe that it has to be in our best interest. My belief has always prompted me to prepare for my removal from the registry. In terms of tiers, I had my 288 reduced to a misdemeanor despite being told that it was not possible; with that being said, I implore all of you to stand strong and develop a new found faith in the God of Abraham.

    • David

      KM, I think that light you’re seeing at the end of the tunnel is a train barreling right down upon you. 😩

  12. AlexO

    I’m honestly not too worried at the moment (I know it’s ironic considering I was one of the loudest voices during the last few rounds and am currently T3 like most). The bill still needs to pass a few more rounds and then we still have over three years to make changes (Janice said as much earlier).

    The politicians are spineless for any change that’s against public opinion, particularly something like this. So they have to crap all over a bill like this and make all these bold statements of how they’re looking out for the children. Then when changes occur in the future (likely through the courts), they can still have the illusion that they were fighting for the “right thing” and it was the courts and sleazy lawyers finding “loopholes” called the Constitution.

  13. Not Really

    Does “hesitated to support” the bill mean she would have voted against it and it would not have passed without the amendments? The natural followup would be, Would it ever pass without them?

    It is understandable that many will be disappointed with this version. There is a lot I don’t like about it either, but as it is, as someone already pointed out, we are all Tier 3s right now.

  14. Jack

    Yes the certificate of rehabilitation is dead. However I have a question. Here are the facts. I was convicted under 311.11 in 2013. My understanding of this bill is that if you have a felony violation of 311.11 you are a tier 3. However this does not apply if it’s a misdemeanor conviction. Since my conviction was in 2013 can I still apply for an expungement and reduction? If so, then this actually provides me some hope because it’s my understanding that you can’t get off the registry no matter what kind of conviction it is for 311.11.

    • AlexO

      Correct. The current bill would place you in tier 1.

      • ExpatRFSO

        @AlexO. When you say “Correct” what are you referring to? Jack states several things, not all correct. Firstly, a conviction of CP in California in 2013 would make it a felony. This bill would put him in Tier 3, not tier one.

        • AlexO

          I replied a bit too short-hand. I jumped ahead to where he talked about the reduction

          California didn’t put 311.11 on the no-expungment list until 2014. So a 2013 conviction is still eligible for expungment and reduction, provided you were granted probation and didn’t screw up. Once its reduced to a misdemeanor, it becomes a tier 1 offense under the current bill.

  15. DavidH

    I’m confused as hell:

    ” . During the hearing, Gonzalez-Fletcher stated that she “hesitated to support” earlier versions of the tiered registry bill, but “felt much better” about the current version of the bill because it assigns all offenses involving children to Tier 3.”

    I thought 288(a) were tier 2 offenses now, provided there are no repeats, etc.. Could someone shed some light on this please

  16. DavidH

    it’s this damn section on page 6 describing what a tier 2 is that is so damn confusing: Shit in plain English please what is a tier 2 offender???

    registration pursuant to paragraph (2) or (3).
    line 8 (2)  (A)  A tier two offender is subject to registration for a
    line 9 minimum of 20 years. A person is a tier two offender if the person
    line 10 was convicted of an offense described in subdivision (c) that is
    line 11 also described in subdivision (c) of Section 667.5 or subdivision
    line 12 (c) of Section 1192.7, Section 285, subdivision (f), (g), (h), or (i)
    line 13 of Section 286, subdivision (c) of Section 288, subdivision (f), (g),
    line 14 (h), or (i) of Section 288a, subdivision (b), (d), or (e) of Section
    line 15 289, or Section 647.6 if it is a second or subsequent conviction for
    line 16 that offense that was brought and tried separately.

  17. Atheistically Yours

    I refuse to get anywhere near “excited” about this piece of “gut and amend” legislation! The legislature is playing the legislative equivalent of “Surivior”, and I will be surprised if these newly “gutted and amended” legislation makes it to a “3rd Reading vote” by Friday (the deadline for bills to pass!). Then there is the Governor. A governor who won’t even CONSIDER PARDONING 290 registrants, sure as hell probably won’t sign any legislation that will get them off any “lifetime registry” (even if it is not until 2021!).

    So what is the hope here again?

  18. cool RC

    No, I think that is the TRAIN’S headlight coming toward us.

  19. Q

    This bill solves absolutely nothing. It addresses nothing specifically. This bill just shuffles the punitive deck of cards these people love to play with. It just makes things worse. It seems to me that totally destroying people is the opium for some people. The way this bill is will not reduce the amount of people to a manageable level.

  20. LS

    Wow, what a nightmare. I sure hope that someone will oppose this, to the Assembly and or the Senate!

  21. jo

    “no one will be removed from the registry without a “full screening” by local law enforcement”

    Again, pulling for Colorado, this is like someone throwing a drowning man an anchor

  22. Jm

    Yeah, trying to understand for sure CP misdemeanor 311.11(a) tier 1?

    Also trying to understand if in 2022 I’ll suddenly start being displayed on the Megan’s law site. Currently I’m not listed publicly.

    • ExpatRFSO

      Yes misdemeanor CP will be tier one and no internet.

      (1) (A) A person is a tier one offender if the person
      is required to register for conviction of a misdemeanor described in subdivision (c).

      And no internet:

      PC 290.46 (Defines who is on the internet)
      (2) This subdivision shall apply to the following offenses and
      offenders:

      (U) A felony violation of Section 311.11.

  23. David Kennerly, Poster Boy For Whatever Pisses You Off

    I’d say that we all got “played.” We got sucked into this process, agonized over what would turn out to be the best possible, yet completely unattainable, version while legislators got to bask in the warm glow of pragmatic and socially responsive “reform” and then, like Lucy pulling the football at the last moment, we end up possibly as bad, and perhaps worse (has someone done a thoroughgoing analysis of what this damned thing actually means?) than we were at the beginning of the process. We just got another blunt reminder that our time is worth nothing. That decades of our lives are without value and that other people can waste them with impunity.

    I watched a YouTube video of the July 12 Public Safety Committee hearing earlier today and was struck at the number of people who approached the mic and enthusiastically voiced their support for, what was then, SB421. These are people who gave their time and their resources to stand up, in good faith, to support a modestly better travesty of justice. Many were Registrants, or family members of Registrants, who have suffered for years the torments of small-minded injustice in the hope that sincerity and earnestness would be met with a modicum of humanity and intelligence. With this bill they will receive neither. I think that a very public rebuke of this bill from ACSOL, if it becomes law, may be in order. We do have a civil liberties constituency, small though it may be, but one that is definitely growing, who should be made aware that this law will fall very short of exacting any meaningful justice. No one should be under any illusions that it will be in aid of justice – though it cynically masquerades as such – and we will need to point it out for most to realize it.

    • Robert R.i

      David,

      You articulate it much better than I. I am with you. This is not reform. Yes, we got played. The facts show that there is a point of redemption. And registration for life is definitely punishment. If every person with a certain offense was an uncontrollable monster, then how is it the majority of us have lived in society for decades offense free?

      I am sure many of us like myself was never informed that they would have to register. And so many of us could ever imagine we would be subject to this public shaming.
      By the lawmaker’s statement it clearly demonstrates, the registry is PUNISHMENT!
      The registry is NOT about public safety.

      If I am doing something wrong come arrest me!!! But don’t keep punishing me for some that happened with my ex-wife in 1995. She even wrote a letter for my Certificate of Rehabilitation stating that having me on the website serves no purpose.

      But the state will never let so many of us free, even after we have blatantly demonstrated that we are rehabilitated.

    • Margaret Moon

      Totally agree, David!

      Civil Libertarian here! I believe that this version of the bill was always waiting in the background to be brought forth when most effective! The most important change is putting federal cp offenders in tier 3. These non-production, non-contact offenders are very lucrative!! The “task forces” that catch them don’t have to work hard because the software catches them. The feds fund these task forces and they are manned by local cops from local agencies. The suspects are easy to convict, the evidence is clear, the prosecutors can frighten them into accepting any plea bargain. This is profitable and a great path to promotion. They certainly are NOT going to admit that these non-contact/non-production offenders are not a threat to the public (see CASOMB, USSC, and the most well-known researchers) that would be shooting themselves in the foot. Or stepping on their own d—s!

    • Now angry & hostile. 😠

      David, I agree with you, too. Lawmakers continue to treat us like excrement and now we’ve totally been played. This Bill just makes things worse for the vast majority of us, not better.
      I’ll certainly think twice in the future before wasting my time, stamps and phone calls.
      The courts – though not that much better – seem our only avenue of redress.

  24. Jack

    @JM based on my reading of the law, yes. Misdemeanor child porn possession is tier 1. It is only tier 3 if charged as a felony. And no the bill stipulates very clearly only tiers 2 and 3 will be on it. If you have a misdemeanor CP charge you are good to go. And by go I mean off of this thing, if it’s been ten years since your conviction of course. By the way did you have it reduced to a misdemeanor? If so when?

  25. T

    I think they are using this bill as a game on registered citizens because they are not really letting anyone off the registry for the real stuff, but let those off that did something minor and harmless, this is not fair, pressure should be put on about the bill to include all registrants to file for petition to get off after 10-20 years regardless of tier levels, so they can move on with their lives untroubled and unmolested, and making it too much work for the law enforcement,and it’s unconstitutional.

  26. anon

    I think the key here was Lorena Gonzalez. She agreed to vote for it as long as any crime dealing with children went into Tier 3. Note what she said. She said she felt better knowing that crimes involving children went into Tier 3. She did not say, “According to the best research we find that the public is safer with these offenders in Tier 3.” Making laws is not about anyone’s feelings. Making laws — using the enormous power of the government — is about achieving a higher public purpose. It is not about making someone feel better. We have long believed that progress through legislative action is possible. And setting up a tiered system is clearly progress because some will get off the registry and I’m glad for them. But the registry is the original sin and it’s got to go and it’s got to go through judicial action. It won’t be easy, but we are making progress there too.

    • Now angry & hostile. 😠

      Serioisly, anon!?? “Making laws — using the enormous power of the government — is about achieving a higher public purpose. It is not about making someone feel better.” The whole point is that the Registries do NOT improve public safety in any way. And thier sole purpose IS to assuage the hysteric public and provide a false sense of security!!
      Put down your Dixie cup. Your Kool-aid is too strong!

  27. Nondescript

    For reference: A list of California Penal Codes that SORNA classifies as Tier 1

    236 False Imprisonment
    243.4(a)-(d) Cal. Penal Code § 243.4(e)(1) Cal. Penal Code § 261.5(c) & (d)
    Sexual Battery (victim 18 or older)
    Sexual Battery
    Unlawful Sexual Intercourse with a Minor (Misdemeanor)
    285 Incest22 (victim 18 or older)
    288.2(a)(1) Sending Harmful Matter to a Minor (Misdemeanor)
    288.4 Arrangement of Meeting with a Minor for Lewd and Lascivious Behavior
    288a(h)
    289(h)
    311.1
    311.2 Possession or Misdemeanor Offense
    311.3

    There are only 4 offenses that SORNA recommends be classified as Tier 3

    Kidnapping ( with intent to commit a sexual offense)
    Rape
    Attempted Rape
    Sexual Battery ( victim less that 13 yrs)

    (Anything not listed falls into tier 2. )
    The current bill before the California legislature is SORNA on steroids. And it is appalling.

    I understand the sentiment that currently every registrant in California is in tier 3 , but that is only partially correct. Currently, every registrant is categorized as low risk, serious or high risk ( not known to the public, but to law enforcement based on penal code offense, criminal history and probably static 99) . This bill aims to shuffle people around based on some new and improved model far harsher than federal and current State requirements and assign a new higher risk level for many, many registrants. It’s like Allstate suddenly doubling a premium by assigning a driver into a higher risk category based on a car accident 20 yrs ago. It wouldn’t stand. The biggest problem with this bill that I see is that it makes no reference to the registrants who have already been complying with all the registry requirements for years. Major due process violation in the making. I’m beginning to see where this is all headed. Now I KNOW we will prevail eventually.

    • Now angry & hostile. 😠

      Yes, nondescript, as they continue increasing the oppression, it becomes unmistakably PUNISHMENT!
      So yeah, lawmakers, keep this sh#t up – eventually, it will all backfire in a very big way. 😡

  28. Joe123

    These misguided morons shouldn’t have passed this bill in the current form. The bill needs to be gutted as it may make the situation worse for the country at this point. There is no going back now. The entire registry must be taken down ASAP.

  29. Chris F

    If this puts people on the public registry that weren’t before, haven’t we reached a point now in the legal system where that’s ex-post-facto even for sex offender registration? It should also violate Substantive Due Process to declare someone dangerous enough for a list when they weren’t before and didn’t have a trial to determine it.

    At least the long timeframe to implementation should give Janice time to file motions for those negatively affected.

    • AlexO

      Maybe? I mean, any changes post your conviction would seem like ex-post-facto, but it still happens all the time. Like, they’re removing CoR as a path out (the language in 290.5, which the CoR looks at for release, is being complete changed to now only look at tiers) but will it apply to everyone or just people convicted after it’s effective date and everyone else is grandfathered in similar to 311.11 being moved to the no expungement list? (people who were convicted of 311.11 prior to 2014 can still have it expunged while those convicted after cannot)

      Likewise if they try to institute some harsher treatment of people in tier 3 by having them now register more frequently. start placing stamps on driver licenses, or even placing people on active ankle monitoring (this occurred in one state for a blink of an eye before the courts shut down that BS). All this would be challenged in court under the 14th and ex post facto. (To clarify: non of these things are currently in the bill. I’m just using examples from other states) Unfortunately, most of this would first need to take effect before it could be challenged in court.

  30. HopingForHope

    I would like to add my confusion to the 288(a) question. Does the statement by Fletcher mean other amendments were snuck in that essentially makes ALL child-related offenses a Tier 3? If that’s the case, that is a serious game changer. I don’t know for sure, but it appears that the majority of registrants have child-related offenses. That would gut any opportunity for most of us to ever petition.
    Is this what happened?

  31. jc

    I’ve never been able to decipher legal documents. Been staring at the bill the last half hour and still confused as hell.

    What tier is 288.2(a)(1)? Currently have felony but will reduce to misdemeanor as soon as I can.

    Also, currently not on megan’s site at all. Will that change?

    Thanks.

  32. TS

    @Chris F – spot on!

    I still would like to know what’s driving this hard push, e.g. a) Gov Brown leaving, b) Legislative reelection next year, c) financial reward from Feds, or d) all the above.

    Changing the rules of a sport mid-season can be happen, but the rules of life and then going back to negatively apply them? No, not right.

  33. totally against public registry

    Janice, do you think this is the right time to get some RSOs together and sue for the cruel and unusual punishment aspect of the registry? Maybe if every state started what Colorado is doing, the tide will change!
    I don’t know. I just don’t think that leaving it up to states to decide our fate is going to work….

    • Laura

      Hmm…What about suing on behalf of the innocent families members. Probably the best would be on behalf of the Children of an offender, even adult children now, who where not a victim by a parent; but a victim because they can not or were not allowed to visit with their parents, have the parent partake in their life such as Birthday parties, sporting events, school events, etc. Parents who are unable to help house their offender child because of these laws. Spouses who lives have experienced danger, lost employment maybe police/public harassment due to these laws. And other close connected parties who’s lives, liberty and pursuit of happiness have been put in harms way by this/these laws.

  34. someone who cares

    I haven’t read the bill in depth, but I can’t imagine that all child related offenses would be Tier 3. That would put so many more on the public site and hence would make the public site unmanageable, something they wanted to avoid and change with this bill. She must mean serious child related offenses. I hope Janice will explain if this was a wrong and uneducated statement. I also hope that there will be enough grounds now to fight this registry and its added punishment without due process all together. When will these people finally look at the evidence that HAS to be presented to them. It can not just be ignored. It is as if an employer tells me I am not qualified because I don’t have a degree, but I have the degree right in my hands to show, and he just refuses to look at it???

    • AlexO

      It’s mostly correct but is a generalized statement. Single counts of 647 and misdemeanor 311.11 currently fall under tier 1 along with a few other charges. Tier 2 has several as well that are child related. But many have been moved to tier 3 which were previously tier 2 and even tier 1 (my 311.4a jumped from Tier 1 to Tier 3).

    • Chris F

      The testimony of family would definitely help a “cruel and unusual” case.

      It’s one thing for there to be evidence and testimony of experts during a fair trial to lead a judge to decide an offender needs restrictions that will affect his family life negatively, but it is completely unconstitutional for legislature to create blanket laws that take away discretion from the judiciary and punish everyone the same no matter the circumstances and individual. That violates so many Constitutional rights that people don’t believe it is possible…Bill of Attainder, Seperation of Powers, Cruel and Unusual, Substantive Due Process, and other rights affecting privacy, reputation, freedom of movement…etc…

  35. Edie

    Our family is quite new to this issue and trying to understand it all. Question….Rape was Tier II under SB421. Is it in Tier III under SB384?

    • AlexO

      Depends. What are the specific code charges?

      The quote from above is generalizing too much in that “all child related charges are tier 3”.

  36. Illinois Contact

    Isn’t it obvious now that there will not be any legislative relief through a tiered registry. Everyone’s obsessing of the minutiae of the latest amendments. The only hope is judicial action, like in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Colorado. I am sure that there would be many willing and suitable plaintiffs who can demonstrate harm/punishment. Allison Ruttenberg. the Colorado attorney, indicated in the conference call that she would be amenable to consult and contribute her notes/research. I am sure that the funding could be raised through a directed contribution appeal on this website (and NARSOL would probably coooperate). Yes, it will take time, but whatever. It’ll be less than the lifetime most of us are facing. Also, appeals may be decided in the meantime which well help Janice — put out the call and head for federal court!

    • Patsy

      How do we do this? As an individual or a group. So hard to understand and never get answers.

  37. 647.6

    I haven’t seen this question asked yet and can’t seem to understand the bill enough to decipher the answer myself. If I currently have an exclusion from the website, (single misdemeanor 647.6) will I still be excluded until the tiered registry kicks in, in 2021? I saw someone list something in the other thread about everyone being listed until the tiered registry kicks in. Thanks to whoever can help with understanding this.

    • AlexO

      All sections of the bill do not take effect until July 21, 2021. However, your single charge of 647 misdemeanor currently falls under tier 1 which won’t be listed on the net. So basically nothing currently changes for you other than being able to get off at the 10-year mark.

      And before someone points to the language of tier 2 internet portion and 647, Janice previously confirmed that this only applies to those who are tier 2 due to two separate convictions of 647. So that’s the best current understanding we have of this.

      I imagine once the bill is signed into law, Janice will answer more questions regarding specific portions. It’s just that currently it’s a waste of her time to speculate on something before it’s finalized.

  38. wonderin

    An ugly baby if I ever saw one. I guess the parents love it though. Ugg

  39. Patsy

    I don’t know why I bother commenting here. I never get an answer. But I will try again. My son’s offense is one count of child porn Fed conviction…no previous anything….nothing since. served six years….currently working, model PO…former College prof, now road worker….10 years supervised
    release three years into it…registration life, but not currently on Megan’s list Will he be now? So now…..he will be considered a tier 3, the worst of the worst???????? Someone please please please make me understand. He is not alone…..many many many who never intended or touched a child was in a sting that occured on what was supposed to be legal adult porn sites. How do we fight this.

    • Hopeful

      @ patsy… yes! Yes on internet in ca, yes lifetime registration, and yes tier 3. I’m a former registered nurse (2 bs degrees) with 1 felony cp conviction and it’s yes for me in all that too. The explanation is because it’s a broken system that is corrupt and ridiculous.

    • ConfusedAndTired

      It’s my understanding that if you serve under a year and aren’t listed it’s a misdemeanor so he should be ok…I hope someone verifies this for you! It’s frustrating how confusing all of this is!

    • Lake County

      Your question can’t be answered without knowing his exact charge. And remember that no one here can give you an exact answer, only our opinions. Since he is serving a federal conviction, nothing will likely change for him, but I’m not sure of that.

    • AlexO

      Unfortunately, that’s currently the case. Felony CP is currently tier 3. The bill doesn’t take into account the persons history, just their charges. Most likely one of the first things to be challenged in courts is the placing of people on tier 3 without direct evaluation of each individual. I believe the federal registry, SORNA, requires this as tier 3 is the worst of the worst. In the new thread Janice somewhat lays out the possible course of action going forward, and litigation sighting the 14th amendment, but only after it goes into effect (I don’t think you can really sue before goes into effect because “well how do you know this will be bad if it hasn’t happened yet?” type of BS). However, the bill can be further amended through legislation in the period between it being signed into law and actually taking effect.

      http://all4consolaws.org/2017/09/the-path-forward-for-ca-tiered-registry-sb-384/

    • ExpatRFSO

      Patsy, your son is in a similar situation as I am. As you may know, the way the California registry works with federal (or any out of state sex offense) is they compare the elements of the out of state or federal conviction and apply 290 as if the person was convicted of the equivalent crime under California law. Some time after 2001 PC 311.11, possession of CP, was elevated to a felony. I don’t recall what year but it has been mentioned on this website and I’m sure someone here can chime in. If it was still a misdemeanor at the time of the offense (not time of arrest or time of conviction) which sound like it could be based on the time line you described, then he should be placed in tier 1. If 311.11 was a felony at the time of offence, he should be placed on tier 3.

  40. ConfusedAndTired

    I am confused, Janice keeps mentioning that all felony CP posession (311.11) ends up in Tier 3, but I’ve read the bill several times…

    (1) (A) A tier one offender is subject to registration for a minimum of 10 years. A person is a tier one offender if the person is required to register for conviction of a misdemeanor described in subdivision (c), or for conviction of a felony described in subdivision (c) that was not a serious or violent felony as described in subdivision (c) of Section 667.5 or subdivision (c) of Section 1192.7.

    It says a felony CP possession can still be tier 1 if deemed nonviolent…I’m wondering why nobody has addressed this, including Janice? Can someone verify this?

    • Patsy

      You expressed this better than I did. SOMEONE PLEASE answer this question. It is like the bible which contradicts itself depending on who is reading and interpreting and personal bias…pick and choose what works for you.

    • AlexO

      No. Section C lists everything that is registerable. Tier 1 then gives out a bit of specifics of saying everything above that also doesn’t have these enhancements. Then Tier 2 and Tier 3 specify which codes fall into those categories. So Tier 1 is everything by omission from the rest; if you don’t see your code in another section, you’re likely Tier 1.

    • Eric

      That is a term that seriously needs to be addressed. My prosecutor kept insisting it is a crime of violence, yet both of my SO treatment counselor, one who has a Ph.D. clearly stated they are not violent acts.

      • AlexO

        It’s legal mombo-jumbo. The law doesn’t’ speak layman. They could very well categorize CP as “violent” due to the nature of the act within the images. It’s like 647.6 “Annoy or Molest a child”. By definition annoying someone is molesting (check Webster). But the average person thinks of molesting as physical and not taking pictures on the playground.

        • Not Really

          That is surplusage. “[A] construction making some words surplusage is to be avoided.” (Watkins v. Real Estate Commissioner (1960) 182 Cal.App.2d 397, 400, 6 Cal.Rptr. 191.)

          It wasn’t at the time, though. Only since then has molest adopted its nearly universal meaning of a 288 like offense. Jenkins follows the change in meaning in his Moral Panic.

          • AlexO

            Right. But remember a few months ago when another bill was trying to force ALL 647.6 to be disclosed on the net because “child molesters” where hiding? This fear mongering was actually written into the bill. So either the legislators themselves don’t understand the actual and legal definition of 647.6 (at least in misdemeanor cases) or they choose to ignore and purposely create fear to drive their own agenda. I’m guessing both.

    • screwed for life

      Section 290 (d) (1) (B):
      This paragraph does not apply to a person who is subject to registration pursuant to paragraph (2) or (3).

      Section 290 (d) (3): A tier three offender is subject to registration for life. A person is a tier three offender if any one of the following applies:

      (R) The person was convicted of a felony violation of Section 311.1 or 311.11 or of violating subdivision (b), (c), or (d) of Section 311.2, Section 311.3, 311.4, or 311.10.

      So yes, CP possesion is not included on the violent or serious felonies list in subdivision (c) of Section 667.5 or subdivision (c) of Section 1192.7, but that is superseded by it’s inclusion in Paragraph (3)(R), therefore all felony CP is Tier 3 and screwed for life.

      • David Kennerly

        Here is how California defines “sexual violence” as it relates to “child victims”:

        “When the victim of an underlying offense is a child under the age of 14 and the offending act involved “substantial sexual conduct,” the offense shall constitute a “sexually violent offense” for purposes of Welfare and Institutions Code section 6600 even though not accompanied by force or violence. Welf. & Inst. § 6600.1; People v. Superior Court (Johannes) (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 558.

  41. Bobby

    I told you that the tier system was a joke, and that it was going to put a lot of you in level 3, with out even considering risk assessment , just like they did here in Michigan long ago. Hopefully now when the 25th gets here, SCOTUS will deny Snyder and a bunch of us herein Michigan who were screwed by the tiered system for the past decade or more will finally be removed from the registry. On the other hand if they review it, and find it in our favor everyone will get relief from this unconstitutional train wreck.

  42. Eric

    Brilliant–the state will spend 70 million dollars to shuffle 110,000 names around with the same results.

    • AlexO

      Pretty much. They’ll shuffle things around and those few in Tier 1 will basically go through the same CoR process that pretty much the same people can go through now, but in lesser quantities. I don’t believe anything in tier 1 or tier 2 is currently different from what the CoR allowed. So they literally are going to flush money down the toilet to accomplish a net loss. It’s pretty baffling. It’s why I don’t think the bill will pass. Or at least in it’s current form. There’s no benefit to the STATE if it does. And a benefit to the state is the real reason for a tier bill, and not some sense of actual justice.

      • Curiouser

        And don’t forget, Alex, those few will be fully screened by those impartial denizens of local law enforcement and the ever-fair DA’s office. What a win! (dripping sarcasm).

        • AlexO

          That’s what I mean by the bill process to get off seems pretty similar to the current CoR. I mean, sure, it may be as easy as filing for an expungement, but they certainly don’t make it sound that way with that comment.

  43. American Detained in America

    this is what we get for people supporting the last version that was already so seriously flawed saying it’s better than nothing…for a vast majority of us, no, it’s not better

  44. Computer Nerd

    This article includes a good sample of reporting on the legislation and interesting piece of trivia on how it got back into the system.

    http://witnessla.com/dozens-of-bills-met-their-end-while-hundreds-passed-through-the-suspense-file-gauntlet/

  45. Stephen

    Hey guys still kind of confused is a single count of 288(a) tier 2 or tier 3 thanks

  46. MS

    By making felony possession (DA rarely doesn’t charge with a felony) Tier 3….the supporters OBVIOUSLY want the registry to grow, grow big and quickly. Watch it be double in size by 2030 thanks to pornography addiction.

    • ExpatRFSO

      For may years now DA’s have no choice in the matter. PC311.11 has been a felony (not a wobbler) for over a decade.

      • MS

        Actually PC311.11 is a wobbler…at least it was in 2012. Possession can be charged as either a felony or misdemeanor but is almost always charged as a felony. Since it is a wobbler…it can be reduced later through a 17b. Sometime before 2008 it was only a misdemeanor and that’s why you didn’t people listed on ML for the charge. Once DA’s were able to charge as a felony or misdemeanor, they almost always went for a felony. If your attorney could negotiate it down to a misdemeanor you were lucky. I was arrested in 2012 (3 files in a hoard of 1.5TB of legal porn) and the DA refused to negotiate down to a a misdemeanor. Said the felony mandate came from above him, his boss/bosses. Anyway, in 2016 I was able to get it reduced (17b motion) and now I’m no longer a felon. Expunged as well, possible because I took a plea deal before Jan 1, 2014. Straight felonies can’t be reduced, only wobblers which possession is (at least it was in 2012).

  47. Counting the days

    I am off probation in 3 months. I will be requesting reduction from felony to misdomeanor within 1 yr. My lawyer, court appointed phsyc. And even P.O. (off the record) said it should not be an issue to get it reduced. Q: does this mean if and when this dipshit law goes into affect 2021 , I would be tier 1?
    I guess I shouldn’t care about This F’ed up state , I only care about IML and Federal law, because that is what is going to burden me getting back to my family and job.

  48. Beth

    So, two questions. First my husband’s conviction is 288(a) Lewd and Lacivious Acts with a child under 14, read the SB 384 multiple times. I don’t understand if his conviction would be tier two or tier three. It was one conviction however, he was given a suspended sentence that he violated and sent to prison (1999- conviction date and 2006- release from prison) My second question is when this goes in effect, will it be ten or twenty years from conviction date or July 2021? Anyone can clarify I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks.

  49. Not Really

    Beth, it looks like Tier 2.

    http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billCompareClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB384

    It would be Tier 3 if a repeat conviction:

    (F) The person was convicted of violating subdivision (a) of Section 288 in two proceedings brought and tried separately.

    It is not listed in either Tiers 1 or 2, but it is listed in 667.5, and Tier 2 defines a listing there as a Tier 2 since it is not a Tier 3.

    Search here for 288 and then look for the (a) somewhere around it.

    http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&sectionNum=667.5.

    You’ll find: (6) Lewd or lascivious act as defined in subdivision (a) or (b) of Section 288.

    The time runs from release, so 20 years would be 2026:

    (d) A person described in subdivision (c), or who is otherwise required to register pursuant to the Act shall register for 10 years, 20 years, or life, following a conviction and release from incarceration, placement, commitment, or release on probation or other supervision, as follows:

    • JAB

      @notreally, Thank you for the 288 (a) info but I’m struggling understanding this. If you look at both the recent news articles on this site it states felony child molestarion, which is a 288 (a) is lifetime. What do you think? I think that’s a big question here. I keep seeing that they are tier 3s. Any input from you or anyone else would be appreciated.

      • AlexO

        Don’t go by quotes in the articles. They always over/undersell things. Most child related offenses are currently tier 3. Your husbands seems to be one of the few that’ll fall under tier 2.

        • JAB

          Hi Alex0,
          I know articles can be misleading, but Ms. Fletcher clearly reiterated all child offenses are Tier 3 with the passage. And 288 (a) is a child crime. Don’t you feel it’s a Tier 3 now? I sure wish you were right in saying Tier 2, but after her statement I just don’t think so.

  50. Janice Bellucci

    The Assembly just passed the Tiered Registry Bill (SB 384) by a vote of 42 to 22! The next and final legislative step is a concurrence vote in the Senate which should take place later today. An affirmative vote is expected.

    • AlexO

      Man, I’m so meh on this. It’s so bad that I kind of hoped it failed. While at the same it passing and then being amended to not be insane by the time it takes effect would obviously be a positive but there’s no guarantee it won’t actually get worse. At the moment, my biggest concern is that it might be amended further to include our job being listed and having to register more frequently. Both of those would be a killer for me emotional as well as actually, potentially, costing me my job. I know neither of these things are in the current bill, but it is a concern considering that’s how it is in many other states. And of course we’re all hoping SCOTUS will make this whole thing moot. That would be the ultimate justice, long overdue.

    • tom

      Hi Janice,
      Someone had already brought this up, but I was hoping you can enlighten me about the provision in the bill that makes all violators of section 288.2 tier 3 according to the bill section 290 (C)(x)…If one is convicted of 288.2(b), which does NOT involve child pornography as defined by the explicit definition of the assembly bill analysis, where it specifically says:
      “….x) sending harmful matter to a child that depicts a minor(s) engaged in sexual conduct;…”

      can my conviction of this 288.2(b)-which involved only sending harmful matter- be thus listed as a tier 3, even though it involved NO sending of such an act as defined above?
      Or will I need to take it to the courts to rectify this overextension of the bill?
      Thanks in advance for your feedback…

      • AlexO

        You’ll likely have to go to court. The bill doesn’t offer any individual analysis to tier people. It simply looks at the code in black and white. I think that’s why Janice mentioned in another thread that should the bill take effect as is (or worse), most people would have a case under the 14th Amendment. There’s going to be a slew of lawsuits. Guaranteed. I’d start saving money for a lawyer now while praying to whatever gods you choose that SCOTUS does the right thing this time around.

  51. ExpatRFSO

    This bill has passed both houses. On to the Governor now.

    Bill analysis and how each legislator voted:

    https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billAnalysisClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB384

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 *