Monthly Meetings

Q4: 10/14 in Los Angeles

2017 ACSOL Conference Videos

CaliforniaJanice's Journal

Janice’s Journal: The Path Forward for CA tiered registry (SB 384)

In the most recent step of the legislative process, the Assembly’s Public Safety Committee approved the newest version of the Tiered Registry Bill (SB 384) yesterday. The bill is now moving forward to the full Assembly for a floor vote in a few days where it may pass and if so, then on to the Senate the same day for a concurrence vote.

The newest version of the Tiered Registry Bill was created behind closed doors and was made public only a few days ago. The new bill resembles a monster of Frankenstein its jumbled and sometimes contradictory provisions. The new bill helps some and hurts many others.

The new bill differs dramatically from previous versions of the Tiered Registry Bill (SB 421) in several ways. The most dramatic difference is the assignment of all individuals convicted of felony child pornography (CP) to Tier 3. Due to that difference, there has been a loud hue and cry from registrants and family members who would be affected both directly and indirectly.

Their cry is understandable for many reasons. First, empirical evidence clearly states that those convicted of a CP offense are very unlikely to re-offend. Second, empirical evidence shows that those convicted of a CP offense have not and will not commit a violent or contact offense.

Third, there is a fundamental lack of fairness, logic and rational thinking in requiring an individual convicted once of a non-contact, non-violent offense to register for the same period of time as an individual convicted of multiple violent offenses. For example, a 16-year-old girl who sent nude selfies to her fellow high school students will be required to register for the same period of time as Phil Garrido who sexually assaulted his victim for 18 years. Finally, the expectations of those convicted of CP offenses and their loved ones were not dashed, but were annihilated by the new tier assignment.

During the short time available between the public release and the committee’s consideration of the bill, ACSOL lobbied strongly to revise downward (from Tier 3 to Tier 1) felony CP offenses. Our lobbying efforts failed because the skids of that bill were greased before it became public. That is, it was learned that an agreement had already been reached between members of the legislature and law enforcement, with prompting from the Governor, to move forward the current version of the bill.

The question now is what can we do? What is the path forward?

As difficult as it is, we need to wait. We need to wait to see if the legislature passes SB 384 and if the Governor signs the bill into law. We will know that outcome no later than October 15.

If the bill does become law, there are at least two ways to challenge it – future legislation and litigation. Future legislation is possible because the law would not take effect until January 2021. During the 4-year period between its passage and its effective date, new legislation could be passed that moves felony CP offenses from Tier 3 to Tier 1.

Future litigation is possible only after the law takes effect and could be challenged on many grounds including the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. There may be additional ways to challenge SB 384 and perhaps the entire registry in the future if courts continue to issue favorable decisions, such as Does v. Snyder, Commonwealth v. Muniz and Millard v. Rankin.

In order to succeed on any level, we must Show Up, Stand Up and Speak Up in increasing numbers. Larger numbers of volunteers will be needed to attend legislative hearings, to serve as plaintiffs and to make financial contributions. With that support, we can and will succeed!

— by Janice Bellucci

Read all Janice’s Journals

Join the discussion

  1. steve

    Janice thank you for the explanation. I am going to assume the blow up over Fletcher’s comments were related to CP offenses, nonetheless, very misleading.

  2. Neil

    This is a very thoughtful and sensible response to the bad news about the tiered registry bill. Like many, I have a CP conviction that was moved from tier 1 to tier 2, and then to tier 3 in each successive bill. That is severely disappointing and, I think, inexplicable, but the worst response I can imaging is to disengage from the fight, or to start fighting among ourselves. I will continue to support ACSOL, since it’s one of the few organizations that speaks for us and tries to inject some sanity into this ridiculous system. Thanks to Janice, the board, and their team.

    • Robert Curtis

      The retroactive component in this Bill is my immediate concern. Those currently in a tiered 1 and 2 should NOT be affected and should gain the benefits of relief..IMO. as Janice said that may have to be worked out in the courts. The law enforcement and DA’s involvement is plain BS and also needs addressed. Here’s the thing for good or bad…in 4 years we’ll have a different group of legislators…we need to be proactive politically to push for Constitutionally minded legislators. We (me and my team) do that in salons and barbershops as boots on the ground. We have gotten people elected via that leverage…join us and learn a trade while doing so. We sharpen salon scissors for hairdressers but during election time we do it for free in the name of a candidate that’s Constitutionally minded for doing the right thing and NOT just the popular thing. I’ll train you to fight and neighborhood by neighborhood, community by community we will take back our Rights so help us God!!! Janice with her team has been carrying us so far but ALL need to join her in this fight. Anywhere and everywhere your talents can be used we should march together with her forward into battle and into the night to light the way for those behind us to follow. Our fight is for liberty, freedom and justice. Our lives and that of our families depend on it! We are FREEDOM FIGHTERS and we will not be silenced!!! Oh, and those preachers NOT standing up for Grace and forgiveness they like to preach…we too should also hold them accountable! Working on that!!!

      • Patsy

        Im 72 years old with problems but I will do all I can…I’m already doing it on Facebook reaching all I can. I do it with emails to everyone I know. People got tired of hearing me….they don’t believe it is as bad as it is. My son got out of prison 3 years ago. He lives in my home. Some of friends have come back around. He has had a job…it is extra help for the paint department in the county, but it is a job. Prior to that click of the file…he had never been in trouble…He worked from age 16….he went to college…had a Master’s degree, taught in college for 10 years. Bought a home, got married…got divorced, never home worked too much….yada yada…broken heart, started getting on adult porn sites, and clicked wrong file…videos FBI were following tracking…stopped all of it after a while….but it was on the computer they tracked it took it and arrested him two years later. Ransaced all computers and his home…not one other thing found. 30,000 to a lawyer….lost home and current fiance in next two years as he was imprisoned for six years. He taught prisoners and made the best of a bad situation. He has been punished enough. As a mom, I swear I don’t know how much more heartache I can take.

        • totally against public registry

          Dear Patsy,

          Please don’t give up. We are all in this together. I have a son serving time in prison. He will be out soon and our family has to face all this nonsense restrictions and laws together along with all the other RSOs.
          I too have been with a heartache for the past almost seven years.
          I plan on staying involved until this registry is struck down and abolished. I know in my heart that that day is coming and coming very soon.

          • Patsy

            I hope, pray, will be active, to make what you say true. He has applied for, interviewed for, at least 5 good jobs…totally qualified, told he was who they wanted… the interviews….then…a few days letter sent an email that they hired someone else. We know why, he knows why….

      • 1984

        The more unconstitutional they make this law the easier it will be to kill in the future. Our government has no caring for the injustices they create against its’ people. It is all personal. Who is being helped? Who is being protected? Who is privileged? All it is, is cost. How to spend more tax dollars. How to subjugate more, longer.

      • James A

        In California, everyone is currently a “Tier 3”! There are no tiers.

        • Not Really

          In many ways there are. Tier 1 would be those whose registration isn’t publicized. Tier 2 only has their zip codes published. Tier 3 has their addresses published.

          But they all have the Tier 3 life registration.

          • steve

            Not really,

            Currently this would be the breakdown:

            Tier 1 = low risk offenders
            Tier 2 =Serious offenders
            Tier 3 = SVP

            • AlexO

              What are you referring to? How things are today or with the proposed bill? Because Tier 3 of the proposed bill includes far more than just “SVP” unless you think CP possession along with several other non-contact codes there are “SVP”

            • Not Really

              Steve, you’re right. I forgot about SVPs and neglected to count them. Maybe there is a Tier 4.

        • Anonymous Nobody

          Not so. Quite a few of the lesser offenses can get out from under registration via a COR, three of those offenses in 7 years (this bill increases that time to 10 years!).

          This bill has been a Frankenstein since it was first introduced — to only now complain and only because of one item, CP being Tier3, not complaint about the rest — this group is undermining itself, this group will ALWAYS fail with this approach. This group refuses to see. We here are not even talking of going before the legislature and arguing for much, much better than this — gee, what do we have to lose now? Let them here it – they should have been hearing it form us for years, at least since day one of this bill. They have never heard.

          We should be going there and demanded to conform to federal, eliminate all offenses from registration for which the federal government does not require registration, conform all others to the tiers in the federal law, which are much shorter than this proposal even from its start. Why are we doing nothing but complaining ONLY about CP, and even then refusing to voice the complaint!? VOICE YOUR F-ing COMPLAINTS over and over and over again, you will never get anything if YOU refuse to demand it, you will never get it if the legislators never even hear an idea. By not even speaking of much better alternatives than even the original bill, we have not even tried to take control of the conversation. We will fail always until we become a real player and actually influence the conversation. Why are we even here if we are simply going to accept anything the prosecutors want and be terrified of speaking contrary to it, speaking for better?!

          I can no longer support this group — it refuses to listen, it takes failing approaches, on supporting even the original bill, it threw us to the wolves,and told us all kinds of wonderful things coming our way that are not going to be coming our way. Do you really thing the bills has come to what it is and the prosecutors are NOT going to challenging your applications for relief they same as they challenge your application for a COR? Are you that naive, they are screaming they are going to do that.

          This group has been the only game in town. But its approach is making no game whatsoever.

          We still do not complain about the massive lobbying group against us this bill creates with all the bring it will require to staff all the classifications and applications and reviews, etc. There should not be any need for an application, you did you tome, you’re out, end of discussion. They don’t need a massive bureacracy to review us to make our time linger than others for our offense, not to consider whether we should get out after doing our time!

          • anon

            I don’t agree with you. I don’t know that the approach has been completely off target, but there may have been a mismanagement of expectations. The legislature does not want to hear from us and has mostly turned a deaf ear to our demands. There has been some success in listening to our allies (ACLU, Public Defenders, Friend’s Committee, etc.) so coalition building is important. But the most recent legislation has been driven by DAs . They are no our friends, but in some respects we have similar interests. Where those interests diverge, the legislature will go with them and not us. The legislature listens to those who help them get elected. We do nothing to help them and if they are seen doing our bidding, it will hurt them. So the bulk of our effort should go toward building coalitions and work with the legislature indirectly.

          • Janice Bellucci

            @Anonymous Nobody – Making progress in the state legislature is a slow and sometimes disappointing process. Quite often legislation is passed that reflects the lowest common denominator in order to gain a majority of votes. Having said that, improvements to existing law can be made on an incremental basis. Slow and steady wins the race. For example, it is my understanding that it took 3 attempts over 6 years to get a bill passed that would protect gay students from being bullied on campus. Sounds like motherhood and apple pie today, but when it was first introduced it was considered to be controversial.

        • AlexO

          It actually makes it a bit worse as the bill is removing the current CoR path for which technically all 311.X qualified for, and are very permanently placing them into tier 3. Just about everyone that this bill would place into tier 1 and tier 2 already allowed people to get off the registry via CoR. So the bill has actually narrowed the scope for who it’ll release rather than expend it.

  3. AlexO

    Thank you for the explanation, Janice. Hopefully more than just CP charges are moved out of tier 3. Several non-contact crimes that were previously Tier 1 are now in Tier 3.

  4. Tim Moore

    Frankly, I don’t want to be involved in another legislative attempt at a tiered registry. I have seen how it has divided registrants. Also we should have known that there are a lot of people like Gonzalez-Fletcher in the legislature that were not going to let the bill pass without having their own flavor of punishment thrown in to show how tough on sexual criminal they can be. I am only surprised they waited ’til the last minute to show it. I am not an expert, but I have seen in my 45 or so adult years seeing politics, that if you start bargaining in the middle with a group that is staunchly opposed to your vision, you are only going to end up with that much less than the minimum you can except.
    As for legislators, I think Robert Curtis is on the right track. We can’t hope to change legislator’s minds, we have to change the legislators. There is maybe enough of us to make a slight difference. A slight difference can make a big difference in a contested election. To be honest, I really don’t want to change my job to sharpen scissors, but there must be some other methods we can come up with. We really need a database of registrants so we can get them involved in the system, support candidates and vote (in the states we are allowed). I would rather support positive legislation like getting registrants in other states the vote or non punitive initiatives to lessen sexual violence in the home, church and office, where the main problem is. I have always been adverse to judging who is to be shamed and who is to be left alone. That sort of thinking is the problem. Shaming does not work — unless it is short in duration and you give the shamed an exit route to get back into the good graces of society. I believe that giving the public the green light to shame others has been judged to be cruel and unusual in most cases. It ignites peoples worst instincts and is therefore counter productive. The public just doesn’t know when to stop.

    • David Kennerly

      Tim, I’m with you on this as I do not see an acceptable (to me or to you) version of the Tiered Registry as possible at this moment. We gave it a shot and got shot in the process. Scott Weiner is a puzzlement to me as, from what I understood of his position, the resurrected bill is antithetical to his stated views. I have written several emails to him (and he is my representative) but have not received any response.

      I am hoping that the silly, personalized arguments either in support of, or in opposition to, the tiered bill can now be over. It really is time to take a more aggressive stance towards the State and not towards each other. We should be taking very personally what California is doing to us and we should be furious at our lawmakers rather than looking for scapegoats from within our own ranks. Yes, I think it is absurd to treat downloaders like violent criminals but then, it is also absurd to pretend that many of us who had physical contact are, or were ever, violent in any way.

      As you know, both you and I and several others developed a method for (painstakingly) collecting a database of California Registrants and made a lot of progress in gathering that data. The problem we had in doing that was to find an application for it or to attract buy-in for the concept.

      It is time to revisit that issue.

      • James

        Yes, What David Said!

        I am not sure what kind of Database you have developed, but I would note again, the DA’s, LE and Legislators are not doing this because of some sudden epiphany that we as a group are being treated unjustly.


        No, they are doing this because their cruelty towards us has become an unwieldy administrative burden on them, and they wish to pare it down to a more manageable size and for no other reason.

        As a convenience for them…Law Enforcement and DA’s.

        If there are 110,000 of us in CA, I do not see why we could not affect statewide elections, and some local elections also if we could bring another person or two agree with us and take them with us to the voting polls.

        I would be strongly in favor of targeting several elections in 2018…and would work hard to defeat our enemies and elect our friends openly….above board. We would have to say what we are doing and then do it.


        This is something we should be doing.

        This is the correct path forward.

        Best Wishes, James

        • David Kennerly, Poster Boy For Whatever Pisses You Off

          It is a database of all Registrants appearing on the public registry.

      • Tim Moore

        I agree strongly with James and you. It is very doable. Even influencing a couple elections may have ripple effects. There is legislation, but there is also allocation of funding and appointment of judges that can be affected by chosing the right legislator. It is also something I found out I can put my time and interest into. Most voters don’t get involved unless they feel a strong personal interest in the outcome. This is a sweeping statement, I know, but the energy registrants can exert on the process is huge, if focused and organised and if we are not putting egos and differences in the fore. Say they try to prosecute registrants for using a non classified government list to organize to protect ourselves. There is an opportunity for a first amendment defense right there. Don’t you agree AJ, Chris F mike r and you who spend time researching the law in depth?

        • Chris F

          @Tim Moore

          While I believe it’s important to educate the public as much as possible, I am not sure we can affect legislature much if at all, and efforts can backfire. Historically, relief for a politically powerless and hated minority only comes from the court system, and even then only from appointed judges and not elected state judges.

          If it looks like a representative of the legislature is taking the side of sex offenders, or their actions are endorsed by us, their opponent will use that against them and they won’t be in office long.

          Educating the public can only go so far too. At best, it will make new bad legislation a little less likely to happen. Unfortunately, the majority won’t care enough to pay attention to anyone talking real facts about sex offenders unless they are one or know one. 95% of the public, if asked, will think a sex offender is a repeat child molester. That won’t change, because people don’t like to educate themselves when they have a TV show to binge watch or ballgame to go to. They figure their legislature will take care of all that and do its due diligence before pushing a new law or policy through. Humans aren’t usually very bright I’m afraid, and as long as it doesn’t directly impact them, they won’t waste brain cells on it.

          • Tim Moore

            I didn’t mean so much lobbying the public, although I am sure some of the comments from you and other registrants have influenced the smarter ones who read articles and a light went on for them to research the issue themselves. Who knows all the paths in a network and which activate others and so on. Reason is contagious sometime, although people are generally afraid to go against the status quo unless they see someone else speak up first. No, I was talking about getting registrants themselves to vote and even helping to elect candidates, not necessarily disclosing they are registrants. If we could provide voting history on local and regional candidates to registrants then they could make an informed choice on who to support. I am talking about a service to registrants.

          • Tim Moore

            Also, I wanted to add that court cases don’t work alone in the elevation of civil rights. Judges are people with wives and children. They enjoy television and social media. They are not reason machines par excellence. They can be concerned about their legacy. TV has played a part in normalizing disfavored groups and it creates a positive feed back loop through the culture with unforseen results. The media is the message. If you see something enough you start internalizing the image. If a Norman Lear can help normalize the masses to the idea that gays or working women are people not unlike you, then probably there is a filmaker or TV producer that will show that a former sex offender is a person just like a drug addict or thief. A judge may see something that is not written in a law book, a person’s pain, many people’s pain. It takes repetition, repetition, repetition and we have time. Where are we going? A court only path has never been a sole part of any civil rights movement. It never will be. This is not just a problem of bad laws. The bad laws are a symptom of a group response towards a perceived threat. A multi pronged approach is the only way to motive registrants across broad interests and guarantee that all attack fronts are being watched.

            • AJ

              @Tim Moore:
              The closest I’ve seen to what you say was when “sex addiction” was mentioned in both “Designated Survivor” and “The Blacklist” this past season. Having even that concept appearing in the dialogue was surprising.

            • David Kennerly, Poster Boy For Whatever Pisses You Off

              I agree. Judges are absolutely influenced by the zeitgeist that pervades society. If that weren’t the case there would never have been a Bowers v. Hardwick that affirmed Georgia’s criminalization of sodomy, on the one hand or Lawrence v. Texas, on the other, which overturned Bowers seventeen years later. It is absolutely necessary that we crack the uniformity with which society regards sex offenders. It will be, in large part, that cultural shift that will then shift the judiciary.

              We will still have lots of foaming-at-the-mouth hysterics hating us but, as with other social issues, there will emerge (is now emerging, in fact) a schism which will align primarily along existing cultural divisions, i.e. authoritarians vs. anti-authoritarians and liberals vs. conservatives, roughly speaking. It may not sound appealing for its imperfection but this would be a huge improvement over what we have now. We can’t expect everyone to stop hating us but we can expect significant improvements by cleaving society into oppositional camps on the subject. It’s when you have a total homogeneity of opprobrium for sex offenders that you have the recipe for the kind of oppression which we have enjoyed, thus far.

              • Tim Moore

                Some of the most terrible things happen when the opposing sides stop disagreeing and find something or someone they both can hate. It often leads to war and destruction — or the registry and open ended punishment. The schizm that may be caused by sex offender issues becoming polarized will open up a space in the public forum where the middle ground will seem like the most sensible and safest place for politicians to stand. Same for judges, I believe. That is the next phase. At least oppressive laws like we have seen will not fly through. Unlike the IML, the proposed bills will at least be debated, some will still pass, but others will start to be voted down .

            • Chris F (@Tim Moore)

              @Tim Moore

              I agree with both sets of your comments. In reality though, we are making very little progress educating the majority of common folk, but have made great headway in educating the thinking men and women that make up judges and even a few politicians. That’s how we’ve made such recent leaps. If we truly did have an 80% Recidivism Rate, the registry would probably not see any relief and keep getting worse.

              I also agree that every little thing helps. Just one comment by you or I that a particular relative of a particular judge sees could cause a conversation with the judge that changes the course of history in our favor. It all starts with a “butterfly flapping its wings in New Mexico…”

      • AlexO

        They have some amazing wiggle room in classifying someone as a “violent” sex offender. A story our rehab director once told me of a man who was convicted as a “violent sex offender”. His actual act was taking videos of women in a dressing room. He was caught by security and ran. During his escape he knocked over a woman next to an exit door. Because this part of his escape caused physical harm, and was part of the same event as committing a sex crime (video), he was prosecuted as a violent sex offender. Obviously you can’t tell this from the codes next to his name. All you see are the legal definitions of the codes and not the actual details of the case. So even those designated as violent, may not actually be in the way 99 out of 100 would think.

  5. Something Interesting

    Janice – a while back I think Pam posted about the process and what the next steps were. Is it still possible that the Senate will not accept all the amendments that the Assembly has put into the legislation?

    • Janice Bellucci

      While theoretically possible, it is unlikely that the Tiered Registry Bill will be amended on the Senate floor during the concurrence vote.

      • AlexO

        I wonder if the Governor would actually want to sign the bill in its current form as it doesn’t actually seem to be saving the state and money or time in the long run while costing tens of millions to implement. I mean, since people in Tier 1 and Tier 2 will still need to go through a similar process as the CoR to get off, and seemingly everyone in these tiers already qualified for the CoR, they have actually reduced the number of people that can off the registry than currently by moving some of the previously qualifying codes into tier 3, like 311.11 and 311.4. Doesn’t make any sense to spend so much effort to overall make things worse if there’s no actually plan on the legislators side to balance things better for cost saving purposes?

        • Follow the $

          It is the governor’s support for it’s current form that brought it back to life. If he did not express willingness to sign as written, the legislature would never have revived it through gut and amend.

          • AlexO

            Are you sure? Janice made a post earlier saying these changes were not at the governor’s request.

        • Tim Moore

          I think the reduction in tier 1 & 2 numbers will save some money, because now less registrants will have to be processed off the list. Maybe that was one of the reasons for the changes to save the state money in processing a big bubble of registrants all at one time. If that is true there is hope more will be phased off the top tier to realize the long term cost saving CASOMB wanted in the original bill, by cutting down the registry significantly over time . I don’t know if I would want to hitch my wagon to that rosier view, though. I don’t trust these people to be that generous and rational after hearing their rhetoric.

  6. Chihuahua

    Thanks for explaining everything, That will help us understand a little better. But why 2021? Seems like 4 years after a bill is signed into law is a really long time. I don’t get that.

    • AlexO

      It’s going to take a lot of time, money, and effort to reclassify 110k people. Think of it like getting an approval to build a brand new house and it now being officially your property, but you can’t technically move and live in until it’s actually built, which will take time to do.

      It taking so long to go into effect is actually beneficial for us as it allows time for further changes. Considering how bad the bill is, we’ll take all the time we can get.

  7. HopingForHope

    If this does become law, will ASCOL hold a conference call to help us all understand this?

    • Janice Bellucci

      @HopingForHope – Yes, we will conduct a phone meeting if and only if the bill becomes law. Please stand by for that announcement.

  8. Not Really

    Since the law is subject to change it can be stretched in all different directions in 3 years, 3 months, 17 days, excluding the end date of Jan. 1, 1921.

    Will it even be recognizable?

    • AlexO

      They’ve actually adjusted the date to July 1 now, so we have almost three years. And yes, it can be further modified through legislation. I’m hoping that this is the actual plan for Senator Weiner. Basically, make it law however you can because it becoming law is what gets the most public exposure, and then scale it back down more on the down-low as changes to a bill that’s already technically law but not yet in effect is likely to receive way less press, and thus less public push-back. As I already stated numerous times, I don’t see any benefit of the current bill for the state. It actually seems like a net loss for them.

  9. mike r

    As soon as the bill is enacted it needs to be challenged. We cannot wait until it takes effect, and according to case law we do not have to wait. I know it is really soon to be making some kind of decision on how your org will proceed after this but I hope that the day this is enacted that you file for immediate injunction relief.

    Preliminary Injunction

    1 Elements and Case Citations


    In seeking a temporary or preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must establish “irreparable injury or interim harm that it will suffer if an injunction is not issued pending an adjudication of the merits.’ The court will consider

    1. The likelihood of the moving party’s success on the merits;
    2. The possibility of irreparable harm to the moving party if relief not granted; and
    3. Extent to which the balance of hardships favors the respective parties.

    White v. Davis, 30 Cal. 4th 528, 554 (2003) (also discussing public policy issues in connection with injunctions sought against governmental agencies).

    “While the mere possibility of harm to the plaintiffs is insufficient to justify a preliminary injunction, the plaintiffs are ‘not required to wait until they have suffered actual harm before they apply for an injunction, but may seek injunctive relief against the threatened infringement of their rights.’” Costa Mesa City Employees Assn. v. City of Costa Mesa, 209 Cal. App. 4th 298, 305 (2012).

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 526 identifies the “[c]ases in which injunction may or may not be granted.” See also Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §§ 525, et seq. (“Injunctions”).


    A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish

    [1] that he is likely to succeed on the merits,
    [2] that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief,
    [3] that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and
    [4] that an injunction is in the public interest.

    Winter v. NRDC, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008).

    It is well established that, to determine whether an injunction is “just and proper,” courts apply the “familiar set of four equitable factors: the movant’s likelihood of success on the merits; the possibility of irreparable injury to the moving party; the extent to which the balance of hardships favors each party; and whether the public interest will be advanced by granting the preliminary relief.”

    Small ex rel. NLRB v. Operative Plasterers’ & Cement Masons’ International Assoc., 611 F.3d 483, 489-90 (9th Cir. 2010).


    Supreme Court of California: White v. Davis, 30 Cal. 4th 528, 554 (2003).

    California 1st Dist.: People ex rel. Herrera v. Stender, 212 Cal. App. 4th 614, 630 (2012).

    California 2d Dist.: Water Replenishment Dist. of Southern California v. City of Cerritos, 220 Cal. App. 4th 1450, 1461-62 (2013).

    California 3d Dist.: Prigmore v. City of Redding, 211 Cal. App. 4th 1322, 1333 (2012).

    California 4th Dist.: SB Liberty, LLC v. Isla Verde Ass’n, Inc., 217 Cal. App. 4th 272, 280 (2013).

    California 5th Dist.: Smith v. Adventist Health System/West, 182 Cal. App. 4th 729, 749 (2010).

    California 6th Dist.: Oiye v. Fox, 211 Cal. App. 4th 1036, 1047 (2012), rev. denied, No. S208185, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 1994 (Mar. 13, 2013).


    United States Supreme Court: Winter v. NRDC, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008).

    United States Court of Appeal for the 9th Circuit: Herb Reed Enters., LLC v. Florida Enertainment Mgmt., No. 12-16868, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 23938, at *16-17 (9th Cir. Dec. 2, 2013); Small ex rel. NLRB v. Operative Plasterers’ & Cement Masons’ International Assoc., 611 F.3d 483, 489-90 (9th Cir. 2010).

    Central District: Constr. Laborers Trust Fund for S. Cal. Admin. Co. v. Play Smart Surfacing, Inc., No. EDCV 13-00582-VAP (DTBx), 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163762, at *16 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2013).

    Eastern District: Manago v. Williams, No. 2:07-cv-02290-TLN-KJN P, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174327, at *4-5 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2013).

    Northern District: XimpleWare Corp. v. Versata Software, Inc., No. C 13-05160 SI, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172411, at *5-6 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2013).

    Southern District: Mytee Prods. v. Shop Vac Corp., No. 13cv1610 BTM (BGS), 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158539, at *2-3 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2013).

    • Follow the $

      How can we show harm has been done by this law until it takes effect? That’s what killed the IML injunction…we had no standing since it’s effects hadn’t been felt yet. Hard to get a judge to issue an injunction when it hasn’t become operable law yet.

  10. Computer Nerd

    My reading earlier today I had me thinking that my original conviction would move me to tier 3 and I will still supported the bill in that situation. Further inquiry led to the finding I probably would be in tier 2. So I feel comfortable in stating that despite the absurd application against viewing of CP I still think it’s good if the bill passes. I think the absurdity of the CP provisions would help fight against them. As a citizen I consider CP to be more in line with a heroin addiction. I think it is something where the individual agrees to get help and be monitored to be sure they are getting help and that moving towards appropriate and healthy behavior is very possible for my fellow citizens. I find it bizarre that addictive viewing of other people’s criminal photographs is considered in the most severe category of human behavior. I think compulsive behavior is more common among young people and those who have not taken a good look at their lives. I don’t wish to use the criminal justice system to punish but to help fellow citizens live more effectively with others.

    • AlexO

      “I think it is something where the individual agrees to get help and be monitored to be sure they are getting help and that moving towards appropriate and healthy behavior is very possible for my fellow citizens.”

      Pretty much everyone on the registry, for just about every crime, has gone through supervision and extensive counseling. One would think that after we’ve successfully completed everything we would regain our full freedom like just about every other category of crime, (including murder and habitual physical abusers), but alas they want to segregate us all, regardless of anything beyond the conviction code.

  11. mike r

    I think this law is a ploy to get the courts to strike it down, but to also get the court to leisurely or casually address whether the rest of the registry is constitutional thereby making a decision A priori without any challenge in front of the court at that time..This is bigger then just what we are seeing, I know something else is the motive besides just money or vengeance.

    • AlexO

      I’m thinking something similar. Make so outrageous that it can’t exist. Then the blame fall on the courts for killing it while leaving the politicians illusion of being tough on crime and protecting the children intact.

      That or get it passed however they can to then actively scale it back after it’s already been signed into law. Similar in how this bill came back to life when implementing a loophole of simply replacing a language in a completely unrelated bill that easily passed through most of the votes to bypass said votes that very likely would’ve killed the actual bill.

  12. American Detained in America

    On all version of SB 421, I would have been Tier 1, but on this one I’m Tier 3. I was hesitant to support SB 421 because I didn’t think it did enough even though I was one of those who would benefit from it. By the time it had been hacked a few times, I openly encouraged everyone to go against it. Now we get this…the only thing I will support moving forward is complete abolition of the registry.

  13. mike r

    I hate to say I told you so, but the writing is on the wall, nothing even close to being rational or reasonable comes out of our current legislatures any where any time…..There all insane with the quest for power…..

  14. mike r

    Also I guess the legislature can just blatantly avoid any type of fact finding anymore when it comes to legislation now days…I believe that they are obligated under some code of ethics or civil codes of procedures to actually do fact findings and consider all relevant evidence when enacting a law….

  15. Patsy

    Thank you Janice…I do feel there could be some hope now. Thank you for explaining. We are going to fight all we need to do the next four years.

  16. Stephen

    I agree if this does pass it needs to be ree done to help more people question is a single count of 288(a) a tier 2 offense or tier 3 offense thanks

  17. Not Really

    A Tier 3 includes more than one separate conviction, so one conviction defaults to Tier 2. Search the bill for 288.

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

    • 7mot

      where do they see if this 288(a) was the result of a Sting by the police? Has to be some common sense that that should be a consideration

  18. James A

    People keep forgetting that we are all Tier 3 now. This bill will move some away from Tier 3. Hopefully, that will create a framework to move more into Tier 1 or 2, later.

    • someone who cares

      James A ~ No, we are not all Tier 3 now. We all register for life, true, but some of us are NOT on the public website. Tier 3 is publicized, so please stop saying we are all Tier 3 now.

      • AlexO

        Tier 3 and Tier 2 are publicised.

        • Not Really

          With Tier 2 using zip code instead of address.

          • AlexO

            There’s no real difference between the two. Your name and picture are up. That’s just a Google search away from your address and zero difference in regards to your work and people in your circle. It’s really odd that the legislature actually thinks there’s a difference between these two levels of disclosure. It’s like they’re not aware how the internet actually works. I guess they could be like my grandmother and think the internet is the inner-netting of swimming trunks.

  19. Stephen

    Thank you for helping clear that up

  20. Laura

    Amazing that the Static 99 score is now locked at time of release. This bill, SB 384, gives even more power to junk science.

  21. USA

    Truly great news! Expunged battery. We need to support this bill. Please ignore the ignorant comments. As noted, all registered citizens don’t fall into the same category

    • AlexO

      They’re moving a slew of tier 1 people into tier 3. People placed into tier 1 under this bill would have already qualified for the CoR, and the bills process of getting of the registry at your due date may not be any easier. People being placed into tier 3 who previously qualified for the CoR no longer do so as they’re changing what the CoR does, and will now be permanently locked into life time. And many people who were previously not disclosed on the internet now will be. There isn’t much to celebrate here for the vast majority.

      Are you sure your code places you into tier 1? Some misdemeanors will be in tier 1 while many will remain in tier 2 and tier 3. And expungment has zero barring on your placement.

    • Joe

      If you have a “battery” conviction, and you are on this web site because you have to register as a SEX offender, you had the worst lawyer on the planet. Give it a rest already.

      Let’s get real. You think you are special because your conviction is expunged and reduced (from previous comments). You are required to register under PC 290. Your conviction was reduced down from a felony. That means you were convicted of FELONY SEXUAL BATTERY. Which is, pretty much, assaulting someone in a sexual manner, against their express will, while restricting their movement.

      You tell us (from previous comments) it was against an adult in a massage parlor. Yeah…. that makes it okay.

      As noted, not all registrants are the same. If you ask me, a guy with a conviction and attitude like yours belongs in Tier 3 – not a person who had a nude photo of a 17 year old “child” sent to their phone.

      Feel free to ignore this “ignorant” comment.

  22. G4Change

    There is still no language (that I have found) about registrants convicted in CA who have moved out of state. Petitioning off still refers only to the county in which one is registered. I can’t believe they can’t add a simple like of text that reads “or the county in which the registrant was convicted if registrant currently lives outside of California” or something to that effect.
    They are asking for an influx of former offenders back into California, and that’s what they are going to get! Jeez!!!

  23. Registry Rage

    I could see PRODUCTION of CP being a Tier 3, but NOT mere possession. I honestly feel as though possession shouldn’t even be a registrable offense to begin with. Non-violent, non-contact with no immediate “victim.” That – in an of itself – fully illustrates this schema is about vengeance, not proactive prevention. You damn right it’s punitive.

    Reputation and life destroyed over pre-existing images from the INTERNET!

  24. DavidH

    ok thx for laying it out Janice–if you’re adversely affected by it nothing happens or can be done about it until 2021. In fact it’s probably best to have the bill for something new to throw darts at–equal protection under the law looms big time here

  25. Nondescript

    In politics, ridiculousness opens up more cracks than being merely extreme on any issue.

    Not sure what to make of what they have just vomited up to protect their reputations and/ or careers, but they may have just given us a gift.

    • AlexO

      Agreed. This is so over the top, that it just can’t stand for long. It may actually go into effect, but as soon as it does it will be pummeled with lawsuits that it won’t be able to survive. That is if the registry as a whole even exists in the next four years after the few upcoming SCOTUS cases.

  26. Registry Rage

    The lawmakers are NOT combating or thwarting anything by making people register for possession charges.

    I’m willing to wager that 20% of the registry is compromised of those with a first time possession offense.

    • AlexO

      I’m not sure if I’m understanding you correctly, but the registry is compromised by 90%+ of first time offenders.

  27. someone who cares

    Let me get this right. They are so concerned about these “predators” that they need to add them to the public site, BUT it can wait four more years. How many children will be harmed in that time frame? And who will take the blame because they waited so long to implement this law? And all these “scary”people have been living in the community for decades, unknown to the public, yet NOTHING happened. How ridiculous is that? This bill is a joke, and I am with all those on this site who think we need to fight the registry as a whole and not just the Tiered Registry that will do absolutely nothing for anyone. It is a lose lose situation for all involved, and I can’t imagine LE being thrilled about the extra workload. Once and for all, the evidence needs to outweigh the unnecessary fear that has been instilled in vulnerable people for way too long. If people need to know if a registrant is living next door, then I want to know who ALL my neighbors are, too. What if there is a murderer, drug dealer, or DUI convict living next to me. I deserve equal rights if that is what needs to happen.

  28. steve

    This bill was not going to pass without someone getting something out of it and CP was the scapegoat. Maybe they know this is an equal protection claim and they figure they will let the courts decide it, and loose, while they still look tough on crime.

  29. Roger

    As a “Tier 3 No Matter What”, I’d like to tell you my humble opinion on the big picture of what is happening with these crazy tiered registry bill events. Maybe it will help you guys to not panic and to trust ACSOL even when chaos seems to reign.

    Consider this amazing sequence of events:

    1) For almost 70 years, CA legislators insisted only a lifetime registry would keep the public safe.

    2) In just the past few years, a couple of attempts at tiered registry were made. They failed, but they were attempted for the first time.

    3) The tiered registry bill started this year with one legislator who got cold feet, so it died. So sad. Wait a couple of years?

    4) No, it’s back! A short time later, Sen. Wiener resurrected it as SB 421!

    5) SB 421 got further than any other attempt, but was killed by the Assembly Appropriations Committee, which has tremendous power. Somebody there didn’t want it to pass. It was dead. Politically, that was the end. Play taps. Maybe wait a couple of years?

    6) But no! Mere days later, the zombie tiered registry awakes! It is now SB 384. And who presented it? The most unlikely person on this planet: Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez-Fletcher, the Chair of the Public Safety Committee, who killed it as SB 421! She said she changed her mind–she likes it now! It sails through the committee, and it doesn’t have to go through appropriations! Wow, how about that! It’s like a bad 1950’s sci-fi movie or like being trapped in the Twilight Zone! It would have been more likely that Elvis came down in a flying saucer and presented it!

    Here is the question you should be asking yourself: What kind of political power was required to resurrect an extra-dead bill that had no chance?

    Answer: I don’t know. BUT it must have been MASSIVE!

    A possible clue: who was sitting next to the Chair? The deputy district attorney from Los Angeles.

    There must have been some GIGANTIC power plays by DA’s and who knows who else to make the biggest enemy of the bill support a zombie bill that came back to life!


    1) We know that the tiered registry is moving amazing rapidly ONLY because law enforcement and the courts want it, not to make life fair for registrants. We have no control over that.

    2) We ordinary mortals are not part of this lightning-throwing going on between massive political power deities in the sky. We see the clouds light up and dead bills float down from the sky resurrected, presented by someone who hated it but now smiles and says she “felt much better” about it, and just say the Serenity Prayer and not stress out.

    3) There is nothing wrong with complaining about the terrible details of this bill, BUT we should not pretend that we have any power to fly up into the clouds and start throwing lightning bolts and make this bill friendly to us. This is a HUGE political football, so the political power game is way above our pay grade.

    4) Yes, this “rescue boat” tiered registry is very choosy about who they let on board. I was never one of them, and now it looks like a lot of my fellow registrants who got their hopes up will be left behind too—for a while at least. BUT at least some will get off.

    5) MY MOST IMPORTANT POINT: once the massive power play is over and the bill is either passed or killed, things will calm down to where they normally are. Then WE WILL BE ABLE TO GO BACK TO DOING WHAT WE DO BEST, which is to work hard for incremental change.

    Specifically, this bill would not take affect for YEARS! Let’s calm down! We have plenty of time—especially in 2019, the next non-election year–to work at multiple levels to convince legislators to let a whole lot more people off the registry than the bill currently allows. And over time, as politicians and the public see that letting people off the registry DOESN’T cause a big sex crime wave, they will feel comfortable enough to incrementally make it easier for more and more people to get off the registry. My HOPE as a tier 3 is that someday they will let me and other tier 3’s drop to level 2 and earn my way off the registry. In the meantime I will be working with ACSOL to get you tier 1 and 2 guys off.

    SUMMARY: We can’t control much of what is going on now with the tiered registry bill, but I KNOW that–no matter what happens–ACSOL will work tirelessly at multiple levels to bring justice and fairness to the lives of registrants.

    Let’s stay UNITED toward that future, even as we argue and disagree on the details.

    • Not Really

      It may appear this comment is too long to read, but it’s not. Read it!

    • John4

      Thank you Janice for all your hard work and Roger for your words of encouragement!!

    • Tim Moore

      “Let’s stay UNITED toward that future, even as we argue and disagree [on] the details.” Best thing I heard tonight. Don’t Panic.

    • totally against public registry

      “And over time, as politicians and the public see that letting people off the registry DOESN’T cause a big sex crime wave, they will feel comfortable enough to incrementally make it easier for more and more people to get off the registry. My HOPE as a tier 3 is that someday they will let me and other tier 3’s drop to level 2 and earn my way off the registry. In the meantime I will be working with ACSOL to get you tier 1 and 2 guys off.”

      Roger, with all due respect, I hope you’re right but this sentence seems and sounds just like it came out of a fairy-tale book. I don’t see politicians or (especially) the PUBLIC thinking and feeling comfortable enough that letting registrants off the registry is a good thing.

      Just a thought! I still say we can bring the registry down if we keep finding faults on its constitutionality

    • Taylor

      IMHO, there is only one person who has the political muscle to resurrect a bill once it has been knifed by Appropriations Committee: Jerry Brown. And how did 288 stay in Tier 2 and CP go to Tier 3? Numbers. They want to stop wasting time with all these old 288s but they don’t think CP is a big chunk of the workload. That’s going to change. This isn’t about us. It not about making sense. It’s about reducing the headcount on the registry.

  30. Stephen

    Thank you Roger for all you done to help all of us with this your comments are so awesome and helpful thank you very much

  31. Friendly Advice

    Cheers Roger!

  32. Stephen

    Thank you Janice and chance and team for all your hard work and dedication on this issue thank you so much for fighting and trying to make this right you are a great example of what happens when you don’t give up

  33. Not Really

    Just for the fun of it, and to measure progress, compare these two rankings.

    redwood_baby Rank 243

    dongip Rank 50640

    Ten or 15 years ago, no one would have posted the comment dongip did. They all would have been more like redword_baby’s comment.

    Look at that. The vast, very vast, majority of people agree there is more to fear from the laws than from sex offenders. There is a 20739% increase in votes supporting dongip.

    Can you believe it?

  34. Concerned Mom

    It’s completely illogical to me that non contact 288.2 will be in tier 3. I will have no choice but to separate from my husband to protect the privacy of my children if this actually takes place. What is wrong with these law makers?

    • Nondescript

      What is wrong with the law makers is that they have an insatiable appetite for power. They are like a kite- always seeking which way the wind blows to ascend upwards. If it appears they can ride a current at the expense of a few, they will, and I doubt any of them have any real convictions or moral principles.
      It’s just a game to them. And winning everything.

      You can’t just choose better legislators. The entire system stinks because it attracts a certain type of person who is prone to this intoxicant called power. We have to rebuke their laws and shred them in court. We also need to bring a legal complaint from spouses and children of registrants. No child should have to be subject to harassment and bullying or the separation of their parent because of this nonsense. The online public sex offender registry must be challenged by those who are not on it because of any of their own wrong doing, but on it by default of association. This is just asinine law making at its finest.

      • norman

        @Nondescript..”You can’t just choose better legislators. The entire system stinks because it attracts a certain type of person who is prone to this intoxicant called power.”

        Sociopath..that is what I would call them

      • Q

        You forgot to mention truth and honesty. These go hand in hand. Somewhere along the line these two moral traits seem to be lost by their kind and now, to me it looks like they re jockeying for a favorable position in the next election. In short; we are being used yet again for the personal gain of a few. It’s obvious to me that when they see truth they pretend it doesn’t exist.

        From the beginning, this bill wasn’t introduced to do us any favors. In it’s present form it does nothing to achieve it’s stated goal of reducing the number of “non threatening” people on the registry, thus making it a more manageable, less costly tool these people think they need for a virtually non existent problem.

        Perhaps we should have been attacking the problem of theses people denying the truth from the flank all along. Pushing laws that require these people to base their decisions on empirical peer reviewed studies instead of visions of personal gain or fear of losing position in the herd of animals they run with. Maybe we should have been forcing them to be honest and logical since they seem to be unable to find these moral principals on their own.

        In it’s present form the only thing this bill will do is shuffle registrants around, giving those that they deemed irredeemable a chance to be free of their tyranny and turning the most non threatening registrants into Phil Garrido’s. This will lay them subject to murder in their own homes and all the other threatening situations that would not exist were it not for the sex offender lie being embraced and pushed by these people.

        “There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all argument, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance. This principle is, contempt prior to examination.” – Rev. William H. Poole

      • Q

        I think this “We also need to bring a legal complaint from spouses and children of registrants. No child should have to be subject to harassment and bullying or the separation of their parent because of this nonsense” is a great idea. Everyone knows families are being broken up, wives husbands parents, siblings and children are being stigmatized along with the registrant in their family; innocent people have been murdered simply because they were with someone forced to register. I wonder why no-one has ever pursued this avenue in the courts. I suppose it’s just a matter of time before someone steps up, thus encouraging others to follow.

    • American Detained in America

      Concerned Mom, my wife and I had to do just that, and even though our child is now an adult, it still puts the family at risk for me to live there, risk for eviction because the landlord doesn’t want a “sex offender” living there, at risk from vigilantes, and at risk from unnecessary scrutiny from neighbors.

      You ask what is wrong with these law makers, that’s a simple answer…they do not care about you or your children, and they sure as heck don’t care about your husband. What they do care about is their own political gain.

    • Curiouser

      Concerned Mom:

      I am in a similar situation with a 288.2(b) PC from 2013. Interestingly, that statute changed a bit to address the issue of sexting amongst minors, so I am not sure where you fit into that scenario. You may want to check the bill analysis from September 12, 2017 regarding 384. Obviously, the proposed bill simply states that any person convicted of 288.2 PC is tier 3. If you look at the analysis (Page 2, section x) it details essentially what is stated under the CURRENT 288.2(a) PC section, which involves sending harmful material of a minor engaging in sxual conduct to another minor. The 288.2(b) section hasn’t really changed from my time of plea: sending harmful material (not of a minor) to a minor. So the proposed bill’s way of addressing 288.2 is very vague, but the analysis of the same charge focuses specifically on the 288.2(a) PC that exists today. I don’t know where you fit in on this, or even if we can trust the analysis (as done by an Assembly Public Safety Committee analyst) as to what will end up in the final version. These analyses are certainly not gospel, but obviously the analyst must have to get the end result approved before it can be posted. So maybe there is something there for you and I and those others who are caught up in this mess. Check the link below and click on the Bill Analysis tab.

      If you wish to discuss further, let me know and I can send you an email address.

      • Concerned Mom

        I read the analysis and the bill and it’s completely vague wrt 288.2(b), which is the same code I’m looking for, same as you. I would be happy to discuss this more. Send me your email address.

    • Not Really

      Concerned Mom, I’m trying to incite a revolution. I really wish you, hh and Laura, and any other spouses harmed, would join forces. I don’t think the registry has ever been challenged by innocent bystanders suffering directly and you all seem to have strong motivation and compelling stories.

      You have rights.

      • Not Really

        “Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”

        Decisions of the United States Supreme Court Upholding Parental Rights as “Fundamental”

        Marriage News Blog

        14 Supreme Court Cases: Marriage is a Fundamental Right

      • Concerned Mom

        I thought I had rights but they take it away from your first. I realized this the day my husband was arrested. My entire perception of the law enforcement had changed completely. The whole DACA thing is another example of hypocrisy. There is this illusion that you have all this freedom and rights but in reality, they can take it away behind your back. This so-called free country is a sham. The registry is violation of constitution (whatever that means) and IML is just icing on the cake. At some point, I may do something legally but it’s not the right time for me yet personally. Maybe we will move away to Europe at some point later after kids are grown.

    • Gwen

      Hi Concerned mom…I am also a concerned mom who fully understands what you are talking about. Those that hold a polar opposite opinion of this issue seem to be the only ones getting heard.

      • Not Really

        Hi Gwen, if you don’t mind my asking, what do you mean by this?

        “Those that hold a polar opposite opinion of this issue seem to be the only ones getting heard.”

        Which opinion is the polar opposite and what opinion do you hold on this issue and why?

    • steve

      Way to desert your husband. My wife has stayed with me for 21 years. We’ve sent 2 to college and a third is just behind. It hasn’t been easy but keeping the family together should be the prioroty.

      • steve

        Sorry if my above post is a little harsh. Touchy subject or me. Everyone needs to do whats best for their families. All I can say is that we’ve been successful in keeping it together.

        • Concerned Mom

          Steve, it’s been a difficult emotional road for me personally but my number one priority is protecting my children (one adult now and a teenager). My husband is a terrific father and I will never take that way from my kids. If we end up with separate addresses, it would simply be a formality. So far, it’s been okay because he’s not on the public website so our neighbors don’t really know what the disposition was after his arrest. If this bill becomes law in its current form, I have no idea what will happen.

          • steve


            it’s a frightening thing to think about but I can tell you this, the people who are your friends and have seen your husband be a good dad , and husband will remain your friends. That was our experience when the list went online in 2002. There were quite a few uncomfortable meetings but we got thru it. I found out some of our friends already even knew before it went online and it wouldn’t shock me if some of yours know also.

    • C

      Dear Concerned Mom,

      Wow, I completely understand how you feel and hope you strategize with your husband for a method of separation which protects your children’s association from his past while preserving the relationship between he and the kids. Without information to the contrary, I’ll assume it’s a healthy one and, if they’re still young, they go ballistic with excitement when he comes home from work every day – “Daddy! Daddy! Daddy!” – a strong indicator he’s a good dad.

      We have two little ones. They have my wife’s last name and, apart from homework, my sole involvement with school is dropping them off every morning. Birthday parties never involve school friends. My kids are too young to know of my 30 year old conviction, so there’s a lot of excuse making (lying) as to why I could not make the school play or Back to School Night. It’s very tough, on all of us, to say the least.

      I’ve often considered removing myself from the equation by moving out, or far away, and it might still come to that, but for the time being, the impact of losing their father would be far, far worse than what we currently tolerate.
      Although we never argue about it or even talk about it much, my wife deeply resents me for all of this. She sleeps in a different room, but we stay together as a family for the kids.

      If yours are still young and they are attached to their dad, then keep the family as intact as possible, whether you separate or not.

      Good luck and God bless.

      • Concerned Mom

        Thanks you ‘C’. All the best to you and your family too. Our kids should never have to pay for the mistakes of their parents. We thought we were past all that but this registry is one of the worst constitutional violations but nobody cares because there is an “illusion” that it’s protecting the public.

    • New Person

      Concerned Mom,

      I think you might have a civil case against the state. The state is putting you and your children in harm’s way by increasing the level of your husband’s risk level for no other reason than to do it.

      You have Frank Lindsay in California as proof of vigilantism. That’s just one of others that have occurred. That is proof that the potentiality of endangering your children and you, who are not registrants, but are married to one. To you and your children, this is increased punishment that you never incurred and was not there before this tiered bill surfaced.

      You have several states already won cases that newer laws have been determined Ex Post Facto that you can cite. The only problem is California loves to impose more penalties onto registrants as they still believe the scheme is and will always be regulatory as stated by the 2003 Doe v Smith decision.

      But a good question is… does a registrant’s children and wife need equal protection from vigilantism? Why is the state willing to punish well beyond their stated means? Do the wife and children need to put into the crosshairs of danger, as there exists evidence of vigilantism?

  35. mike r

    Chris, AJ, I haven’t heard to much from you guys about this new revelation. What’s up? Any comments on how we should proceed? Also all that case law that I through out there doesn’t say we have to incur actual harm before we have standing in court. It in fact states that we do have standing based on the “inevitable harm” that is “demonstrable and real”, and that it will create chaos in the courts which is another element that bears weight when deciding whether to issue the injunction. I agree we don’t have standing until the law is “enacted”, and actually is signed by governor Brown. As soon as that happens, it is fair game…That was exactly what happened in the IML case, it wasn’t even a law yet…That was the mistake….

    • AJ

      @mike r:
      Sorry, brother, I’m not sure what revelation you mean. I typically skip over the CA-focused topics. Sometimes something catches my eye and I may comment, but otherwise things from Janice’s Journal, or about CA law changes and the like get short shrift from me.

    • Chris F (@Mike R)

      @Mike R

      Like AJ, I don’t spend too much time of California specific stuff that isn’t court related.

      That being said, here’s my 2 cents.

      I think ACSOL not saying anything is the best approach. Do people really think that ACSOL being on board will help legislature pass it? Does a legislator really want his next election opponent to point out that his/her opinion lined up with a group like ACSOL trying to ease restrictions on sex offenders?

      I just don’t see how an ACSOL endorsement helps anything regarding legislation. I think the opposite will happen, and an ACSOL endorsement means they need to change it until that endorsement goes away or becomes opposition.

      If it passes, ACSOL needs to let those get off that can get off, and then raise lawsuit after lawsuit to strike down the parts that aren’t fair to the rest of those on the registry. I don’t believe further lobbying will actually work, though I could be wrong since at least California ended up with laws protecting sex offenders from blatant discrimination which is something I’ll never see in my state of Texas.

      My real belief is let legislature dig the registry’s grave and challenge the core of the registry in court every way possible to get at least Substantive Due Process, Cruel and Unusual, Bill of Attainder, and Separation of Powers case to SCOTUS someday, even if it takes 8-10 more years to work there. I actually believe some legislators know the registry does more harm than good and needs to go, but they can’t do anything about it in view of the public eye. Privately, they could push through stupid legislation to try to get the entire scheme taken down and still claim they are anti-sex offender and get away with it. Let’s hope that’s what this new California scheme really is.

  36. Mq

    Hello where would that put me then. Pc 288a c in 1989

  37. Tim Moore

    Tne people will call them activist judges and have them replaced with registrant hating judges when they retire. The people will call for harsher penalties on the sentencing end and mandatory minimums, maybe life sentences for most offenders. We have to challenge the religious zeal against sex crime offenders. This needs to happen also in the homes and churches as well as the courts. Everyone has a will to power, but it doesn’t have to destroy lives. It can be creative and altruistic. We have to take the wind out of the sails of these legislators, by replacing them with those who exercise power through empirical knowlege.

  38. Counting the days

    This is what I see.
    There is a lifetime of pain and dispair for over 100,000 people in Ca. Currently. Since they don’t want to change, they make a tier system , but move 90% to a tier 3, which keeps them on a lifetime of pain and dispair! Then 90% of future offenders will more than likely get tier 3 status, with 10% getting 1 or 2. So essentially NO change at all. BUT….they feel good because they feel they addressed a situation.

    • steve

      This is not true. If the majority of people are 288 (a) and that is still tier 2, which is how it reads, then your %90 is waaaay off.

  39. Brandon

    The registry is such a huge one size fits all net and yes it does need to be tiered… at least. One group of registrants I have not seen at all in this comment section is the huge number of juveniles who were tried as adults for rape. For those that don’t know a juvenile can NOT give consent… therefore any sexual act between two 16 year olds etc is by law rape, even though the act was consensual. And juveniles do not get charged with lesser penal codes like “statutory” etc. There is only one charge for all… rape. What categories do these juveniles who were tried as adults fall into? In the SB 384 regarding this I only see it referring to juveniles who were fortunate enough to keep their case in juvenile court. But most juveniles who are 16 or 17 years old get referred to adult court for serious felony charges.

    • AlexO

      Scroll all the way to the bottom of SB 384. You’ll see it has two points regarding juveniles and points to another bill which can only take effect if SB 384 passes. I’m not sure if this addresses your question, but it’s worth looking at.

  40. HopingForHope

    It absolutely tears my heart apart to see how this will end up tearing families apart. How wrong is that?
    Not punishment?? What are they thinking? We absolutely must challenge this, and pray on behalf of all of those whose lives and families will be torn apart, that ultimately we will prevail. They don’t seem to want to pay attention to our letters. Somehow, lawmakers need to understand the enormous fall-out this will have on thousands upon thousands of innocent people, and most significantly, on the children of registrants many of who weren’t even born when these incidents occurred. My wife is also talking about leaving when this takes effect, as it will destroy her life as much as it will mine. Shame on them.

  41. Eric

    As I think about it I believe we were all foolish to get so hopeful at first. The reality is this is how it logically had to proceed. Even with this punitive, categorizing, harsh, illegal, unconstitutional bill that will leave the bulk as lifetime registrants, still the republicans would not support it, and the dems only supported it in this form. So anything less would never make it. So this is how it has to start. It is the only chink in the armor. But this will actually allow for more lawsuits, and a chance for the public and politicians to see that no harm will come of a tiny lax in the law that releases a handful. This is a tiny step forward no matter how bad it looks, but it is the only way it could proceed. It is going to take time, and I believe something will happen at the federal level. This is no different than the hate fomented persecution of women, blacks, gays, and so many other groups that had to fight for their constitutional rights.

  42. James A

    Keep in mind that the original bill, with the liberal, 3 tiers and the exemption for most pre-1987 offenders, sailed through the Senate with 27-11 votes! Many anticipated a rough ride through the Assembly.

    Many here have commented – without any evidence – that this new bill was “all part of the plan.” I find it hard to believe that California Sex Offender Management Board did several studies urging a tiered registry for the sole purpose of tricking us into supporting this bill to, somehow, add registrants. Guess what? They don’t need our support to pass a bill. I suspect it had to do with Marc Klass and that other parent testifying against this bill. Maybe a slower implementation might be more palatable.

  43. Tim Moore

    So here is what you registrants are telling me.
    We shall defend our human rights, whatever the cost will be, we shall fight on the world wide web, we shall fight on the airways, we shall fight in the court room and in the streets, we shall fight in the city hall, state and federal buildings; we shall never surrender.
    That is Good.

  44. Registry Rage

    in several ways. The most dramatic difference is the assignment of all individuals convicted of felony child pornography (CP) to Tier 3. Due to that difference, there has been a loud hue and cry from registrants and family members who would be affected both directly and indirectly.

    And that is exactly why I’m adamantly opposing this bill.

    How can the look upon CP possession more egregiously than physical rape, assault, and criminal sexual contact? I’m sorry, but this bill is barking up the wrong tree. This so-called “bargaining chip” to placate and appease the lawmakers is doing me, and countless others a disservice.

    • JAB

      But how can you say an 18 year dating a 14 year old with no sexual contact, a platonic high school bf/gf whom later marries is worse than CP? Everyone has a story. I think none of us should judge each other saying one crime is worse than the other.

      • Eric

        Registry Rage didn’t mention that is his list of serious offenses. He said physical rape, assault, and criminal sexual contact? I totally agree. There is no evidence that shows a CP offender will someday move into another category. CP offenders are treated and punished for something they never did. The thought police, without any evidence, assume if someone views images they will then gravitate to a contact offense. This is like saying anyone who views a Penthouse magazine will eventually rape a 20 year old. They are totally different mental states.

        • JAB

          I totally agree Eric. But how are they to say someone who is a teenager and has a boyfriend girlfriend relationship with an underage child, who does not get in trouble for 30 or more years, and though it is felony child molestation , that they’re going to do something again? Not all 288 (a) are the creepy old man in the van luring young girls in the car. Some of these cases are people that later ended up marrying their victim, girlfriend :boyfriend and never got into ttrouble again.

        • Registry Rage

          Yes.. and I’m not throwing anyone “under the bus.” Just stating a huge, HUGE disconnect about how THEY (cops, judges and lawmakers) glaringly exploit this “gateway crime” assumption narrative.

          Further, when someone sees “that charge” by your pic on the Internet, It immediately screams in their minds: undetected child molester, or deviant sexual attraction to children! This falsely implies that I’m broken with no spare parts to fix, up to no good and can’t be trusted.

          THIS IS PATENTLY FALSE! It’s the equivalent of yelling fire or gun in a crowded theater.

          In short, I’m being made a spectacle out of for political gain!

  45. Not Really

    Suppose your argument prevails at this moment and amendments are passed due to your logic. Which would happen?

    A. All 311s are moved out of Tier 3.

    B. The unnamed offenses you mention would be moved into Tier 3 next to the 311s, thereby nullifying your argument.

    So which would happen? A or B?

  46. KM


    “15) Deletes current provisions allowing people required to register under the Act for
    misdemeanor annoying or molesting a child, felony sexual battery by restraint, or specified
    child pornography offenses to petition for exclusion from the Web site.

    It looks like there are no more exceptions from the public website. So even misdemeanors are going to be be made public. Well then…

    • AlexO

      Sort of it. Several of those fall under tier 1 which won’t be public. So no petition for exclusion needed.

      Tiers 2 & tiers 3 force the information and don’t include the same codes that would’ve allowed to petition for exclusion anyway.. So for most with the exclusion, things shouldn’t change.

      Also, I already found at least one mistake in the analysis that are not in the actual bill. I wouldn’t really trust the analysis.

    • JCrsn

      I think that’s pertaining to the current exclusion that stands right now which would no longer be in effect in 2021 after which the exclusion then applies only to Tier 1. The key word is “current”.

      It doesn’t mean that misdemeanors are no longer excluded.

    • Registrant

      I’m confused. The analysis within the link that you posted, doesn’t match the actual bill. Does that mean it will undergo additional amendments to include the changes in the analysis? Or, is someone confused with the analysis and didn’t read the bill correctly? With the analysis, it completely changes who’s listed on the website.

  47. Matthew is a really good article. I did not know the last registry taken up by the supreme court was from alaska and ended in a 5-4 vote. That was done in 2003! Imagine if it gets that far with data over the past 15 years or so. I bet we could win this thing and take down the public registry forever.

    • Matthew

      The Court of Appeals’ reliance on the wide dissemination of the information is also unavailing. The Ninth Circuit highlighted that the information was available “world-wide” and “[b]roadcas[t]” in an indiscriminate manner. 259 F.3d, at 992. As we have explained, however, the notification system is a passive one: An individual must seek access to the information. The Web site warns that the use of displayed information “to commit a criminal act against another person is subject to criminal prosecution.” Was there cause. Now however, if you google anyone’s name not in search of finding out that information, it is there on 3rd party websites. Why can’t attorneys see that this judgement didn’t take in affect third party websites?

    • AlexO

      That’s pretty much what everyone is looking forward to this year. Justice Kennedy was the swing vote and was also the one to who uttered the infamous “frighteningly high” quote. He’s sinse seems to have expressed regret for that blunder and even somewhat addressed it as a sidebar in the recent Packingham case (ruled in our favor) by stating something to the effect of “It’s concerning how much control lies over people no longer on supervision” but capped it off stating that wasn’t the case before them at the time. There are several cases either heading to SCOTUS this year or likely to (see Colorado case). It seems like this time around they may very well rule that the registry in general is unconstitutional. At least for those post supervision. And if that happens, this whole tiered thing in California may be moot by the time it would actually go into effect. It’s why I and a few others are not overally concerned with this bill, for the moment.

      • Matthew

        Yes, after I read the actual post and decision with reasoning, I dont think any bill should concern us at this point. There is so much support that it is bad to have addresses listed. What about those that live in the same house? They have the same path of happiness without fear. I could pretty much guarantee, with the right attorney, the registry will come down. That means reading their response word for word and using it to benefit the RC.

  48. Matthew

    It has passed assembly barely, fletcher came to defense of this bill. This bill never would of made it out of commission without the amendments. Fletcher never would of allowed it. We need to take this to the supreme court and change that vote

  49. screwed for life

    This turd just passed. Guess we wait and see if Moonbeam signs it. Congrats to the hundreds of people this helps.

  50. Atheisticallyyours

    IT JUST PASSED! I cannot believe it! SB 384 has PASSED the State Assembly as of 5:33 PM today (09/15/2017)! The bill now goes to the Senate for Enrollment, and on to the governor! Downside:

    The damned thing does NOT GO INTO EFFECT UNTIL 2021! So, there are 3 MORE SOLID YEARS of “the way it is” now!

    • AW

      Really? Congratulations for being one of the five people this bill helps.

    • NPS

      I’m not sure if this is something worth celebrating; at least not publicly in this forum. It can be taken by some as gloating. While this tiered registry definitely benefits me, I’m rather skeptical. I’m still going to file the CoR in 2020.

      There have been numerous changes, and who’s to say there won’t be more that will negatively affect even more RCs? Many people have now been moved from what would have been a Tier 1 to what will be a Tier 3. Granted, all of us are currently Tier 3s, but only when it comes to the duration of registration. We’re all lifetime, but about 35% of us are not publicly listed. With this new bill, that number will likely dwindle to <20%.

      These politicians keep talking about the worst of the worst continuing lifetime registration. Don't they realize that the worst of the worst are in prison for life? If someone is no longer beholden to the state (having successfully completed all debts to society), then they are a free citizen upon completion of parole/probation. If one is truly a danger to society, then the punishment for a heinous crime should be life in prison; thus, there'd be no need for a registry.

      That's my two cents.

  51. Brandon

    9/15/17 5:34PM
    SB 384 passed. 42-22 vote.

  52. Nondescript

    384 just passed by a majority of votes. It’s biggest cheer leader was none other than Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez-Fletcher.

    • AlexO

      I bet she was. I’m fairly confident this bill will actually result in less people being able to get off then now. The CoR is gone and about half the people who currently qualify for it are in T1 & T2. So they basically reduced the number of people that can actually get off. Of course I don’t have actual data to back this up. But I’m fairly confident the final analysis will probably confirm this somewhat.

  53. Something Interesting

    Senate Bill 384 passed the Assembly.

  54. Taylor

    This helps me if all goes well. If all goes well, it will be the first time. But there are plenty of people who it will not help and we cannot leave them behind. No one should be celebrating today. However, my thanks to all those who pushed hard for the best we could do.

  55. KM

    13) Provides that effective January 1, 2022, registrants of specified sex offenses under current
    law and tier three registrants, excluding juvenile offenders, will be posted on a public Web
    site with full address. All other tier two registrants and those convicted of committing or
    attempting to commit annoying or molesting a minor, excluding juvenile offenders, will be
    posted on the public Web site with the ZIP Code for the registered address displayed.

    annoying a minor is a Tier 1 offense but will not be on public website?

  56. ExpatRFSO

    Yep. Passed. On to the Governor now.

    Bill analysis and how each legislator voted:

  57. bill

    what tier does a misdemanor 311.11 fall into. Mine is a wobbler and i have been holding off having it reduced because i was told you and only get a COR if you have a felony. So I was going to go for the COR and then go for the reduction to a misdemeanor

    • Counting the days

      All C.P. is tier 3 with no chance of cor. If you get one, it will be tossed in 2021 if law stands. In Ca. You are basically fucked, misdomeanor, felony, whatever. I have felony 311.1a that would have been misdomeanor If I had been convicted 6 months earlier. Now I can get misdomeanor reduction, but with new bill will still be on list, tier 3 for life, and FUCKED in this sorry state.

      • NoFear

        Counting the days

        Sorry, but you are wrong. I too have one misdomeanor count of CP sentenced in 2000. Case was expunged/dismissed and will be placed in tier one still. No post on the wesbite for tier ones

        If the conviction was a felony it will be tier 3, which is BS

        • Counting the days

          So you are saying that when I get my reduction to misdomeanor( petitioning as we speak), and this B.S. goes into effect, I will be tier 1?

  58. concerned wife

    I am new to all this. My husband is serving his sentence in jail now for felony 311.11. Could someone tell me if under the current law, would he be listed on the public Megan’s website?

    • Benny

      Hey all not sure what to make if this story in Fontana Ca. I thought in addition to a COR one needs a pardon from the governor to be removed from the registry? So confusing. If this individual found his way to be removed from this nightmare and now guilty of another sex crime I’m speechless! Wow! Talk bout a second chance thrown out the window,,,,,, that’s if he’s guilty.

    • MS

      Current law…Felony: publicly listed. Misdemeanor: not listed. While his conviction is a felony, he would be listed publicly. I was convicted in 2013 (felony) and it took roughly 24 months before I showed up on the site. At that time I was 2 years into a 3 year probation sentence. Shortly after I hired recordgone to petition the court for early termination of probation. It was granted so I ended up serving about 30 of the 36 month probation sentence. At the same time the early termination was granted I was granted a reduction to a misdemeanor, and expungement (accepted plea deal before Jan 1, 2014). Waited 3 months for the DOJ to remove me from ML website because misdemeanor possession is not supposed to be publicly listed. Who knows how long it would have taken them to remove me without recordgone sending a letter to the DOJ to update their records and remove me from the site. Your husband won’t be able to have his possession convicted expunged (after Jan 1 2014) but unless something has changed since 2013 possession is a wobbler and can be reduced. Maybe you can get it reduced before DOJ gets him published on ML site? This might be possible he petitions for and is granted early termination of probation. In order for this to happen he has to be at least 1/2 way done with probation and paid all fines, finishing counseling, etc. By law 1/2 of probation has to be completed but my original attorney told me to not try until I had completed 2/3. I used recordgone for all my post conviction legal stuff.

      • concerned wife

        Thank you for the reply. He got sentenced to 2 year jail time, no probation. I checked RecordGone’s website, and it seems like a felony conviction of 311.11 could be reduced in CA. The only thing is that he was convicted in the military court, and he is serving his sentence in military jail in CA now. I will probably call recordgone to see if they have any ideas.

  59. someone who cares

    Concerned Wife ~ Here is a cut and paste of the new law: If I am reading this correctly, he would be a Tier 1 (not publicized ) He falls into the Felony Offense described in (c) but f it was not a serious or violent felony as described in subdivision (c) of Section 667.5 or subdivision (c) of Section 1192.7, he would still be a Tier 1. Read both Section 667.5 (c) and Section 1192.7 (c) to see if he falls in any of those categories. If he went to jail, I kind of doubt he would.

    (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, 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.
    (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:
    (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.

    • concerned wife

      Thanks for the reply. I checked both Section 667.5 (c) and Section 1192.7 (c) and he does not fall into any of those. His conviction was only for possession of child porn.
      Didn’t Janice just say that felony child porn is now moved to Tier 3 for the new bill??

      • concerned wife

        I just read the entire bill, is seems that a felony violation of 311.11 will be tier 2.
        (2) (A) A tier two offender is subject to registration for a minimum of 20 years. A person is a tier two offender if the person was convicted of an offense described in subdivision (c) that is also described in subdivision (c) of Section 667.5 or subdivision (c) of Section 1192.7, or that is a felony offense described in subdivision (a) or (d) of Section 243.4, Section 285, subdivision (f), (g), (h), or (i) of Section 286, subdivision (c) of Section 288, subdivision (f), (g), (h), or (i) of Section 288a, subdivision (b), (d), or (e) of Section 289, a felony violation of Section 311.1, a felony violation of Section 311.11, Section 647.6 if it is a second or subsequent conviction for that offense that was brought and tried separately, or subdivision (c) of Section 653f.

  60. Tired Of Hiding

    These thieves in government are literally stealing life and time from us. They have us locked in a virtual prison and keep teasing us with promises of fairness and hope.

    They have lied and will do nothing. I do not respect their qualifications as leaders and I do not accept their laws. Liers have nothing to offer except lies and I have had enough!

    They are stealing days and years from people’s lives for their own gain…why are not more people pissed about this shit?!?

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 *