ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings
Q4: 11/18 Recording Uploaded, 12/9 in Los Angeles [details]

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

California

CA: CASOMB Discusses Tiered Registry Bill

The California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) discussed the Tiered Registry Bill and registrant statistics during its monthly meeting today. The discussion included a detailed account of the history of the Tiered Registry Bill as well as its future.

Dan Felizzatto, the lead lobbyist for the Los Angeles District Attorney (DA), who was the bill’s sponsor, led today’s discussion. The lobbyist stated that the bill is the result of a “team effort” that included a diverse group including law enforcement, victims rights groups, Equality California and the ACLU. He noted that the bill began in January as Senate Bill 695 with Senator Ricardo Lara as its author. When Sen. Lara declined to move the bill forward, Sen. Wiener agreed to author Senate Bill 421, which had many of the same provisions. That version of the bill was stopped, however, on September 1 when the Appropriations Committee failed to release it from its Suspense File.

According to Felizzatto, the Governor persuaded the Appropriations Committee to resurrect the bill in the form of Senate Bill 384. As part of that agreement, Assembly member Lorena Gonzalez-Fletcher, chair of the Appropriations Committee, drafted new language which assigned most, but not all, offenses involving a minor on Tier 3.

CASOMB member Janet Neeley clarified that those convicted of PC 288(a) will be assigned to Tier 2. She estimated that up to 50 percent of the registrants in California have been convicted of that offense.

Felizzatto conceded that the bill assigns anyone convicted of a child pornography offense — including possession, distribution and/or production — to Tier 3. He added that he expects there to be an opportunity in 2019 to revise that part of the bill.

The Governor has not yet signed the Tiered Registry Bill, however he has publicly stated his support for the bill. The deadline for the Governor’s approval is October 15.

Also during today’s meeting, CASOMB member Brenda Crowding of the CA Dept. of Corrections stated that there are a total of 5,745 registrants on parole. Of that total, there are 2,936 parolees considered to be high risk. CASOMB member Neeley stated that there are a total of 105,122 registrants in California. Of that total, there are 76,228 in the community (not incarcerated). In addition, she stated that there are 16,359 registrants in violation and 6,557 registrants who are transients.

Join the discussion

  1. steve

    16000 in violation???Glad to hear cp offenses will have a chance to be lowered. I think all of this will be for not considering the way the pendulum has begun to swing.

    • michael

      i hope they will be lowered. the fact that a cp offense is tier 3/lifetime registration, which actual physical crimes can get 10/20 years is baffling to me.

  2. Not Really

    Thank you for the summary.

    6,557 registrants who are transients!

  3. Skeptic

    What CASOMB isn’t saying is that the “high risk sex offender” label is only good for five years offense free in the community using their own Static 99. The Static 99 Coding Rules even say “risk” is cut in half for every five years offense free in the community. The fact the tiered registry uses the Static 99 to classify someone into Tier 3 is completely inappropriate! Even giving a “high risker” the opportunity to get to lower tiers at 20 years is totally inappropriate because doing so gives the Static 99 more credit than it truly deserves.

    Five years is all that the Static 99 is good for. And even five years is pushing it, considering the bogus “risk factor” are derived from lumping all types of offenses together. If all type of offenses — both violent and non violent — are lumped together, then what is the Static 99 REALLY measuring? It’s comparing apples and oranges.

  4. Jim

    Thanks for the update Janice. It’s really encouraging to have you there keeping track of the moving target that is this bill. We love you.

  5. David

    The team “included a diverse group including law enforcement, victims rights groups, Equality California and the ACLU.” Did anyone else notice that one particular group of stakeholders was not invited to participate in this team effort? That’s right, no registered offenders were included. (Next up, we’ll have a discussion of racism and not invite any minorities! WTF?)

    • ab

      You forgot problems one and two with the group.

      1. It exists at all.
      2. Victims rights groups and law enforcement have any say in crafting legislation.

  6. Not Really

    It may be the wrong time to bring this up, but what about an amnesty of sorts for the 16,359 registrants in violation?

    Turn themselves in, plead guilty to failure to register and suffer the extended period before eligible to apply for removal from the registry. That would be 1 year extension or 3 years if misdemeanor or felony. You know, since it’s so important for public safety to be able to track them.

  7. Jm

    “Felizzatto conceded that the bill assigns anyone convicted of a child pornography offense — including possession, distribution and/or production — to Tier 3. He added that he expects there to be an opportunity in 2019 to revise that part of the bill.” Including misdemeanors? How does this make any sense? …

    • Roger

      Basic politics drives the method behind the madness. IMHO, there is NO WAY this tiered registry would ever have been able to pass without the high drama and political posturing and tsunami of absurd amendments. There was just too much inertia that needed to be absorbed when the cops and courts decided they wanted it and walked directly in front of the 70-year-old pendulum to bring it to a stop and then reverse it.

      IMHO, the amendments are a necessary CYA for the politicians who supported it and who are worried about telling their constituents in next year’s election that–after decades of saying only a lifetime registry would prevent registrants from pouring through the streets looking for innocent victims–they suddenly received an epiphany that the tiered registry was a good idea. Think about it–there was an amazingly short period of time between when the cops and courts decided they wanted tiers and pressured the politicians to bring back to life MULTIPLE TIMES a bill that died.

      As I said before and will continue to say, once the elections have passed and the spotlight on the tiered registry fades and Business as AbNormal returns to the capitol, we will successfully be able to work to remove the worst amendments. In fact, I believe some of those amendments will suddenly and quietly evaporate in low-key ways in 2019, since most were not intended to be anything but temporary protection for politicians.

      Remember the #1 thing many of us forget that is driving this 180 degree turnaround: the cops and courts want the registry to shrink because it costs them too many resources to deal with it now. They must have used enormous political capital to get this resurrected multiple times and passed. I believe they will continue to do to so to clean it up in 2019, not to help us, but to shrink the registry for their own good. It would make no sense at all for them to use all that political capital to get it passed and not fix it before it takes effect.

      Of course, the registry will always be fundamentally unjust, but IMHO the panic I see among registrants will prove to be mostly unwarranted. It’s not like the tiers will take effect the day after it is signed. We have YEARS to clean it up.

      Let’s calm down, be patient, follow Janice’s sage advice, and work together for our futures using legislation, the courts, and sharing our stories carefully and appropriately. Doesn’t that sound better than panic?

      That’s In My Humble Opinion as a tier 3, of course.

      • Matt

        Since I signed my plea deal, the laws/rules have changed a total of six times. Every time I get close to relief the rug gets pulled out. There is not a single thing in my plea deal that is still current or valid. Nothing. Zero. As of this last amendment to 290, what’s left of my life is totally destroyed. I cannot fathom how making the publicly available website twice as big as it is now, and monitoring twice as many people in a higher tier, reduces the resources required. I understood your post. You think all the amendments will magically disappear in the next three years. I hope you’re right, but I think that’s totally unrealistic. You say law wants the registry to shrink. That isn’t true. What they want is what they’ve always wanted: More money. And they just justified bigger budgets. Panic seems totally appropriate from where I’m sitting.

      • Janice Bellucci

        @Roger – You have made some very good points in your comment above. When it comes to legislation, it sometimes helps to think of everything you want as a loaf of bread. If you know the political process, you know that you rarely get the whole loaf of bread in your first legislative victory. You fight for every slice of that loaf and in the end you count the number of slices you have, not the number of slices you don’t have. If CASOMB member Janet Neeley is correct, 50 percent of the people on the registry today have been convicted of PC 288(a) which places them on Tier 2. In addition, about 20 percent of the people on the registry today have been convicted of a misdemeanor offense which places them on Tier 1. Together, that means you have won 70 percent of the loaf of bread. You will have another opportunity in 2019 to fight for the remaining 30 percent of the loaf which of course includes those convicted of offenses involving child pornography. In order to be successful, we all must work together starting NOW to educate the public as well as the public officials.

        • Harry

          Janice said, “In order to be successful, we all must work together starting NOW to educate the public as well as the public officials.” This is done with one bit at a time. Example, Every time I see a news article about RCs and able to comment I leave them with the correct statistics. Recently I was on a site, there was foul mouth’ hang-em high’ all RC commenter and after I imputed the correct information this person settled down and said “he will check on the information and thank me for bringing it to his attention.”

          • AJ

            @Harry:
            Your method is *the* method that we all need to be doing. The hysteria drum has been pounded for so long, that’s the only beat people hear. We need to replace that drumbeat with truth through facts. Court cases will not do it, as it will typically be viewed as “an activist judge” or “legislating from the bench.” Facts, especially from the State governments, are what will change the conversation, and thus the beliefs, of people. Not arguing with people or telling them they’re wrong. Merely cite the truths and let them find out for themselves. Rest assured there will be a number of people who read the posts, check out the data, and get a changed mind…and never make one comment on a board anywhere. As someone else recently posted, you never know if a friend or relative of a judge or legislator will read something and manage to have helpful influence.

            There’s a tipping point in our favor out there. We’re nearing it, and could well soon go over it.

          • Not Really

            This is a weapon everyone can wield. It isn’t even necessary to spell or type well. Just copy the NY Time op/doc link and paste it in.

            When Junk Science About Sex Offenders Infects the Supreme Court

            https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/12/opinion/when-junk-science-about-sex-offenders-infects-the-supreme-court.html?mcubz=3

            Do this every chance we get because even if there aren’t any ranting vigilantes at the time, it gives ammo to those who will need it in the future.

            In fact, I wish Janice would make a sticky so it would be easy to find.

          • Lake County

            The one thing all these negative and illiterate comments that are posted at the end of news articles are missing is any links to “facts”. When any of us post comments with links to real facts, we go a long way to change opinions of those people that are intelligent and open to learning the truth. I’ve noticed that when one of us posts a factual comment (with links) on a news story first, it definitely changes the tone of all the comments afterwards. When the comments starts with castrate or put a bullet in them all, then everyone follows suit with the same BS. But when one of us posts a factual comment first, the crazy people seem to be afraid to contradict the facts we post. Our comments on the internet make a big difference in public opinion. Unfortunately, many sites make posting comments difficult without having a Facebook page or signing up as a member.

        • 7mot

          I still would like to see something in the chagnes to the bill to reflect that difference in the 288(a) between those who actually had contact with a minor under 14 and those of us (Me included) who were caught in a sting by the police. My attempted 288(a) could not have been completed since there was not a 14 year on the other side of the chat line. Is there anything unreasonable about this way of thinking?

          • Not Really

            I agree. Attempted 288(a) should be Tier 1. Even if they were on the public registry like 647.6, off after 10 years.

          • Joe

            I will try (gasp!) to recreate their logic…

            First of all, 288(a) involves ANY kind of conduct with a person under 14 (I am confused why you were convicted of Attempted 288(a) for attempted conduct with a fictitious 14 year old, but whatever). Including something as minor as brushing the back of one’s hand across the fully clothed bottom of a 13 year old.

            That said, of course, a person who engages in sexual intercourse with a 13 year old will get a much harsher sentence (years / decades in prison) than a person going to meet a non-existent 13 year old (usually probation?). As well they should, in terms of the punishment. Because one crime is clearly worse than the other.

            But let’s remember that the registry is not one little bit about punishment (heeeee…), but about public safety and risk of re-offense. And here I am thinking that the thought process is that someone who engages in intercourse with a 13 year old is most likely a situational offender, whereas the person who goes to meet the (fictitious) 13 year old, a complete stranger targeted over the internet, in order to engage in illegal activity – does so with one purpose and one purpose only.

            That is supported by the analysis part of instruments like the Static-99. Not wanting to get into a discussion about its validity at this point, but the meta-analysis finds that persons who had a stranger victim, and those who had a non-contact crime, re-offended (with any kind of sex offense) at a greater number than those who had a contact offense with a known victim.

            Not my opinion – that is the reason the Static-99 gives an extra point to non-contact and stranger options. Simply put, the grandfather who rapes his 13 year old granddaughter has a lower rate of re-offense after a lengthy prison stay than the guy who contacts a 13 year old over the internet and shows up with condoms and lubricant. While the grandfather’s crime is much worse, without a doubt.

            If one were to subscribe to the theory that registering a criminal increases public safety, then yes, it would make more sense to require such a person to register for longer / for life.

            Of course, it has been well proven that the registry does not achieve its goal of increasing public safety. If it did, then every criminal would be required to register in this fashion. But that is a discussion for another day…

            • Not Really

              This is a very good article on online offenses.

              Okay, let me take this risk assessment and Internet sex offenses in another direction. Specifically, Seto, Hanson, and Babchishin (2011) recently published an article reflecting their review of numerous studies. They found:

              Approximately 1 in 8 online sex offenders (12%) have an officially known contact sexual offense history at the time of their offense;

              Approximately one in two (55%) online offenders admitted to a contact sexual offense in the six studies that had self-report data ; and

              4.6% of online offenders committed a new sexual offense of some kind during a 1.5- to 6-year follow-up . (2.0% committed a contact sexual offense and 3.4% committed a new child pornography offense.)”

              http://www.corrections.com/news/article/29091-the-problem-of-accessing-cybersex-risk

              But these aren’t the sections of the Penal Code I prefer to concentrate on. To me the only important one for our purposes is 290.

            • Matt

              actually Joe, It’s a lot more simple than that: It’s about money.

              • Joe

                So you are saying that they (law enforcement) got one Senator to write this bill (don’t even remember his name), when he dropped out, got another Senator to write this bill, when this bill got stuck, got the same Senator to “gut and amend” one of his bills and got it passed… a bill, that would drop tens of thousands immediately and over half of formerly lifetime registrants off the registry at some point?

                To get more money? When all they had to say “this registry is growing exponentially, and us administering it for the rest of these people’s lives is all that is standing between your children having real happy childhoods and being sexually abused in the worst way? Give us more money to save your children from inevitable and terrible abuse, and give it to us now!”

                Sure, that makes sense….

                Is this bill perfect? No. Does it “throw some people under the bus”? Yes. But I did not hear much opposition from you before you ostensibly became one of the people under the bus.

                The registry is unconstitutional. This bill does not change that. If it offers some relief to a lot of people (some who have been on it for 50-60 years), on the way to abolishing it, that cannot be a bad thing.

                • Matt

                  I tried to respond to your post a couple of night ago, but I routinely get blocked by the moderators. I will make this is simple and non-offensive, as I possibly can. Your fatal error here is that you’re assuming that DA’s officials, and elected judges will actually let Tier 1 and Tier 2 people off the registry. There may be a few T1’s that have misdemeanors from 30 years ago that get lucky. The rest of them are in for a big surprise. If you have to get permission to be removed from punishment that isn’t constitutional to begin with, you are starting from behind the 8 ball. And yes, they want more money. And they just justified it. You see, they have no intention of letting people off the registry; which will make it bigger, not smaller. And all these newly dangerous T3’s will drop the hammer on the budget process.

        • hh

          Janice ,

          Can we start a really hard push on donations to help contribute to our cause ? I think if we knew how much we all donated monthly and what your goal was each month to better defend us , we could all make a better effort to skip that cup of Starbucks and donate to the organization. We are sending over $100 right now , who else can contribute today ?

        • Benny

          Unity!! Thank you Janice for your words of wisdom along with your post Roger! It’s post like these that developed encouragement and hope. We can eventually take this down one brick at a time. Thank you!

        • Matt

          How embarrassing for me……I was under the false impression that you would be absolutely furious about what just happened. Instead, it seems that you’re at least mildly optimistic. I was hoping that this would be the straw that broke the Camel’s back; that we would finally try to go to federal court. They took an unconstitutional, horrible law…….And made it more unconstitutional, and worse than it was before. But many here seem to think this is a “success”. Well, it was definitely the last straw. I just didn’t realize I was the Camel. I guess the joke’s on me. (and a several thousand other people) I wish you all the best. I know your intent is good. But when these people sucker punch you the next time, and they most definitely will, don’t say I didn’t warn you.

          • Joe

            First of all, I think you over-estimate the influence this organization and its leader has had in this process.

            This bill has the potential to relieve tens of thousands – with convictions dating back decades – from registration. There were ALWAYS some people being left on the registry, being “thrown under the bus” was the term most often used. My memory is not what it used to be, but I do not remember your vocal opposition to this bill before this last set(s) of amendments changed your personal situation. While that is understandable – at the end of the day everyone is in it for themselves – I am viewing your opposition to this new situation in context.

            In another comment you stated that PC 290 has been amended numerous times since your plea and nothing is like it was. Well, join the club. Don’t remember what changed for you. Got bumped to Tier 3 / lifetime? You were lifetime before this bill. Getting put on the web site? Again, join the club. There are people on this web site with convictions from 50 years before the internet was ever invented. There are people on this registry who stopped registering with an expungement, only to have to re-register after a new law. The ONLY thing constant about PC 290 is that it is always and forever changing. Retroactively.

            I feel bad for anyone for whom this bill makes things worse. But your willingness to deny tens of thousands possible relief because 290’s never-ending retroactivity is catching up with you – tens of thousands who have experienced the same injustice possibly much much longer – is not very attractive in my eyes.

            I firmly believe that Janice is doing what she thinks is best for most, assuming that there is much that can be done. Nowhere has she stated that this is the last hurrah. Nothing about this tiered registry means that she cannot attempt to slay the beast at the federal level. She has stated this goal repeatedly, in public. It is comments like yours that may make her change her mind, I am afraid.

          • dohow

            Your pain is felt, however, this law could not possibly be worse if 40% of the registrants can be removed. I don’t know your situation; I can only assume that the new law as it is currently written does not benefit you but having a chance to be removed versus not is always better.

            • Matt

              Dohow, you’re assuming that the 40% will get removed. That’s absolutely not going to happen. They have to apply (read beg) and pay money, (that most don’t have) and then hope the DA won’t contest it, (which they will in most cases) and then get an elected judge to let them go. Good luck with that. This whole thing was a scam. And our group collectively fell for it for the most part. Not that we really ever had a say in the outcome anyway. Think about it. Jerry Brown brought it back from the dead. It was dead because it’s going to cost a lot more than the current system. Why would it cost more? Because it’s going to get bigger. So by doing what he did, he circumvented the committee that stopped it for budgetary reasons. Neat trick. Then, the literally passed it in the middle of the night, on a Saturday morning, after the normal legislative process had expired. If you can’t see that there is a bait and switch scam there, I don’t know another way to show you. The only thing that just happened was a nice rearrangement of the chairs on the deck of the Titanic. And the only actual relief the overwhelming majority of registrants, nationwide, will find, is at the Supreme Court level. The sex offender laws are unconstitutional. Our group just walked into a bear trap. And most did so willingly.

              • Roger

                Matt, IMHO you are absolutely wrong. The 40% WILL get removed. That’s absolutely GOING to happen, and I’ll tell you why.

                Your thinking is colored because the bad deal you got. I’m sorry you did, but join the crowd. Not one of us on the registry could have known the hysteria that politicians would create during the past 30 years to get votes, resulting in the lifetime registry. And many registrants, especially the CP registrants, are getting a raw deal with the CA tiered registry as it is currently written.

                So, IMHO, you have a choice:

                (1) Continue to spread your poison of DESPAIR, ranting against cruel reality, PRETENDING you are an expert on California and Federal politics and law and strategy while lecturing everyone with your uninformed ideas; PANICKING as though the law will take place tomorrow, assuming that this will be the first law to be IMMUNE to change; sharing your black-and-white EXTREMIST viewpoint; believing the MAGICAL THINKING that all we need to do is trust the high-level courts to save us; creating a hyper-paranoid CONSPIRACY that law enforcement and the DAs spent big-time political capital to secretly INCREASE THE REGISTRY and make more work for themselves (didn’t you ever hear of Occam’s Razor??); and lashing out against those who disagree with you and see things differently than you.

                OR

                (2) Get HOPE by working with ACSOL, led by an expert in sex offender law who creates REALISTIC strategies that take into account how politics and law creation ACTUALLY WORKS. Also, subscribe to the action alerts emails and take part in our incremental change toward justice and fairness.

                I choose hope, as do many registrants who support ACSOL. I hope you choose hope also.

                ACSOL has made a huge difference at a grass-roots level.

                Before ACSOL, NO ONE fought against anti-registrant bills.

                Before ACSOL, no one told legislators about the truth of sex offenders, of the knowledge that the CA Sex Offender Mgmt Board had gathered but was ignored, and many other things.

                Before ACSOL, legislators had never met registrants face to face and heard their stories, and how low-risk registrants’ lives were damaged.

                Before ACSOL, there was no united voice for registrants to write and call on particular bills and issues.

                The work ACSOL did had a major part in preparing legislators to discuss a tiered registry this year. Without ACSOL, it is very probable it would have been at least two more years before it passed.

                THEREFORE, the 40% WILL get removed because:

                (1) ACSOL will continue to have a positive effect on bringing justice to registrants. ACSOL will fight to remove the bad amendments from the registry.

                (2) I predict that your paranoid conspiracy theory will vaporize when you see law enforcement and judicial lobbyists push to remove the bad amendments also, not because they like us but because they are becoming increasingly overloaded by registration overhead.

                • Matt

                  Roger, I find it ironic that if I spoke to you the way you speak to me, the moderators would block me in a heartbeat. That said; just a couple of points: You told me that the 40% absolutely would get off, and that it absolutely would happen. You even used CAPS. (wow.) Then you told me that you’d tell me why. Your “why” is that ACSOL will continue to fight. I believe that’s true; they will. But I am not going to wait around and get kicked in the teeth any longer. I’ve had all the fun I can stand. You just spent a lot of time calling me a bunch of names, told me I was pretending to know things, (nice way to call someone a liar by the way) and that I was spreading poison, theories, etc. Then you called me an extremist. okay; whatever. The fact is that I do subscribe to the alerts. I participate in these forums. I do donate to ACSOL. And I take an active role in trying to support people in similar situations. I just don’t happen to think that spreading a bunch of false hope is a great way to approach a problem. I am acutely aware of how law enforcement, and lawmakers behave. You have no idea who your calling a liar, or what my experience is, so you should consider the notion that maybe, just maybe, I know a little bit about what’s happening here. I’m sorry that I can’t be a cheerleader for a newly amended law that has totally and completely shattered what was left of my life. And I’m sorry that I don’t trust the same people who created this abortion of a law to amend it over the next three years in a positive way. This has nothing to do with whether I trust Janice and Chance. This is about the fact that politicians cannot be trusted. Ever. I listened to the phone conversation Janice and Chance put on last night. They were very clear; they will try to make it better. And I believe that they will try. But I do not believe they will prosper. I am making alternative plans. Janice said it herself in last night’s phone conversation. There is a very clear equal protection issue here. But she doesn’t want to go to court over it. That means she believes in the legislative process. Good for her. I don’t doubt her intent. But I disagree. It’s not about disrespect or poison. It’s about a difference of opinion. And the consequences for assuming it’s all going to be okay are too steep for me to stick around and cross my fingers.

                  • Roger

                    FIRST, A MESSAGE TO YOU SILENT READERS: I say keep hope. Many of you have been unfairly categorized by this bill, such as CP registrants. Don’t give into despair. You are not alone. ACSOL will be fighting for you.

                    And remember how many times terrible bills and residency restrictions were about to make life unbearable: ACSOL stomped many of them out!

                    We have time! The tiered registry is not going into effect tomorrow or next year or the year after. We have a few YEARS to clean it up.

                    People like Matt have said ACSOL couldn’t have a big impact, but it has!

                    Let’s focus on the actions Janice recommends and follow her advice. I guarantee you’ll feel more hope when you listen more to the experts than the naysayers.

                    We’re all in this TOGETHER!

                    TO MATT: My issue with your posts about the heavily-flawed and unfair tiered registry bill is not that I don’t think any of your viewpoints have any merit. It is the way you come across like a freight train of melodramatic despair. You don’t seem to realize the negative effect you have on the many silent readers of this website.

                    Lots of people have told their negative opinion of this bill, but most don’t do it in the scorched-earth, end-of-the-world way you have done.

                    I don’t always agree with what others say. For example, Mike R and I have gone loggerheads at times. But at least he and most others give some analysis to their thoughts and don’t always piss all over opinions that go against theirs.

                    If every member of ACSOL were as obsessed as you with a there-is-no-hope viewpoint, then there would be no ACSOL because we’d all be hiding in our metaphorical caves, hoping the legislators would magically stop coming after us with bad laws.

                    Since the moderators of this website obviously are not completely blocking you and allow you continue to blast negativity, I will sometimes give the opposite view when I think it is needed to counter your downer views. I don’t write often, but I will offer a message of hope based on a more optimistic and high-level view as I see it. My opinions may not always agree exactly with ACSOL’s official stand, but I give them to encourage the many silent readers of this website who want hope and an alternative view.

                    So, I ask you to tone it down for the sake of others.

                    • Matt

                      Roger: What I want is for us to get into a fight; together. A big fight. We need to stop coming to the clowns on our knees, talking about how we are not all that bad. We need to sock it to them. We need to rise up. That’s what I want. And the only way I know to do that effectively is through the courts. Not through the legislature. Nuff said.

                  • Benny

                    Well said Roger! Thank you!

                  • Roger

                    Matt, you may be surprised to know that I agree with you. We DO need to fight in the courts, although I disagree that the courts will magically save us alone–there must also be a change in law and cultural attitudes (as you can see in the history of black Americans fighting for their rights–it wasn’t just the courts that got them civil rights!). ACSOL already is in the courts, mostly at a local level, but also a Federal challenge to International Megan’s Law. I’m sure Janice will take on higher-level cases eventually, but that requires significant resources. Do you know any skilled attorneys who would be willing to volunteer their time to work with ACSOL?

                    • Matt

                      Roger: Yes. I do. And I have also offered to donate my time doing fundraising for the cause. But only if the cause is a fight. I will not participate in some dog and pony politics show where a part of a group gets sacrificed for another part. If we are going to fight the registry as a whole, because it’s unconstitutional, I’m in. And I know talented people who would be too. But if we are begging for scraps from politicians…….I’m absolutely not going to participate in that.

              • New Person

                If the registry is supposed to be a civil item, then why are there DA’s and judges involved to re-visit a past conviction?

                Why is there a carte blanche to deny de-registering? Why is treatment involved? They can’t use treatment as a guise for punishment. I fail to see a direct path off the registry unless you go above and beyond being a saint. That seems quite ridiculous. Not incurring any more judicial problems isn’t good enough. Just how perfect are these legislators, judges, and DA’s for their lives?

        • JP

          Interesting analogy. I definitely feel like this is a “loaf of bread situation” as well. Except that the loaf of bread I am a part of just got warmed up, dipped in pig fat, slathered in BBQ sauce, and thrown on the floor in front of a pack of rabid dogs. But hey, as long as the 288’s get off, the 311’s can hope for an amendment? Is that the logic here? Seriously?

      • Neil

        Well said, Roger.

      • reality check

        CASOMB determined what the tiers were and set in stone at the start and Wiener said the experts and law enforcement determined these tiers. Later it got hijacked by another legislator not the experts.correcting themselves.

  8. Q

    Brenda Crowding of the CA Dept. of Corrections said “there are a total of 5,745 registrants on parole. Of that total, there are 2,936 parolees considered to be high risk.”

    This doesn’t jive. These numbers look way off. If empirical studies have found that overall 1% or less of all people forced to register will not go on to commit another crime considered sexual then how is she coming up with these numbers? It sounds like she is either making them up or their method of determining risk is flawed, and we know their method has been called junk science by many people. This risk assessment is is witch doctor mumbo jumbo at best for two reasons. First of all these people can’t predict the future, no matter how god-like they think they are. And second, they are incapable of knowing what’s in a man’s heart, which brings me back to number 1, because people change over time; this is a axiom. Why does everyone seem to see these things except these people? This tiered registry is just another hideous twist in the hideous lie that is the need for a registry.

    • Follow the $

      The Static-99, a flawed tool already, causes them to be high risk. Nothing else is used to judge their risk to reoffend.

  9. DavidH

    50% on the registry are for 288(a); that’s what this was all about the excessive and zealot use of 288(a) by prosecutors that snared many of otherwise good folk! you get charged with this and you really have but one choice and that is to strike a deal: or chances all you’d have to mount a rigorous offense against someone you care about, including family; suffer devastating humiliation going through a very public process; or face the almost certain consequences of a loss: I never spent a day in jail for this, not even arrested, but had I not plead I’d still be in prision

  10. American Detained in America

    I’m still trying to figure out how intercourse with a 13 year old gets you on Tier 2, but an internet sting in which there was no attempt to meet the fictitious minor gets you on Tier 3. Once again, no logic, just hyperbole and hysteria.

    • AJ

      Probably because stiff laws about anything to do with the Internet are all the rage. Just like certain drug laws were out of whack during that lost cause.

      • AlexO

        Could be worse. You could be brown, have a beard, and wear a turban. You don’t even need to commit a crime to be blacklisted.

        Overreacting on nothing but emotion is a huge flaw in our species. And we’re all guilt of it, at one time or another.

    • DavidH

      @American detained in America

      adult intercourse with a 13 year old isn’t a 288(a)

    • Tim Moore

      Intercourse with a 13 year old does get one on tier 3. 288(a) offenses do not involve penetration.

      • Joe

        If it isn’t PC 288(a), what then is the applicable PC Section for a penetration offense with a a 13, 12, 11 year old? And before 2010, before PC 288.7, with a person 1- 13 years of age?

    • Matt

      Because they can swell their budgets and earn more money. That’s it. Simple.

  11. michael

    so… child pornography is tier 3, which is life registration, yet most physical convictions are only tier 2 which is 20 year registration? i’m not understanding how that makes ANY sense whatsoever.

    • DavidH

      @ Michael

      I’m not defending the law. But people are throwing out a lot of crap about 288(a)’s. Rubbing an elbow, if they believe it’s with sexual gratification can get you a 288(a).

      So in their logic who’s the greatest threat: someone who spends hours at a time in front of a screen fantasizing over little kids, or uncle Bob catching a cheap thrill!

      • norman

        “someone who spends hours at a time in front of a screen fantasizing over little kids”..fantasizing doesn’t create victims, Uncle Bob does..

  12. USA

    Uh, sexual intercouse is Tier 2? Your lucky. I have a 14 yo old and they are clearly immature and not capable of making rational decisions. Your comments sounds like you think it’s ok. I think I would be more careful with comments. As noted 100 times, there is time for amendments!

    • USA

      Internet sting? Are you suggesting it was their fault? I’m lucky I didn’t get caught or charged with more. If this had been OC, they give out 25-60 years like it’s Xmas! As noted, I doubt anyone registering was caught for their 1st offense. Good luck and change your mindset

      • Lake County

        USA,
        Yes it was my 1st offense doing anything wrong and I didn’t know it was wrong as the 9 pictures I was convicted of having did not match the description of what was CP in the Federal or State Penal Code. You sound like all the other misinformed public that says people convicted of sex crimes got away with it a 100 times prior to being caught.

        • Not Really

          You don’t have to answer, of course, but this is a very big deal in my book. CP is the perfect crime for law enforcement because everyone who hears about it must conjure up the most vile images in their own minds and thinks what else could it be but guilty?

          Did you have a jury trial and did the jury conclude it was child porn after viewing the pictures? If so, is that because they would think it child porn or did the DA convince them it was under the law?

          This is a very dangerous law with secret evidence that could trap anyone as easy as it is to plant on a computer. Seriously scary.

          • Lake County

            My case was weird. Had 15 pictures, judge said 9 were CP in his view even though pictures were no different that what was being sold in a bookstore a few blocks away from the courthouse. I was offered 4 months min security jail (with all my appeal rights intact) if I let judge find me guilty based only on the prelim hearing or I could risk 18 years prison if I took it to a full judge or jury trial. Since judge said he thought the 9 pictures qualified as CP and since I was clueless and took the bad advise of my attorney, I accepted the trial by Judge based only on the testimony of the police report and 9 photos. I appealed as far as I could, but I was unable to get any of the higher courts to even look at the photos. I also learned quickly that the police can come into your house and search without a warrant or permission if they are tricky enough at the law. The judge agreed that they entered without a warrant, but that it was okay because they said they were only securing the scene while they were actually searching for evidence while an officer was with the judge for 2-3 hours until they decided they had enough evidence to convince the judge to sign the warrant. So the entire time I was kept waiting in my home for their warrant to eventually arrive, they said I was not under arrest and I was free to go, but 2 hrs later when I finally stated I wanted to leave to get an attorney, out came the handcuffs while we were still waiting in my home for that warrant to arrive. I was also bummed to find out that the two tape recorders the cops carried were turned off before anything was said (or perhaps deleted) that would have proved that they were searching my house before a warrant was signed. And now I’ve gone from being unlisted for 10 years to being listed in 2010. What a wonderful country we live in.

            • Not Really

              That sounds like how I pictured it. It will never get to the jury because they make an offer you can’t refuse. This offer isn’t representative of the alleged harm equal to a 20 or 30 years prison term, but is a few months. So this “frightful” criminal with a “high” recidivism rate doesn’t deserve a long prison sentences as long he he waives his right to a jury deciding if it is really pornography. So it all stays locked up in the little courthouse with no one the wiser, except you, and who cares about you enough to believe you? Exactly. Very scary law that should frighten every citizen. It is even against the law for the public to see the evidence.

              But I don’t think you have to worry yet. Maybe when it gets close to 2021 without improvement then would be the time to worry. I think there will be changes because a lot of experts think there should be.

      • Steve

        Who the hell are you USA to comment about anyone else here. It was also my first offense.

    • Joe

      Uh, that is funny coming from you…. in that every single comment you make on this web site sounds like that Felony Sexual Battery is okay. Because it involves an adult, and it happened in a massage parlor ?!?! Your comments sounds like you think it’s ok.

      I have an adult mother and she is clearly not as strong as a male and not capable of preventing felony sexual assault by a grown man. I think I would be more careful with comments.

      But as you noted, there is time for amendments! Maybe they will bump Felony Sexual Battery up to Tier 3 🙂

      Until such time…. your lucky.

      • USA

        Typical narcistic response. Correct. Your very defensive. My charge was reduced to a misdemeanor and expunged. Thank you

        • JP

          So because it was expunged, that makes your crime okay? Wow…Pot, meet kettle. Settle down there USA, you’re showing some real lack of understanding with the comments you’re making. I’m pretty sure Michael was pointing out the irony that somebody who actually has had physical sexual contact with a minor is now in a much better position than a person who had possession of compromising pictures/video/whatever of a minor. I don’t think he was saying any particular thing was “okay”. Either way it doesn’t matter. This idea that Judges and DA’s are just going to let people apply, after paying thousands of dollars for the effort, and then walk out the front door free as a jail bird is just simply ridiculous. This isn’t about loaves of bread. This is musical chairs. Everybody just switched positions. But when the music stops, everybody will be standing.

  13. Trying to Understand

    I apologize if this is the wrong comment board but I see tiered bill and I figured this would be a good place to ask. Now, when this comes into effect, does it go based off of the date you were convicted, released from jail/prison or release from probation/parole?

  14. AlexO

    The time count is retroactive. For those who were granted probation it’s effectively your conviction date. For those sent to prison, it’s starts with when you were released onto parole. It basically looks at when you were released into the community without 24/7 supervision.

  15. MichaelRS

    Do I understand that correctly that even MISDEMEANOR possession of child pronography, for which one is eligible to apply for a Certificate of Rehabilitation, is also to be in Tier 3?

    • ExpatRFSO

      This article makes it sound that way, but the latest version of the bill still says felony 311.11 is tier 3. Misdemeanor 311.11 is tier 1.

      • MichaelRS

        Thank you for your reply. I’m still looking for a source that translates the bill into plain language, other than just reading the actual law and getting stuff like: “Section 290 subsection C except for paragraph (b) and (c) above blah blah blah blah”.
        Anybody have a link to that kind of thing?

  16. dohow

    Something is better than nothing! I am one who believe in momentum, in every movement that produces substance comes more opportunity which lead to results. The 50% to 20% that Janice stated in her post is a current victory. We have to remember that by the time 2019 arrives, the shock of such an unpopular position will be accepted or forgotten by most. It is my opinion that with a new law comes new opportunity. In the meantime I will encourage all of you to do your own research…..you will be amazed at what I got accomplished with no money and the internet. In 1998, I plead guilty to a now 288. misdemeanor and in 2013 a bogus 290. failure to register. The 288. was reduced because it was a wobbler, but I learned the terminology from the California blue book of penal codes; I simply went into court and spoke their language. Until I used the word “wobbler” the state of Ca. and the Judge were in agreement that I could not have nothing done to my case. When I chose to address the court and started to use court room jargon, they each agreed with my findings; subsequently, the courts sent me a letter stating that my 288. was reduced to a misdemeanor. Now, the bogus failure to register was reduced from a felony to a misdemeanor because I went on-line to found that misdemeanor 288’s allowed for first time 290. failures to be charged with a misdemeanor. If I had not researched, I would have been stuck with another felony, which the courts should have known better. That case has since been expunged. Of course I give all the credit to Jesus, but I want to courage all of you to never stop plugging away at your respective cases.

  17. USA

    Dohow, congrats. I had my wobbler reduced to a misdemeaner, expunged it later on my own and later (I forget the PC) had a detainment record ordered sealed and destroyed! I recommend people begin taking care of business rather than complaining and stating they won’t be pushed around! Take action!!!!

    • someone who cares

      USA ~ So, when a record is expunged you can have it sealed and destroyed? Is that something one needs an attorney for? Also, is there a time frame of when misdemeanors are sealed automatically, or do all charges ( no matter how old) have to be sealed via request? I thought there was a 7 year time frame and after that the record is removed?

  18. David Lambert

    Quick question: some registrants are assigned to the public list, some are not. Does SB 384 change how this assignment is done? Under SB 384, will some people not on the public list be moved to the public list , and vice versa?

  19. DavidH

    I’d make a request of folks and to say to them who seem to feel they’re getting the raw end of the deal with this legislation: namely this notion that child porn is some how a lessor offense than a 288(a), or that its moral equivalency is less in some way.

    I’m not going to argue moral equivalents. For the most part I think it’s fair to assume those convicted of either of these crimes did something inappropriate in some manner.

    But two ideas to we need to get hold of are: 1). their (Joe public’s) logic and fears is about the risk of someone re-offending and I have the same fear too and support laws too in a responsible manner. 2). 288(a)’s are not all contact cases nor are they of the gory stuff. They are lewd and lascivious acts (please look up those words in the dictionary) that may or may not involve contact. In other words events occurred that should not have and they are thought to be motivated by sexual gratification.

    288(a)’s are not the worst of the worst they are the majority of cases because when you dont have an out right major event, you need some where put the rest. In fact I view the statute as the catch all, as if to say: ” Although it’s not an earth shattering event, we have to do something with this matter, and of course we must meet our quota and appear tough on crime, and all”

    Whereas child porn, they argue while not contact, involves a lot of thought and compulsion, some argue a little scary. Now I dont know, but just my feelings are that anyone can have fantasies but that doesn’t mean they’ll act on them. We all have fantasies, and no we do not act on them. So my opinion is that child pornographers are no more a risk than uncle Bob catching a cheap thrill. In fact, the data supports that conclusion.

    So I’d request to those not a 288(a), please dont misinterpret who those are that make up a 288(a) in an attempt to minimize what you did at the expense of someone else. There’s no moral equivalency test here. The 311 and 288(a)’s of the world screwed up, must take responsibility for their actions, and deal with why society fears one class over another–I’ll stress again, please understand what makes up a class before dragging others through the moral equivalency routine. I’ll respect you and wont judge you only if you do the same. I am the 50%. I did not have intercourse or anything akin to that–so please stop saying that please!!!

    • kern county

      well said davidh

      • 7mot

        Confirming that a 288(a) is not always a contact crime; as I have mentioned my charge was the result of a sting by the cops even to the point that they introduced a second 14 yr old to me. The charges were reduced to ONE count. Anyway just confirming the previous posting

  20. Tommy hilfiger

    So if you have been convicted for failure to register you won’t be eligible to end registration in 2021 ?

    • Not Really

      That depends on how long ago the court proceeding or jail/prison term ended. Add a year for misdemeanor failure to register and 3 years for felony failure to register. so the waiting period would be 11 or 13 years for Tier 1 and 21 or 23 years for Tier 2 (if any misdemeanors are in Tier 2).

      “The minimum time period shall be extended by one year for each misdemeanor conviction of failing to register under this act, and by three years for each felony conviction of failing to register under this act, without regard to the actual time served in custody for the conviction.”

      • dohow

        For me, I have a misdemeanor 288. that should qualify as a Tier 1…..Thank God for the misdemeanor! Now, I have been a registrant for going on twenty years so 11 years would have passed by now.

  21. George

    Does anyone know what my son will be. He was convicted of 261.5c and 261.5d statutory rape. He scored a 2 on the static.

    Thank you

  22. Not Really

    I made a pdf of the bill with popups of the penal code. The intent was to help those trying to figure it out.

    Today’s Law As Amended.pdf https://mega.nz/#!8y5HjDKb!6qPh0Fwk_WZRrmxeZ9Bgbu6YQO3UyLOTs1zLMBZKMLo

  23. USA

    Just curious. I’ve read that several people have convictions for failure to register. Are you guys getting hit on these for valid reasons or? The last time I registered, I was caught off guard. They printed out several old vehicles I owned and wanted me to initial what I owned still? I think I forgot to register one car, but I can’t remember license plates? What if I opened a used car lot and had access to 50 vehicles? What if I owned 8 homes? Truck driver?

    • ExpatRFSO

      Depends on the state. I own a fleet of rental cars. Last time I registered they had the printout of them all and just commented on how many cars I had. They only wanted details of and photos of the vehicle I drove most often. Change in vehicle or employer does not require updating with LE, only when reporting for your annual or when you move. The thing that really concerns me is the firarm which I sold back in 2001 is still in my name and this was pointed out as “a problem” at my last registration. I have no idea how to get it out of my name. I tracked doen the guy I soldnit to and he claims he did all the paperwork. He has now sold it as well.

  24. Counting the days

    I have coined a new title for the tiered registry bill. It is ” The Frankenstien Bill”. They have gone deep into the bowels of legislation, pieced together the worst pieces of any law they could find, and made a monster out of parts that otherwise would be nothing and harmless. They will let this monster loose to “terrorize” innocent townsfolk who will then do their best to either run this monster out of town, or kill it outright. The monster didn’t ask for this life, and only wants love, but its hidiousness ( the registry ) has condemned it to a life of misery and hiding in the shadows. We are the 21st century’s Frankenstien.

  25. Eric

    So let me interpret these statistics of registered sex offenders: Of the 105,122 on the registry 102,186 are not regarded as any form of high risk to the public; 88,763 are living a crime free, incident free life (many for decades), and 6,557 have been failed miserably by the justice system as they are unable to regain a foot hold in society, are unable to find employment or housing do to the detrimental effects of the registry.

    • Amateur Scientist

      How many of the “high risks” REALLY high risk? They are using the Static-99R to make the distinction/label. People should be given individualized assessment, not based on a single flawed instrument (the figures of which derived from lumping ALL offenses together). Casomb choosing to use the Static-99R should be considered an insult to our intelligence. It’s a slippery slope, leading to fortune-telling policy that many of us may later regret.

  26. Drew

    @Janice, I’m not understanding why a felony 243.4(a) is classified as a tier 3? I got a 288(a) and 243.4(a) back in late 90’s for “playing doctor” with my younger siblings. That being a tier 3 also doesn’t make sense.

    I really hope even that one will be renegotiated in any possible upcoming battles.

  27. Tommy hilfiger

    I got 2 felony failure to register and at the time of each one I was in compliance with law enforcement i was arrested on technicalities of the 290 penal code so now I have six years added to my 20 I’ve been registering since I was in high school for dating a girl who I now have three kids with its been19 years already obviously I’ve been through hell and back but the good news is I have three years to possibly get them dropped to a misdemeanor so wish me luck 😓

    • Lake County

      So getting two failure to register seems hard to get by accident. Can you help us all out and tell us what state and technicalities they charged you with so we can all avoid the same mistake? As far as you dating your underage wife when you were both young, many of our parents and grandparents would have to register if people were as intolerant about young love in their generation as they are today. Funny thing is that many of those young relationships have lasted longer than relationships that started at an older age. My mom was the hot HS freshman girl that was popular since she was dating my dad who was a popular HS senior in their small Visalia, CA farm town. They both had their parents approval and my mom married my dad as soon as she graduated. Why would that be a bad thing? I can’t understand how dating someone through high school with the “assumed” fooling around would cause any lifetime sexual mental health trauma for either person. Hopefully both sets of parents would ensure the relationship was mutual and not abusive. I remember the attitude vintage TV portrayed that if you got a girl pregnant, you better ask her to merry you or otherwise expect a shotgun wedding. Never once did TV portray that if you get a girl pregnant you should expect to go to prison and become an outcast for the rest of your life.

      • Hopeful

        @ lake county- the reason behind the issue u describe is simple… people as a group (or heard of sheep) r stupid. Politicians r smart. Politicians use the specter of an imaginary boogie man to manipulate the public into giving them power to “kill the boogie man.” Apparently with my 311.11a I am the scary thing that goes bump in the night.make sense?

      • dohow

        Actually it’s not that hard. I thought that my “failure to register” was bogus and based on technicalities. Just to give you and example, I moved back to California from Arizona in 2010. My sister took me in without a problem; my neighbors were friendly and the owner of the property was friendly…..no problems right. Well, the owner sold the property to a single investor who I met and was friendly to.

        At that time, my daughter and her mom moved down the street on the same street. Now, although my sister was kind enough to take me in, she can sometimes create a difficult environment to live in. I have two college degrees and have struggled to find work, but my sis continued to hound me about contributing to the bills. Because she was constantly hounding me, I started to get out of her hair by going to my daughter’s mom house (on the same block).

        In the process of me leaving to go down the block from time to time, new tenants moved into the building; they conducted a neighborhood search and found me in the building. The tenants notified the new owner, which then notified my sister. Even though I met and was friendly with the owner, she (the owner) wanted me out of the building and threatened to evict if I remained on the premises. My sister who was intimidated said that I didn’t live there, which was not true. The owner called the police for some reason and when the detectives came, she told them the same thing. I was down the street when they had shown up. My sister called me and told me what was happening. I called the detective to find out what was happening and of course they lied and said things were okay. Since the station was close and in walking distance I went there to further straighten the matter and that’s when I was arrested on the scene for failure to register. I was then told that if I am not on the lease, that the person could say what they wanted.

  28. Jason

    By the time 2021 comes this bill will be either repealed or completely changed. The way the bill stands today I would benefit but im not giving my hopes up. Ive had to register since 1996 and seen so many bills and laws change in several states. It would be great to not have to register anymore. I have a family and 3 daughters whom 2 are going to be going into highschool in a few years. Before all these new laws etc I was only going to be on a registry for 10 years after probation. I met my wife and we decided to start a family knowing one day we wouldnt need to worry about registry. Well things sure have changed! My personal opinion while I do think the registry is unconstitutional I believe being published on megans website is more damaging. I believe we need to fight to change the laws to allow us to be able to get off the website. I dont care about going down to the pd once a year. Dont get me wrong I would rather not have to. Lifetime registration is wrong but Having to choose to register for life and not be on the website would be a choice I would make.

  29. Tommy hilfiger

    Well my first failure to to register I just had a baby she was like 5 days old my mother-in-law and wife ask me to stay with them and the baby for a couple days so I did ..not knowing that my name had came up on one of those compliance checks so when I wasn’t home for 2 days they follow me home from work and follow me to my mother-in-law’s house and arrested me on the third day i got 3 years probation… the second time I was in the process of moving I sign the lease and notify my probation officer that I had signed a lease she told me if I had access to that property I needed to go register the address right now even though I was still in the process of moving so I did and law enforcement has jurisdiction where I was moving from arrested me for not deregistering even though I wasn’t finished moving basically I did with my probation officer ask me to do and they arrested me gave another 3 years probation so I did 6 years probation

  30. Tom

    All of this talk about 288(a), what then is 288(c) which I copped to? If you have an expungement then what have I been convicted under for the purpose of tiers. Mine was a “wobbler” which went from a felony to a misdemeanor to removed (expunged)!

  31. USA

    Drew, if you look on the Megan’s Website, I believe misdemeanor sexual battery and misdemeanor indecent exposure are considered others (not publicized online. Felony Battery requires approval. Unfortunately, people look at child molestation differently than touching someone without their consent. Society views touching a child much differently than an adult. It is what it is. I believe the laws changed years back with what charged ciuid be reduced/expunged. If your eligible, you have time and good luck. Great news the Governor supports the bill.

  32. Eric

    Thank you Janice.

    The bill is better than the status quo.

    The registry, however, is ineffective and unjust. The bill doesn’t change that.

    There are some glaring flaws in the bill, such as its equal treatment of attempt crimes and completed crimes.

  33. Doug

    Has the Govenor signed the bill yet ? When is he expected to ?

  34. Doug

    Has the govenor signed the bill yet ? If not when is it expected ?

    • Janice Bellucci

      The Governor has not yet signed the bill into law but is expected to do so. The deadline is Oct. 15.

  35. Jm

    Everything I see reading the bill in it’s entirety says nothing about 311.11(a) MISDEMEANOR being tier 3. Where is that coming from other than this DA?

    Here is what I see.
    “(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.”

    “(c) The following persons shall register:
    Every person who, since July 1, 1944, has been or is hereafter convicted in any court in this state or in any federal or military court of a violation of Section 187 committed in the perpetration, or an attempt to perpetrate, rape or any act punishable under Section 286, 288, 288a, or 289, Section 207 or 209 committed with intent to violate Section 261, 286, 288, 288a, or 289, Section 220, except assault to commit mayhem, subdivision (b) or (c) of Section 236.1, Section 243.4, paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (6) of subdivision (a) of Section 261, paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 262 involving the use of force or violence for which the person is sentenced to the state prison, Section 264.1, 266, or 266c, subdivision (b) of Section 266h, subdivision (b) of Section 266i, Section 266j, 267, 269, 285, 286, 288, 288a, 288.3, 288.4, 288.5, 288.7, 289, or 311.1, subdivision (b), (c), or (d) of Section 311.2, Section 311.3, 311.4, 311.10, 311.11, or 647.6, former Section 647a, subdivision (c) of Section 653f, subdivision 1 or 2 of Section 314, any offense involving lewd or lascivious conduct under Section 272, or any felony violation of Section 288.2; any statutory predecessor that includes all elements of one of the offenses described in this subdivision; or any person who since that date has been or is hereafter convicted of the attempt or conspiracy to commit any of the offenses described in this subdivision.”

    What am I missing??

    • Jm

      After listening in to the conference call held on 9/27 by Janice and Chance regarding SB 384 the first 10 minutes answers this question. Janice states that “all CP offenses are tier 3.” Chance then states he believes his reading states misdemeanor offenses are tier 1 in fact.

      • Janice Bellucci

        @Jm – If I stated that all CP offenses are on Tier 3, then I made an incorrect statement. The fact is that the bill assigns all misdemeanor CP offenses to Tier 1 and all felony CP offenses (possession, distribution and production) to Tier 3.

        • AlexO

          Janice, could you clarify your statement again? As I read it, most 311.X are tier 3 whether it’s a felony or misdemeanor. 311.11 is the one that gets the split between the two.

        • Jm

          Thank you Janice. Sounds like a significant number of registrants like myself in this situation with a misdemeanor. This is big news for those in this situation.

        • counting the days

          So I get mine reduced, then the law goes into affect. Do I. Get tier 3 because of original conviction, or does state recognize the court’s decision to reduce to misdomeanor and I am “assigned” tier 1.

          • Jm

            I would think as long as it’s reduced before 2021 you should be good. Not sure though.

  36. Harry

    My gut feeling that who registry will be rule unconstitutional before the Tiered Registry will go into effect. You can throw tomatoes at me in 2021 if I am not correct.

    • anon

      I agree with you. They might not get rid of the registry all together, but it will be dramatically diminished. Remember how quickly gay rights gathered momentum?

      • Harry

        I actually believe that the registry will sink all the way to the bottom like a thin walled bucket that can not take too much hole punching.

  37. SBC

    I see a lot of people worried about being on full disclosure. I worried many years ago much like all I hear here of not being put on, had an exemption but the DOJ read the records and made the decision that even if it was a relative disregarding the actual PC code I was charge with. The Ventura County PD paralegal did not think that it was right at what they did. They can actual adjudicate you again behind closed doors and make some determination that perhaps the DA should have used a different code. It was terrible to be put on full disclosure then a have the Simi Valley law come about shortly there after. My 288(a) was dismissed and expunged automatically after early probation termination. I see a lot of people having to get those things done years after on their own. I have no ideal why all my stuff was taken care for me automatically and not for others. I feel how you all feel, it makes you feel helpless. I have waited a very longtime for a law like this so I can get out of all this fuckin shit before I fuckin die. All with CP’s hang in there, donate and hope it will be changed before going into effect. Even though it is said that 288(a) are tier two and I would be able to get off. I have fishing ticket that I had to go to court for while on probation and was put on probation during my probation. I told my PO and she laughed and thought it was ridiculous that I even got a ticket. I wonder if the DA will use my fishing ticket to screw me. Just imagine if any try to do such, it would be very funny. I will also have to worry that in the next three years the 288(a) does change. It will be time to die!

    • Tired of this

      Are you able to move to a state where you wouldn’t be subject to public disclosure? Because that’s exactly what I did. The land of casinos and sagebrush, despite its drawbacks (yearly license/ID renewal, 48 hrs to register upon arrival), might be an option. The tier system here is reasonable, and if they designate you as tier 1, you’d only have 15 years of registration and no disclosure. Something to consider.

  38. Andrew

    Lot of discussions here, but I really don’t see any light at the end of the tunnel unless the tiers are retroactive for time you have already been on the registry and time you have not reoffended. I am old enough that even Tier One or Two will likely see me dead before I could get off. I don’t like this whole Tier business and have no faith in it. I think it’s a deceptive smokescreen than won’t help most of us. I am 20 years on the registry and eight years out of prison with no reoffense. If the ten years could apply to me I would get off in 2 years, but aha!, 288a, although that’s not what I was convicted of. They changed it. When I answer the questions on the Static 99 myself as honestly as possible I come up with a -1, but they have always listed me as moderate to high risk. They do that to a lot of us because, well, who’s to challenge it. I have lawyers writing me all the time saying they have ways to get me off the registry, but I don’t trust them. Already spent 110K on lawyers who said my case was a slam dunk and then took the money and bailed. I register regularly and don’t really have any trouble as I am still self-employed. I get a compliance check now and then. It only lasts about 3 minutes but I get a yard full of goons in full combat gear coming through a closed gate marked no trespassing. I ask if they opened the gate and they just respond, don’t worry we will close it on the way out. They are not allowed to enter past a closed gate, but that never slows them down. It’s a game to them and the politicians and no one has our back except Janice and her people. I’m pretty much ready to move out of state anyway and I have identified some good prospect. I don’t really believe that this is going to end anytime soon so it’s time to leave. For the rest of you all, I sincerely hope that sensible laws are passed and you are allowed to resume your normal lives. Good luck.

    • SBC

      Andrew the law is retroactive. If it wasn’t might as well die today.

    • Janice Bellucci

      @Andrew – Yes, the Tiered Registry will be applied retroactively. The counting of years on the registry begins when a person is released from jail or prison.

      • Jm

        Or without jail time I believe from the conviction date for those of us who received probation sentences.

  39. Tommy hilfiger

    10 more days i hope this bill passes

  40. Skeptic

    So things like high Static 99R score or possession CP offenses will be enough to put someone into Tier 3 under this new law. In Nevada, law enforcement is required to notify anyone “likely to encounter” a Tier 3… whether this be at work, around the neighborhood, and/or places a Tier 3 registrant volunteers at. You think the yearly compliance checks are bad now??

    My opinion: How long before this tiered registry morphs to villainize the Tier 3s that probably don’t deserve to be placed into Tier 3 (or even 2). Again, I’m talking about those with high Static scores, CP possession offenses, even previously violent offenders who have been offense free 20 to 30+ years. These people definitely do not deserve to be placed into Tier 3.

  41. Reg

    Governor Brown just signed the tiered registry bill.

Leave a Reply to Hopeful Cancel 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. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please send any input regarding moderation to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 

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

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