Monthly Meetings

Q4: 10/14 in Los Angeles

2017 ACSOL Conference Videos

ACSOLCalifornia

Tiered Registry Bill Resurfaces in Amended Form

Although believed to be stopped, the Tiered Registry Bill has been revitalized by its author Sen. Scott Wiener. The bill has a new number — SB 384 — as well as new content. This was accomplished through the “gut and amend” process available to state legislators.

“As compared to the prior bill, SB 384 significantly reduces the number of people who would be assigned to Tiers 1 and 2 and therefore eligible to petition for removal from the registry in 10 or 20 years,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci. “For example, the new bill would assign people convicted of felony possession of child pornography to Tier 3, which would continue their existing requirement to register for a lifetime.”

SB 384 is similar to the final version of the former tiered registry bill in that it will take effect on January 1, 2021. The bill could be modified before its effective date.

In order to become law, SB 384 must be considered and passed by two committees (Public Safety and Appropriations) and the full Assembly, then return to the Senate for a concurrence vote. All of these steps must be accomplished no later than September 15.

ACSOL board members will consider today the organization’s position on SB 384. Input from registrants, family members and supporters is encouraged via this website.

SB 384 – Sep 2017

Join the discussion

  1. pgm111

    This bill is now a horrible piece of garbage. I am in favor of defeating this new amended bill because it is entirely based upon emotion and not empirical evidence.

    • TS

      If no worthy empirical evidence giving credence to required times and exits from this for people, but only arbitrary thinking based upon emotion, then it needs to be canned. This now appears to be merely a political move in the name of re-election efforts for next year to curry and garner political points.

    • Anonymous Nobody

      Conform to federal. Eliminate all offenses from registration other than those required by the federal government, and conform tiers for the remaining to the minimum required by the federal government. Anything else should be opposed; anything else undermines our fight, it keeps us bogged down at state while the feds go wild with ever more and more.

      And for once, start screaming this as our demand! Let them at least hear the idea. As it is, they have heard only the prosecutors’ ideas! Why are PROSECUTORS even involved, the courts say this is NOT a criminal matter, it is administrative; this is NOT part of sentencing.

      Letting the discussion be about details is our worse enemy, make an OVERRIDING general argument such as conform to federal. We will ALWAYS lose an argument about details, that is WHY the prosecutors presented that kind of bill — they knew what they were doing, we have yet to show we have any idea what we are doing.

      • David

        Excellent points, Anonymous Nobody, I’d go further: if a Registry must exist, make it one universal set of requirements throughout the entire United States, so we don’t have all this ridiculous bullsh#t about who’s allowed where & for what number of days & on what tier level, etc. I’ve been on the Registry for 20 years now and I am fed up with this crap!!!

    • 1984

      One thing that seems to come out of all the effort, to me, is “they” do not want to let go of any one of us – ever. Our handlers are very intent in keeping control. Optimistic? Not really. But OUR Constitution, being an amazing document that it is, is optimism. The people that wrote it came from tyranny and had the insight to insure the protection of all the people from the under educated, power gropers and the list is too big for here.
      The government continues to try and erode our constitution. Especially the parts that curtail their power. And uphold the parts that make them look good.

      Looking across our country in regards to sex offenders, chaos prevails. Real data is ignored. Feds are trying to get their piece.

      We need to continue the effort of organizing our efforts to reintroduce sanity.

    • Not Really

      I’m not sure how you read the bill carefully enough to understand it so quickly.

  2. mot

    I looked for SB384 and found a bill to allow alcohol sales past 2am please confirm the bill number

    • Janice Bellucci

      @Mot – There is a link to the bill above which is right below the article. The link is light blue and says “SB 384 – Sep 2017”. Click on the link and you will have the language of the bill.

      • Hopeful

        So have sex with a child tier 1, but have a pic of someone else having sex with a child tier 3? That’s super crazy!

        • geebee

          That is super possible, and even better.

          In a state with an age of consent of 16, you can have legal sex with a 16/17 year old and get 15 years in prison for having footage of said 16/17 year old (that it was her idea to record in the first place). Google Eric Reinhart or some such.

          ‘Murica!!!

          • Not Really

            I don’t believe it is a coincidence that part of the focus will be on child porn, synchronicity. John Chamberlain was beaten to death in the Orange County Jail while being raped after being accused of being a “Chester.”

            He was actually arrested for misdemeanor child porn. What is that? Is it purely subjective in the eyes of the arresting officer and the prosecutor? Is there any way to discover what the child porn actually was? This case was so big that there was an Orange County grand jury investigation and report, and I still bet no one asked if the child porn was really child porn.

            This gruesome murder was big news then, not so long ago, but is mostly forgotten now, and no one knows if the “child porn” was actually child porn. If it was not porn, but was labeled porn by authorities, that would double the injustice done to John Chamberlain. Many people forgot all about this case, but I haven’t and never will. It’s like Remember the Alamo.

            http://www.ocweekly.com/news/the-john-chamberlain-jailhouse-murder-one-of-the-accused-speaks-6413727

            • pgm111

              @Not Really

              You are absolutely on point! My case is very similar. I never possessed “child pornography” as defined by the statute yet everyone, including my defense attornies, ignored this fact. I have now filed a 2255 appeal based in part on the government’s own discovery document that simply makes an unsubstantiated claim of child pornography. I will keep everyone apprised of matters as the federal judge renders a decision.

              • Not Really

                pgm111, maybe it’s a “I’ll know it when I see it” standard, which would make it a community standard different from jury to jury depending on jurisdiction. But it would require a jury. What’s more, it is impossible to know what is a crime and what is not since there is no way of knowing what was found to be a crime and what wasn’t. So there is no fair notice.

                Good luck to you.

            • Q

              @Not Really; glad you have reminded me of this case, which is a clear example among many that the registry is not civil, price club or anything other than bad law (good laws do not get people tortured and murdered). And now the hatchet artists have carved the proposed tiered registry up to where many that did not in reality have a victim; they just looked at some pictures (like Chamberlain), or perhaps something else that didn’t involve another human being will be thrown under the bus. A far cry from laying hands on someone for sex by way of grooming, coercion or what have you.

              Allot of me marvels that most on this site are hoping our oppressors will actually allow them to co-sign their BS lie through acceptance rather than fight. Yea, allot of people will benefit, but at what cost? Many seem to be OK with that (variation of the Stockholm syndrome?). Why does nobody ever ask these people deciding on our lives why they NEVER consider things like the Chamberlain torture and murder?

              I’d like to remind everyone that peoples whose actions are the actions an enemy would do are the ones writing and deciding on this bill and most just sit and hope they will somehow come to their senses and be struck moral and remove some of the more onerous portions on this bill. They do lie by pretending the truth doesn’t exist, they lie by omission of the facts. They lie by claiming things about us that completely contradict reality. I’m not so sure about this. I’m not very sure about the long term results being anything good.

              Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal.
              Martin Luther King, Jr.

              • Not Really

                We are on the same page, more or less. I think any dent in the armor is better than none, though.

                The Nazi Census

                Identification and Control in the Third Reich

                http://www.temple.edu/tempress/titles/1625_reg.html

              • Anonymous Nobody

                You got it, Q. Except, a lot FEWER people were going to be helped by that original tier bill than we were being told here. They put in COR standards for your relief, and in telling people here what you would get, that little detail was left out every time. The prosecutors put that in there in order to use it — just like they do for a COR, which they fight tooth and nail very time. I said that form the beginning, and if you didn’t believe me, then look at how the bill was amended and then tell me the prosecutors did not intend to use that! A LOT fewer people were going to get the relief than we were told would get it — except int he first year, the overwhelming number man that a lot got off registration who in subsequent years would not be able to get off with a major challenge for which the courts have proven over and over again for a COR they are unwilling to side with registrants.

                As I said from day one, no filing for permission, you met your time frame, you stop registering.They already know it, you don’t even need to notify them, inf act, they should have to notify YOU to make sure you know.

                We lit the enemy control this entire discussion and write the bill too. If we don’t go out and take control of the discussion, we might as well disband. Yes, easier said than done, but instead pushing our ideas, we simply cheerleaded for the enemy. For god’s sake,now wonder it was amended to be even far worse, not that the original bill was any where close to acceptable.

                Conform to federal — only the offenses the feds require to register have to register, a d only for the tiers times the feds require, not much longer like in our proposal. And no application to ask to stop, you just stop at your time frame.

                • Q

                  They seem to keep expanding the mine field and most are cheering them on. They take comfort in their rationalizations of what their minds tell them may happen, these thoughts may or may not be grounded in reality.

                  This kind of attitude/mind set is probably the biggest reason I stopped posting on this site for around a year to a year and a half. Perhaps it was longer; I don’t know. The one thing I do know for sure about the authors and their supporters is that their moral compass is broken. They can’t be trusted, and they seem to have no respect for the principals that were guaranteed to all in this country until their kind took power.

                  I think many have lost sight that they did not write this bill to do us any kind of favor, this was written for their benefit, not ours. This amended bill makes that very obvious.

                  Nobody seems to notice that already they they have neutralized the stated purpose of the tiered registry bill, which was to make the registry more manageable by facilitating the release of responsibility to register of those perceived to be non threatening. Now, the way this bill has been amended it guarantees the registry will remain the non manageable bloated demon it already is. They are simply replacing the ones they will let go with the ones they would have let go. And the ones they will let go are the ones they wouldn’t let go a month ago.

                  Watch what they do; not what they say.
                  And they do seem to love their lie.

                  • Not Really

                    Nobody is ever going to write a bill to do us any favors. Not ever. No one, ever. We aren’t little babies politicians will pickup and kiss during election season.

                    That fact should be so obvious it shouldn’t need to be mentioned.

                    The only reason the tides are turning is because many are starting to speak up. During the panic, the science was wrong or there wasn’t any. It didn’t matter who got caught up in the web and everyone everywhere wanted more punishment for everyone. In social media and news story comments no one spoke out about civil liberties and the Bill of Rights. Civil commitment didn’t spring up out of a vacuum. There wasn’t anyone looking close enough to see the slippery slope the SO laws were sliding down and they didn’t understand that the U.S. was a prime incarceration nation: “While the United States has only 5 percent of the world’s population, it has nearly 25 percent of its prisoners.” Possibly that realization more than anything turned the tide. It is not something politicians can be proud of and so even the toughest on crime had to stop and think. Then the studies started, and it was soon obvious most everything the yellow journalists printed on sex crimes was false or exaggerated. That gave the legal community some ammo to fight with when before all there was was a blank slate with reflections of murdered children haunting it.

                    Yes, I cheer all this effort on. And I cheer all4consolaws on. Wars are a series of battles. Whoever wins the most battles wins the war. Whoever quits because it is not going their way… loses the war.

        • MS

          Tier 3 for possession? Lifetime registration for possession? Not talking production…talking possession! Wow! No contact offense…tier 3! Total BS!!!!

      • Jody Tafoya

        Janice,
        I’m a little confused about SB421. I thought this was passed 5 – 1 in favor, and know we were just waiting for the next decision between Sept 5-15. Now it’s got a new name, SB384? Did SB421 get defeated all together?

        • AlexO

          It passed and then was placed in the suspense file due to its high cost (this part is standard). The next committee was then to vote on whether or not they’d release it form the suspense file. They voted no and it died (this committee does it in closed session and doesn’t have to explain its reasoning).

          We thought the bill was dead but it was resurrected by a common tactic of removing the text of a bill and replacing with something completely unrelated. This tactic is used a fairly often and hated by most as it cheats the system by skipping a bunch of steps that could’ve otherwise killed it.

        • Janice Bellucci

          @Jody Tafoya – Yes, SB 421 was stopped on September 1 by the Assembly’s Appropriations Committee. The new bill was created when Senator Scott Wiener used the “gut and amend process” to create a new tiered registry bill. The number of that bill is SB 384.

  3. geebee

    Now… those placed in Tier 3 due to high Static99 score can petition off after 20 years. But… 288(a) (l&l with a child under 14) is Tier 2, and 288.2 (sending harmful matter to a minor) is Tier 3? Is that right? Absurd!

    I say – NO! I say – time to go for the jugular. Snyder, Muniz and Colorado – and Janice Bellucci – all the way!!!

    • Not Really

      Please cite the sources so we don’t have to guess. Part of the problem last time was so many making assumptions. I might try to name each section used in the PDF so we know what is what all the way through it. Or maybe we could take each section and do it. Maybe we could use note bubbles in the pdf, so if anyone wanted to know what the section number mean, they could expand the note. Like, Section 187 is murder. It is too confusing to not have the common name listed. I’m not saying you got it wrong, but it would help if you copy/paste the sources so we can all be on the same page.

    • David

      ACSOL should withdraw any support of this Bill.
      #1: It feels like supporting any of these efforts by lawmakers is colluding with our own oppressors.
      #2: Does this Bill really do anything at all??
      #3: The Bill’s required legislative path would be enormously challenging even for a bill that was uncontroversial and unanimously supported. Given the legislative process and deadlines, how could this Bill could possibly succeed?

      • Not Really

        #2: Does this Bill really do anything at all??

        That is a good question. To answer it we would have to know what percentage of registrants are listed as landing in Tier 3 and how many are not.

        So are a large percentage of registrants not going to be designated Tier 3, dropping them from the registry? We would have to know that most fundamental number before being able to answer your question.

        Of course some in Tier 3 are going to object no matter what because it won’t be politically possible to undo the entire registry all at once at this time. That is just the political reality.

        • Timothy Moore

          Good question. I second that. Does anyone know the breakdown of registrants by such and such conviction? Is there even one?

      • Q

        This b
        amended bill makes me feel more like a number, not a living breathing human being.

    • Not Really

      I think this bill was hastily drawn up and it is subject to extensive amendments before the vote. Because looking at 222.2 it could include misdemeanor offenses and the subsections are not clarified at all.

      288.2.

      (2) If the matter used by the person is harmful matter but does not include a depiction or depictions of a minor or minors engaged in sexual conduct, the offense is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by imprisonment in the state prison for 16 months, or two or three years.

      This looks like a wobbler.

      • AlexO

        It should be. A general guideline for a wobbler is if it allows a choice between county or prison.

        And you’re right that a lot of the codes that fall under a wobbler are being treated equally whether or not you were granted probation or not, and whether it’s a felony or not. I currently fall into that. My 311.4a is a wobbler but in this version of the bill 311.4 shown as a blanket to place a person into Tier 3. So a misdemeanor 311.4a that you were granted probation for and then had expunged, would be treated the same as someone who did a decade prison sentence for raping multiple people.

        • Not Really

          PC 311.4(a)

          Knowingly hiring or employing minor to perform sexual act for production of child porn

          Wobbler (first offense); felony (second and subsequent offenses)

          Misdemeanor: 1 year in county jail; $2,000 fine

          Felony: 16 months, 2 or 3 years in jail; $10,000 fine (first offense) or $50,000 fine (second and subsequent offenses)

          https://www.shouselaw.com/child-pornography-crimes.html

          • AlexO

            These websites are often out of date or generalize too much.

            This was my first offense of anything and I was given it as a felony with probation, doing 60 days total over weekends in county plus community service. I’m guessing they’ll usually give most 311 as a felony since if you get probation several of them can be reduced and expunged (for someone only if it’s been grandfathered, like 311.11 which no longer qualifies for expungement for convictions after Jan 1, 2014).

            • Not Really

              You may be right, but I’m inclined to think a lawyer that specializes in the offense knows a million times more about it than I do.

  4. cool RC

    Why would we want a Tired bill when we have Colorado Sex Offender Registry Unconstitutional in our sight.
    We didn’t have this chance before but now getting rid of the Registry is now possible.

    • Not Really

      If that is true, it will still be true as applied. So that option is not forfeited.

  5. NPS

    I’m not sure how to feel about this.

    On the one hand, I’m still a Tier 1 and will be eligible for relief in 2021, which means I’m waiting an extra year to get off. I’m still going to file the CoR in 2020 not just for relief, but because I want to put this whole thing behind me.

    On the other hand, it still leaves a lot of people on the list. I didn’t go too thoroughly over this bill, but nowhere did I find automatic relief for those who have been on the registry for 30+ years. And that’s just it, why isn’t this automatic? Why the need to petition? Although it seems like under this bill, it would make it much harder for the D.A. to justify keeping someone on the registry beyond his/her term.

    Why the need to keep people in tier 3? Isn’t the purpose to reduce those listed?

    If this passes, I would suggest anyone who has a wobbler offense, file the 17b.

    • John4

      NPS, kindly explain to me as to why u encourage to file for a 17b if it’s a wobbler. I’m really not that educated with interpreting bills, laws and lawyer jargon. If this bill does pass what would a 17b , 1203.4 do for an individual who is on the registry. Thanks you

      • AlexO

        Some of the codes, like 311.11 (CP) state they are Tier X if they are a felony. If they’re misdemeanors, they’d be T1. Some codes are not specific, so it doesn’t matter. But if you can get it reduced, do so. You never know when you may be able to take advantage of the reduction with new laws.

        • Matthew

          Hey Alex,

          Do you know what the process is to get the reduction. I have a felony 311.

      • NPS

        A 17b will make a difference for your tier and keep you off the website. This bill keeps referencing felonies for a higher tier and public notification. Misdemeanors are tier 1.

        It also allows you to answer “no” to the “have you been convicted of a felony” box.

        • geebee

          ANY person in California convicted of a wobbler offense should apply for a reduction under 17b. Few know that this is an option, can be done with one simple form and costs $120.
          ANY person in California convicted of a crime should apply for a dismissal under 1203.4. Few know that this is an option, can be done with one simple form and costs $120.
          Me thinks California like it that way…

          • NPS

            I think costs depend on the county. I filed my 17b and 1203.4 in pro per (and my motions were granted). There was ZERO charge. This was in San Francisco County.

            • Mr. D

              For those inquiring about obtaining a 17 B and then at 12:03 .4 The benefit is very simple. Once your charges been reduced and then ultimately dismissed you will not need to register if the tiered registry bill passes. I love the tears are based on the criteria of being “convicted”. Hey on the ferry once all of your charges have been dismissed and expunged you know longer convicted. A huge benefit to you if this bill passes.

              • AlexO

                California expungement doesn’t completely dismiss the charges. They can still be used against you in future cases and you still need to answer “yes” on most government job forms. What makes you think this registry is any different than the current registry that doesn’t let you off with an expungement?

                • Mr. D

                  Folks if you look at the verbiage and each section where it describes And breaks out in the charges for each tier they all say if you Have been “convicted”. With a dismissal and expungement you Re no longer considered “convicted”.

                  • AlexO

                    And if a government job form asks you if you’ve ever been convicted, you have to answer yes, even if you got 1204.4. I just don’t see any difference there and remaining on this tired registry.

                    I mean, I really hope you’re right. This isn’t an argument I want to win.

                  • Follow the $

                    The current version says convicted as well. There is no change in the language. Expungement under 1203.4 does not relieve us of registration. PC 290.007 specifically deals with 1203.4 and that it doesn’t relieve us. That section is not being amended with the new bill so it will still apply.

              • John4

                Mr. D……. where iin the bill(page) does it state that if one obtains a 17b and 1203.4. It relieves him from registering. Thanks

                • Quint

                  If you think that getting an expungement in California will result in you not having to register, you’re sorely mistaken.

          • Q

            geebee – I’m holding a legal document from the Superior Court of the county of Los Angeles that says that my charges have been dismissed under 1203.4. I haven’t read the bill yet but after reading the comments I’m alarmed for allot of people. If someone had sex with a minor the impact of this bill on them sounds like it’s going to be allot less than it will be for someone that just looked at a few pictures! There’s something terribly wrong with that picture!!!!!

          • AW

            https://www.avvo.com/legal-guides/ugc/post-conviction-motion-to-reduce-a-felony-to-misdemeanor-under-penal-code-section-17-b- states that if you served prison time for your felony, you can’t file a 17b motion. My offense should have warranted only probation, my lawyer(s) argued for and told me I was going to do jail time, and then when I pled no contest, I was told I was doing prison time. So even though both counts in my case were wobblers, I am not eligible.

          • deegoh

            I did just that and did not pay a thing due to being an indigent, and that is in spite of completing two college degrees. My case was reduced to a “wobbler” and this is information that I had to research on my own.

        • John4

          NPS… thank you for your help and time.

  6. steve

    I think with Snyder and Colorado many, many changes to this bill will happen before it goes into affect…if it ever does.

  7. KM

    I support any change to the system. It will help a lot of people. And now with the new case law coming down, those who don’t like this bill can pursue other avenues. Anyone on here that doesn’t support this bill is being very selfish as it change nothing for you but WILL help some.

    • AlexO

      If I’m reading this correctly, this actually does change things for many people as they seem to be removing the current Certificate of Rehab provision. I currently qualify for CoR. This new tier system would place me into tier 3 (in the original bill I was tier 1). Tier 3 people cannot get off the registry. Period. I may be lifetime now, but CoR is my way out in 6 years. With this bill, I’m permanently locked into lifetime. Pardon me if I look out for myself in this situation.

      If this mess does become law as is, my hope is that everyone, including me, could still qualify for the CoR as that was available at the time of our convictions and would fall under post ex facto?

      • jd

        Is AlexO correct? Does this bill remove the possibility of a COR for people in Tier 3? Janice, please clarify.

        • AlexO

          For reference to the relevant section.

          SEC. 12. Section 290.5 is added to the Penal Code, to read:
          290.5. (a)  (1)  A person who is required to register pursuant
          to Section 290 and who is a tier one or tier two offender may file
          a petition in the superior court in the county in which he or she is
          registered for termination from the sex offender registry at the
          expiration of his or her mandated minimum registration period,
          or if the person is required to register pursuant to Section 290.008,
          he or she may file the petition in juvenile court on or after his or
          her birthday following the expiration of the mandated minimum
          registration period. The petition shall contain proof of the person’s
          current registration as a sex offender.

          CoR itself does not relief duty to register. It’s getting the CoR and then applying to 290.5 that allows you to stop registering, if you meet it’s criteria which currently is if you were not convicted of X.

          The text above replaced the current text of 290.5. As you can see, it says only those on T1 & T2 can qualify and then goes on to talk about the process itself.

      • Not Really

        Please copy and paste your source so we all know you are correctly understanding the changes.

        • AlexO

          Look at my comment just above.

          • Not Really

            Thank you. Your argument is clearer now. I don’t believe a non-contact offense should have more severe consequences either. But I also think science will debunk the Static-99 soon with the help of its author.

            • Joe

              His argument may be clearer, but it is still fundamentally flawed.

              The Static99 does not judge anyone (worse or better), or assigns consequences. Judging and assigning consequences take place in criminal court, culminating in sentencing, by a judge, based on the case details. Clearly (or until the system went completely off the rails with mandatory minimums for CP) a contact offense will be judged worse, and will incur a stricter penalty, as it should.

              All the Static99 does is, based on a statistically valid sample, dissect said sample via a Metastudy into groups based on 10 or so criteria, review re-offense rates for the individual groups and distill this into an overall propensity to re-offend. ALL which is backed up by data and statistical analysis (don’t remember much of Statistics class, but looks legit – with standard deviations and such). The back up for the conclusions is publicly available.

              So yes, the analysis concludes (with back up) that a person who commits a non-contact offense, who is younger at the time of release, is more likely to re-offend, than someone like, say a 60 year old grandpa who actually rapes his 10 year old granddaughter. Clearly the latter offense is much worse, and the offender will incur a much harsher penalty, but the likelihood that this grandpa will re-offend once out of prison is much much smaller than the likelihood that the 19 year old or 34.9 year old with a CP conviction that resulted in probation will. That is all the STATIC99 says. And backs up with a metastudy analysis.

              Where the complete disconnect is – and this is no fault of the risk instrument – is that, while the instrument clearly states it predicts the propensity to re-offend 10 (ten!) years into the future based on analysis of a like, historical population, while it states it is completely useless after 17 (seventeen!) years of offense free living in the community, the legislators are using this STATIC99 (it even is called that) to assign lifetime risk – risk, which, by definition, is anything BUT static.

              This is no different than your insurance company charging you the same rate at 16 years of age with a fresh drivers license (high likelihood of accidents – NOT based on individual skill, but based on the behavior of a historical like population) as at 66 after 50 years of accident free driving. No one in their right mind would accept that.

              Risk is, by definition, dynamic. The STATIC99 is just that. And past 10 years the two just don’t jive.

              So it would be delightful if @AlexO could stop griping about how unfair the STATIC99 is, and how it treats non-contact offenses worse than contact offenses. It is not, and it does not. The legislators are simply mis-using it.

              • Alexander

                (My name is Alexander, not to be confused with Alex O.)

                Joe,

                Whether or not the Static 99R is really “backed up by data” is actually quite debatable. It is debatable because, from my understanding, Hanson and his cohorts have been defensive of letting third-party researchers and academics analyze its underlying data. There is absolutely no transparency. Read how the Static 99R developers, at least back in 2012, did not adhere to Ethics Code established by the American Psychological Association (APA) because Karl Hanson maintained that the Static 99R data is “a trade secret:”

                http://forensicpsychologist.blogspot.com/2012/12/judge-bars-static-99r-risk-tool-from.html

                (Also note that under California state law, California licensed psychologists must adhere to the APA Code of Ethics.)

                The Static 99R actually has been debunked by researchers and other states actually. I believe USC and Duke medical researchers have debunked the Static 99 and 99R:

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

                The State of Virginia has discredited the Static 99R for even SVP programs (which should tell you something):

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

                The State of New York has also debunked the Static 99 and seemed to have discredited Karl Hanson as well (Court opinion):

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

                Most importantly, Joe, I think you have not caught up with the newest 2016 Static 99R Coding Rules. In the most recent [2016] Coding Rules, the Static 99R developers concede that a reevaluation is necessary after two years. Further, they also concede that so-called “risk” is halved after a person has been offense-free in the community for five years. Read page 13:

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

                http://static99.org/pdfdocs/Coding_manual_2016_InPRESS.pdf

                Why is the above incriminating the State? Because according to the tiered registry, the Static 99R (aka “SARATSO”) alone will be used in placing a person in Tier 3. How can you place someone in the lifetime category if the score is only good for two, maybe five, years?

                Worse even, the authors of this newest tiered bill declare that the Static score “at release” must be used. The tiered registry bill also declares that the score must be tabulated per the “Coding Rules.” It’s absurd because the Coding Rules state that the score is really only good for two to five year.

                The logical flaw is so apparent!!

              • AlexO

                If the tool is misused and results in severe consequences (like automatically being placed in T3), it’s a bad tool. And you didn’t address how the first question can be manipulated since the test isn’t given until post conviction. I’d have less of an issue with the test if it looked at the date of the offense/arrest. That there is a flaw with the test itself.

              • Timothy Moore

                Thank you Joe. A quite clear-sighted argument. Severity of crime does not correlate with recidivism. If it did, wouldn’t murderers and all sex offenders have the highest re offense rate? Frightening does not equal high. I think the latest is pornography and incest offenses generally have a lower re-offense rate, so I am not sure if Hanson @99 is up to date on the porn studies . He seems to lump CP with fetishes and other paraphilia, at least in the Static 99 coding justifications.

                Everybody’s talking about the Static 99. But is the Static 2002 an updated version that should be used? Why isn’t there a Static 2017? Or is Static 99 R the latest? Very confusing. In the 2002 coding rules it recommends not using it after eight years. If people are scored using offenses and conviction dates that aren’t recommended in the rules, or if the scores have “expired” in usefulness, are they even valid and can be challenged in courts.

                • Follow the $

                  In the guidance on how to apply Static-99, it clearly indicated it is NOT to be used in CP possession crimes. The coding rules advise against using in a number of situations where there was no immediate physical presence of the victim (contact or not).

                  If CP is your only offense, you should not have a S-99 score and if you do I would fight it being used against you in sentencing or tier assignment.

              • J.J.

                In siding with AlexO, and respectfully disagreeing with Joe, the Static-99R does treat non-contacts worse. To say otherwise would be misstating the clear obvious (as non-contacts are very clearly given a 1 point penalty). Also treated worse because of the Static-99R: men released at young age, as well as gay men (i.e. those with male victim). Non-contacts, being less than 35 at release, and male victim will add 3 points right off the bat. But like others have said, the biggest flaw is right in the Static-99’s name: “static.” The test makes the assumption people are static and do not change. The fact is offense-free behavior in the community is the most accurate factor in determining whether one will reoffend. Yet offense-free behavior is NOT EVEN ONE of the Static-99’s risk factors. That’s my gripe, so sue me!

              • Not Really

                Joe, the public assumes a risk assessment determines the degree of danger. If all non-contact offenses were subject to mandatory 25-to-life sentences, those offenses would not be more inclined to recidivism. The potential sentence would deter them. But the public and the courts do not believe the sentence should be so severe for those relatively minor offense. The California Supreme Court, in a rare opinion relative to the three strikes law, found that indecent exposure as a third strike, resulting in a 25-to-life sentence, was too severe, because flashing has historically been considered a nuisance offense rather than a violent crime, someone the public should be mad at, maybe, not not that afraid of.

                This contradicts the StaticXX scheme because the public thinks those in the 3rd Tier are more dangerous and should be feared more. It doesn’t matter in this context if the StaticXX is measuring recidivism potential and not dangerousness, because that is not how the public interprets it. To the public, a Tier 3 is scarier and more dangerous. That is where the contradiction is.

                Back to my original comment, I think Hansen will help in the argument against the StaticXX as it is used in the registry. It measures “high risk” offenders, and as you argue, those are the ones likely to reactivate. But as I argue, that is not how the public interprets it. Either way, I think Hansen’s continuing research will be the death nell for the StaticXX used in the context of Tier 3 evaluation. For example, check out this paper.

                “High Risk Sex Offenders May Not Be High Risk Forever”

                https://floridaactioncommittee.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/HighRiskOffenders_MayNotBeHighForever_Hanson_Harris_Helmus_Thornton.pdf

    • Someone who cares

      KM – I said it the last time and I will say it again since the point seems to get missed. If it would help some and stay status quo for some, I believe more people would be in favor. BUT, that is not the case. It will help some BUT make it worse, a LOT worse for others.

  8. mike r

    Wow..288.2 tier three, 288(a) tier two!!!!!!!!!!Worthless……Everyone on the public site……no drop offs……..this bill is the worst thing to ever come our way since the enactment of the registry in 1947!!!!!!!!!!!

    • NPS

      No, Mike R., it is NOT everyone on the public registry. Look again at paragraph 2 of section 290.46.

      If your code is listed, then yes you are on the site. If your code is not listed (and there are many that are not listed) then you are not on the site. Tier 1 registrants will NOT be on the site either.

      • kind of living

        what the hell ? a lot more people are listed than not , the fact is that someone is going to have to live the negative business end of a tier system , rules that these people are not even going to talk about will be worse than what have been living , need to stomp the tier system out load and clear , this is bull shit , don’t even try to sell me officer friendly bull either , for many of us the tier system will hammer us and further punish , I seem to remember how so many were so ready the chuck level 3’s under the bus talking all kind of smack / rude unfounded comments , saying anyone that would be against the stupid ass SB 421 , I don’t care what number you put on it . Its still a tier system ,,,,, Robin Trower : When Will The Blow Fall

  9. Stephen

    One week for the votes to happen that is cutting it close if they did not pass it on September 1st what in this new bill would make them change there minds to pass it this time?

    • Harry

      Stephen, one week is no problem when the backroom businesses are open.

    • Janice Bellucci

      @Stephen – It has been reported that the Governor is personally involved in the resurrection of the Tiered Registry Bill. If true, the Governor’s support could ensure passage of the bill. It is also reported that he is not responsible for the bill’s amendments.

      • norman

        Janice, He (the Governor) may not be responsible for the amendments but the amendments may be why he resurrected the bill..just sayin

    • Timothy Moore

      Well it passed the Senate and all of the commitees it was assigned to in the Assembly , except the Appropriations. That may be in part due to the chairman, Nathan Fletchers’s spouse. I think it was just one or two people who stopped it, it definately wasn’t due to a preponderance of opposition before that. Look, we were saved from a bill once by the Appropriations committee. I think it was that internet identifier bill. It had passed all the committees before with flying colors. So this tiered bill met the same fate. Sometimes you win somtimes you lose and sometimes a governor can intervene. That makes sense to me, but we may never know all the mechanics. Be open to surprises and opportunities. Everyone in CA is tier three now. I think this is out of our hands now. Let’s look at ways to move forward and keep eyes open to any opportunities.

  10. grizz

    if it ever does.. been doing this now for 25 years, seems our state has issue’s w roman type de facto blood & guts .. smfh

  11. Jack

    Yeah definitely opposed to that one. Wow, this Weiner guy’s all over the place. First it’s tier one, then it’s teir two and now 3? He just has no idea what he’s doing.

  12. AlexO

    Why did they bring back something that was bad and now made worse? I’m still trying to wrap my head around how non-contact crimes are in T3 while what most would consider much more series crimes are in T2 or T1?

    • TS

      Politics, AlexO, election year politics…must strengthen your base to run on and press the flesh with it

    • Not Really

      Where does it say that? Please copy/paste it. Non-contact would be a variety of crimes.

      • AlexO

        State what? Non-contact? Feel free to look at the codes for each tier. My 311.4a has been elevated to T3 from T1. My crime was upskirting a minor, non-contact.

  13. mike r

    Ok NPS, not everyone, but the vast majority will be listed.
    (b) (1) On or before July 1, 2005, with respect to a person who has been convicted of the commission or the attempted commission of any of the offenses listed in, or who is described in, paragraph (2), the Department of Justice shall make available to the public via the Internet Web site his or her name and known aliases, a photograph, a physical description, including gender and race, date of birth, criminal history, prior adjudication as a sexually violent predator, the address at which the person resides, and any other information that the Department of Justice deems relevant, but not the information excluded pursuant to subdivision (a). On or before January 1, 2013, the department shall make available to the public via the Internet Web site his or her static SARATSO score and information on an elevated risk level based on the SARATSO future violence tool.
    (2) This subdivision shall apply to the following offenses and offenders:
    (A) Section 187 committed in the perpetration, or an attempt to perpetrate, rape or any act punishable under Section 286, 288, 288a, or 289.
    (B) Section 207 committed with intent to violate Section 261, 286, 288, 288a, or 289.
    (C) Section 209 committed with intent to violate Section 261, 286, 288, 288a, or 289.
    (D) Paragraph (2) or (6) of subdivision (a) of Section 261.
    (E) Section 264.1.
    (F) Section 269.
    (G) Subdivision (c) or (d) of Section 286.
    (H) Subdivision (a), (b), or (c) of Section 288, provided that the offense is a felony.
    (I) Subdivision (c) or (d) of Section 288a.
    (J) Section 288.3, provided that the offense is a felony.
    (K) Section 288.4, provided that the offense is a felony.
    (L) Section 288.5.
    (M) Subdivision (a) or (j) of Section 289.
    (N) Section 288.7.
    (O) Any person who has ever been adjudicated a sexually violent predator, as defined in Section 6600 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.
    (P) A felony violation of Section 311.1.
    (Q) A felony violation of subdivision (b), (c), or (d) of Section 311.2.
    (R) A felony violation of Section 311.3.
    (S) A felony violation of subdivision (a), (b), or (c) of Section 311.4.
    (T) Section 311.10.
    (U) A felony violation of Section 311.11.
    (c) (1) On or before July 1, 2005, with respect to a person who has been convicted of the commission or the attempted commission of any of the offenses listed in paragraph (2), the Department of Justice shall make available to the public via the Internet Web site his or her name and known aliases, a photograph, a physical description, including gender and race, date of birth, criminal history, the community of residence and ZIP Code in which the person resides or the county in which the person is registered as a transient, and any other information that the Department of Justice deems relevant, but not the information excluded pursuant to subdivision (a). On or before July 1, 2006, the Department of Justice shall determine whether any person convicted of an offense listed in paragraph (2) also has one or more prior or subsequent convictions of an offense listed in subdivision (c) of Section 290, and, for those persons, the Department of Justice shall make available to the public via the Internet Web site the address at which the person resides. However, the address at which the person resides shall not be disclosed until a determination is made that the person is, by virtue of his or her additional prior or subsequent conviction of an offense listed in subdivision (c) of Section 290, subject to this subdivision.
    (2) This subdivision shall apply to the following offenses:
    (A) Section 220, except assault to commit mayhem.
    (B) Paragraph (1), (3), or (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 261.
    (C) Paragraph (2) of subdivision (b), or subdivision (f), (g), or (i), of Section 286.
    (D) Paragraph (2) of subdivision (b), or subdivision (f), (g), or (i), of Section 288a.
    (E) Subdivision (b), (d), (e), or (i) of Section 289.
    (d) (1) On or before July 1, 2005, with respect to a person who has been convicted of the commission or the attempted commission of any of the offenses listed in, or who is described in, this subdivision, the Department of Justice shall make available to the public via the Internet Web site his or her name and known aliases, a photograph, a physical description, including gender and race, date of birth, criminal history, the community of residence and ZIP Code in which the person resides or the county in which the person is registered as a transient, and any other information that the Department of Justice deems relevant, but not the information excluded pursuant to subdivision (a) or the address at which the person resides.
    (2) This subdivision shall apply to the following offenses and offenders:
    (A) Subdivision (a) of Section 243.4, provided that the offense is a felony.
    (B) Section 266, provided that the offense is a felony.
    (C) Section 266c, provided that the offense is a felony.
    (D) Section 266j.
    (E) Section 267.
    (F) Subdivision (c) of Section 288, provided that the offense is a misdemeanor.
    (G) Section 288.3, provided that the offense is a misdemeanor.
    (H) Section 288.4, provided that the offense is a misdemeanor.
    (I) Section 626.81.
    (J) Section 647.6.
    (K) Section 653c.

    • AlexO

      This list is only valid until this tier bill goes into effect. Then whether you’re listed or not depends on your tier. Tier 1 will not be listed at all. And those in tier 3 will always be listed. Also, they’re changing the CoR in that they’re basically eliminating it’s ability to remove someone from the registry. Those who are in Tier 3 will no longer be able to get off the registry in any capacity, even if they were previously eligible for the CoR.

      • mike r

        cite it…copy paste it…I find nowhere that it states anyone will be excluded from the internet without filing for that exclusion under these new rules…

        • AlexO

          T1 will not be on the internet by omission of stating otherwise.

          The only reference to being on the internet is for T2 and T3. The difference between T2 and T3 is having your physical address posted (T2 is zip code only).

          T1 has no internet reference, so T1 will not be on the net. At least not because of this bill.

          It’s like you can’t find any reference as to what crimes will be in T1. They simply list every crime that has to register. Then they specifically list which crimes are T2 and T3. Everything that’s not those two, is T1. Likewise with public notification on the net.

        • NPS

          Begins on page 26, line 36. The specified codes on page 29 are those that will be listed on the public site. As I previously stated, Tier 1s will NOT be on the website.

  14. Rodney

    If the plan to have a lawsuit will continue even if the new bill passes, and, there can be changes made to the new bill between its passing and its implementation then that’s promising. Something tomorrow is better than nothing forever. But I admit to being selfish because I recognize that those who will be placed in Tier 3 have a legitimate concern.

    • kind of living

      the ones that are level 3 already need to be further concerned , watch and see ! this is trauma to many ,

      • C

        You’re right. One thing for sure, the additional press will cause a huge spike in hits to Megan’s Law site like it was the day it went live. That many more of us who flew under the radar will be exposed. Yippee.

    • Not Really

      Yes, they do have a legitimate concern, and so do others who would get of the list after 30, 40, 50 years.

      • kind of living

        already been 30 for me , so those of use that have been on forever don’t have any real say , tier systems suck as you will see , but people that have 30 years or even more like I have seen here , will end up eating more punishment ,

  15. mike r

    So i guess this will be more fodder for my argument when I go to court..
    Your Honor, the lawmakers in Sacramento are now attempting (or have enacted) a tiered registry system which puts me in a tier three level with the worst of the worst (i.e. serial/habitual violent rapist and child molesters as well as attempted murders with sexual components and all the heinous violent offenses) simply because I suggested that a underage female meet with me for a sexual encounter (288.2), while other offenders that had actual violent contact offenses such as p.c. 288(a) (cite all the other more serious offenses that are tier two compared to my offense), are listed as tier 1 or 2. Your honor, how can there not be an equal protection success based solely on the fact that people that have much more serious offenses than mine are actually in a lower level of supervision under that bill? There is no way that I am being treated equally as all the others in my situation.

    • AlexO

      Going to the terrible Static-99 (which this bill uses in spades), non-contact crimes are considered worse than contact ones in terms of future risk. That’s why you get a zero if you actually touched your victim and a +1 if you didn’t.

      For example, my crime of 311.4a and 647.6a was non-contact of me upskirting a minor. My Static-99 is a 4 because I was younger than 35 (I was 33 at the time of conviction), I did NOT touch the victim, the victim was a stranger, and the victim was not related to me.

      Had I been 35+ years old, and physically raped my victim who happened to be a relative, I would be scored a zero. Even lower if I were older still.

      It’s hard to wrap ones mind around this.

      • steve

        AlexO it’s your age at time of RELEASE is how that is scored.

        “Age at release from index sex offence
        Aged 18 to 34.9 -1
        Aged 35 to 39.9 -0
        Aged 40 to 59.9 – -1
        Aged 60 or older – -3”

        • AlexO

          “Time of release” means when you were allowed to enter the community without 24-hour supervision (so you’re not incarcerated or placed in a home where the staff supervises you). So for those that were granted probation, that means at date of conviction, even if you had jail time.

          That first question can actually be manipulated because of that. If you happen to get convicted a week before your 35th birthday, you’ll get that +1. If you somehow extended your conviction date by months or years (I’ve seen someone go through the court for over 2 years) and went over one of those age thresholds, you get what score your age is at that time.

          So knowing what we know now, filling for extension so you can hit to those “relevant” age numbers can actually have a huge impact on your Static-99, chiefly being scoring less than 4 (4+ can’t apply for internet exemption) or scoring 6+ (this bill will automatically place you into tier 3 if you’re score is 6+, regardless of what the charges are).

          So yeah. You can clearly see how you can manipulate that first question to your favor with it having some insanely huge consequences as a result. Imagine being a week away from your b-day and getting that +1 because you were a week too young, and now being automatically tier 6, or in my case, not being able to file for exemption from the net.

      • Timothy Moore

        I am reading from the Static 2002 coding rules:
        “(h) Static-2002 is not recommended for offenders whose only sexual offences
        are Category “B” offences (e.g., possession of child pornography,”
        The Static 99 coding rules says something similar.
        The non contact question is scored in addition to a recommended index offense, not either/or. That is the way I read it.

    • Janice Bellucci

      @Mike R – If the bill becomes law with its current language, many people assigned to Tier 3 would have a strong equal protection argument in court.

      • AlexO

        If the bill passes with it’s current language, I’ll be happy to be part of this case. I’m not going to spend the next 50 years of my life in the same category as the worst of the worst.

        • Timothy Moore

          That kind of attitude is what at first turned me off of the tiered registry bill in the first place. Then it was, “look, I am finally not going to be classed along with those nasty worst of the worst.” And when the tiered three people, some whose offenses were thirty years old, complained they were being thrown under the bus to save a few, some said they deserved it, some said wait it will be good for all in the end.
          We need cohesion now or we are not going to go anywhere. This bill will pass or fail, but I am more worried about the divisions that threaten the long term strength or even survival of the movement.

        • Marty

          We all need to be a part of this case and all cases to battle the laws we agree are unfair. Simply stating our concerns on this site is a decent beginning; however, these complaints will never register (pardon the pun) with legislators, the courts and the public. Want to make a difference? Become a litigant in all legal proceedings that you feel violate your rights. Contact legislators regarding unfair bills. Join rallies to make your statement to the public. Donate to the cause if you have the ability. I am already doing what I can as one registrant. If every registrant in the state did the same, the power of more than 100,000 voices would prove thunderous and deafening.

      • Man it don't have to state anything like that..It's common sense mike r

        Thank you Janice it is really nice to have you comment on this site, and to give a personal opinion is even more welcomed.

      • Matt

        This is 10,000 kinds of bad. And you know it. Make it stop.

      • norman

        Please Janice, let us know what you need from us. If it is money put a barometer up and let us all contribute and reach the goal. Please.

    • j

      hold on mike r,,,, just because a person has a 288 (a) as you stated does not mean there was a act of actual violent contact,, as for myself i took a deal just to get out of the system! i was 19 young and completely new into the system, some individuals are really sick and twisted and there’s others that are like you,, hear such a code or here that word sex offender and already have a stamp-or think a monster, some don’t have the money to hire a good attorney, those who either go to county jail or prison may sign that paper just to get out of the system safe not thinking of the after effect of agreeing when signing up for sex registration, for myself it was non violent and we known each other for years and she did not testify against me, I never went to prison, my therapist kicked me out waaaaay early, stating he did not see me Re offending, my p.o after 2 years (which was supposed to be 5 years) also kicked me out early stating he also did not see me Re offending again, to this day that was my only time I had any problem in my life..

      • mike r

        I completely agree..My point was that 288(a) is considered a violent felony. I don’t agree with it, but that is the law. I a sure that the vast majority of 288(a)’s were not actually violent…….

        • mot

          I have an attempted 288(a) there was no contact since it was via an internet chat room. I did not have to make restitution payment since the judge ruled there was no “victim” So why am i considered violent?

    • Not Really

      I think you would have a good argument.

    • American Detained in America

      Mike, I feel for you on that. My case was coming across one of those internet stings, and then when the “minor” suggested I expose myself on cam, I, in a very crude way admittedly, told them to go first because I believed they were law enforcement. I was right, they were law enforcement, and yet they still got me, railroaded into 5 felony counts that got me all of 14 months, 12 of which was in county, 3 years of being officially on parole, and a lifetime of having to register. I got labeled as being narcissistic because of how I answered the Static-99

      • AlexO

        What do you mean by how you answered Static-99? This “test” doesn’t require your presence or input from you. All information is drawn from your court records. Are you may be confusing a separate evaluation by a clinician?

  16. Jack

    Yeah something tells me that wouldn’t stand. Or at least it definitely shouldn’t.

  17. USA

    Good luck. I sometimes have difficulty interpreting the legal jargon:

    PC 243.4 (a) reduced to misdemeanor, expunged? Saratso score 3?

    • AlexO

      It looks like a misdemeanor will be T1. Felony is T3.

    • John4

      USA…. I too can’t seem to figure out what 243.4. will b placed. 23 years on this registry, 17b , 1203.4 , interenet exclusion. According to this bill if passed what tier would I be placed and will I b placed on or off the web. Any enlightenment would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

      • Not Really

        ******line 28 (2)  A person required to register under Section 290, upon
        line 29 obtaining a certificate of rehabilitation under Chapter 3.5
        line 30 (commencing with Section 4852.01) of Title 6 of Part 3, shall not
        line 31 be relieved of the duty to register under Section 290, or of the duty
        line 32 to register under Section 290 for any offense subject to that section
        line 33 of which he or she is convicted in the future, if his or her conviction
        line 34 is for one of the following offenses:
        line 35 (A)  Section 207 or 209 committed with the intent to violate
        line 36 Section 261, 286, 288, 288a, or 289.
        line 37 (B)  Section 220, except assault to commit mayhem.
        ******line 38 (C)  Section 243.4, provided that the offense is a felony.*****

        To know what Tier, you need to search Section 667.5 and see of your offense is listed there.

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

        And then search Section 1192.7 to see if your offense is listed there.

        http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=1192.7.&lawCode=PEN

        That is because these are the two lists of serious and violent felonies used by California, and if your offense is listed there, it may drastically change the Tier, but some requirements in the bill may require a subsequent convictions of something listed.

        So, I searched these two Sections (667.5 and 1192.7) for 243.4. It is not listed in either. So Tier 1 applies felony or not, because it is not listed as a serious or violent felony AND it is not listed under Tiers 2 or 3 as applying, so by the process of elimination, it is a Tier 1.

        A tier one offender is subject to registration for a
        line 40 minimum of 10 years. A person is a tier one offender if the person
        92
        — 5 — SB 384
        line 1 is required to register for conviction of a misdemeanor described
        line 2 in subdivision (c), or for conviction of a felony described in
        line 3 subdivision (c) that was not a serious or violent felony as described
        line 4 in subdivision (c) of Section 667.5 or subdivision (c) of Section
        line 5 1192.7

        Janice, am I wrong?

  18. jd

    Tier 3 for possession of CP? Is this a joke?

  19. mike r

    Oh yes. and your Honor, I find it extremely difficult to see how a person of reasonable mind could find this grossly disproportionate to my offense violating cruel and unusual punishment and bill of attainder as well as involuntary servitude for the rest of my life.

  20. Kill this Bill

    This new version is ludicrous. It completely negates the author’s intended purpose when initiating the bill, to reduce the size of registry to make it manageable for LE, and more indicative of “supposed risk” of offenders so it is “useful as a tool for public safety concerns”. Virtually no one will get off based on this bill, and for some crazy reason non-contact offenders are now considered as dangerous as violent and habitual offenders and remain lifetime registrants. ACSOL in no way should support this monstrosity and I can’t for the life of me understand why Wiener would resurrect this POS.

    • AlexO

      Probably because it can be amended further after it passes which may be an easier way to get something that’s more fare. Politician’s will vote on something like this but not on a lesser bill. And changing it after the fact might get less resistance.

      Also, Janice mentioned that supposedly it was resurrected due to the governor who was NOT responsible for these amendments. Again, it could be cause of possibility of future amendments after the fact.

    • Not Really

      “Virtually no one will get off based on this bill….” On what do you base the assertion?

  21. Jim

    This barely qualifies as a tiered registry. A huge proportion of the registrants are resigned to the lifetime tier, with no opportunity for removal. Moreover, some of the tier assignments are illogical to the point of absurdity. For example, at least four so-called “violent” contact offenses under PC 667.5(c) are in tier 2. But non-violent and non-contact CP offenses are in tier 3. My vote is that the board either remain silent or oppose this bill, but please do something to publicize its absurdity, inconsistency with empirical data, and lack of common sense. Thanks to Janice and team for all your work.

  22. AlexO

    Ms. Bellucci, could you clarify the following under tier 3?

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

    Does this mean only felony violations of these codes will be in tier 3, or does the felony portion only apply to the first two codes listed, 311.1 and 311.11?

    Thank you!

    • Not Really

      Man, this is hard to read. Let’s break it down.

      The person was convicted of a felony violation of Section
      line 10 311.1 or 311.11 or of violating subdivision (b), (c), or (d) of Section
      line 11 311.2, Section 311.3, 311.4, or 311.10.

      The person was convicted of a felony violation of Section
      line 10 311.1 or 311.11

      That means misdemeanor convictions for 311.1 or 311.11 would not apply.

      Section 311.2, (b), (c), or (d) would apply, but section (a) would not or any other subsection listed (if any) would not.

      Section 311.3, 311.4, or 311.10. All apply.

      I could be wrong.

      I would agree that this is over-broad and possibly only production of child porn should be Tier 3 because it would include 288 in the making of the porn. I suspect there is consideration of federal law here.

  23. James

    Let me note the real & substantial problem with this bill…with Tier 3 being so expanded, many, many more people will have to report 4 times a year, whereas now they only have to report singly…on their birthday and that’s all.

    Four times a year is a TERRIBLE trap for people, a chance and excuse to arrest us again, pump up the recidivism statistics, and destroy peoples lives.

    If Tier 3 were reserved to SVP…then okay, but as it is written I must oppose this revived bill with all my strength…

    Somebody please kill this monstrosity in the cradle.

    Best Wishes, James, (Tier 1 or 2 or maybe even God forbid, Tier 3…Damned if I can figure it out!)

    • AlexO

      The bill does not state T3 would be 4 times a year. Only SVP need to do that and that’s independent of the tier.

      • Man it don't have to state anything like that..It's common sense mike r

        man it doesn’t have to state that in the bill..its common sense that they will start bombarding level threes with a plethora of laws aimed at them and I’m not a legal expert but I would bet my first child that we will have to register four times a year at a minimum and be bombarded with more laws aimed specifically at tier three offenders..

        • Not Really

          “Man it don’t have to state anything like that..It’s common sense”

          No, that’s common bullsh*t. Any challenge in court will rely exactly on what the language of the bill is, not made up faerie tales of what it could be given vivid imaginations. No offense, but there it is. Let’s stick with reality here.

  24. Bobby

    Well Guys, I am not from Cali, I am in Michigan but from experience, the tiered system is a joke, and most people will be put under tiered 3. it’s just the way they try to justify things. Oh, and as far as tier 1 not being on the registry, don’t hold your breathe, that is what we were told as well, and guess what they are in our registry. Hopefully a lot of us will be off of it real soon.

  25. Jack

    @ James where does it say anything about the frequency of registration in the bill? I haven’t read anything about that in particular though I understand your concern.

    • AlexO

      It doesn’t. Under SORNA (the federal registry) T3 is just about reserved for SVP (Sexually Violent Predator) and they register quarterly. California is not SORNA compliant nor will be with this registry. California has a separate requirement for those designated as SVP to register quarterly and this bill does not seem to change that one way or another.

    • James

      I apologize if I am wrong…but I thought Tier 3’s registered 4 times a year…I read this at some time, some version….it may not be in this resurrected thing that may, or may not, provide some relief for some in 2021…

      Let that sink in…

      I still hate this thing.

      I believe that this legitimatizes they entire Registration of Citizens regime…which I oppose root and branch.

      Best Wishes, James

      • David Kennerly, Poster Boy For Whatever Pisses You Off

        I’m with you on this. Why has Weiner resurrected it? I just skimmed the bill and had to quit because I’m not feeling strong enough today.

  26. totally against public registry

    I am definitely not in favor of this new and not so well improved bill. These politicians will not have the guts to do what’s right. We should not have tiers to the registry. The registry should be dismantled!
    I will not support this bill. We need to let them know that what they are doing is just despicable! They’re bunch of liars! And they can’t be trusted.

  27. concerned registrant

    I think I finally get it now. The problem has been that the Lion has not had enough to eat. If it eats only twenty-percent of the Registrants, it never gets full. So, obviously, the solution is to feed the lion fifty-percent of the Registrants. Then, the Lion will be so full that it will get sick and never EVER want to eat another Registrant.
    Now I understand the thinking!
    So lets make more Tier 3 Registrants for the sake of the Tier 1 and 2 who will get a pass (this time around). Yeah, that’s the ticket. The Lion will get sick of Registrants and want to feel better, so the Tier 3 will finally get relief when the Lion gets relief by puking up the digested remains of the Registrants it consumed. I was blind not to see it before. Those who have been calling the Tier 3 and new-to-be Tier 3 Registrants selfish are absolutely correct. How dare any of you not want to be eaten by the Lion! Don’t you see how selfish you are being? Not sparing others. And it’s for your own good anyway. You will be vomited eventually. Maybe only bones and acid burned clumps of your former selves, but at least you will be out, and you will be helping those who aren’t yet Tier 3.
    Of course, after the Lion pukes, it might get hungry again. Maybe lick up its vomit again. And maybe add some fresh meat. But, hey, isn’t it worth the chance?

  28. Gwen

    A person viewing pornography is not a violent predator that needs to be placed in Tier 3. It saddens me just how ignorant these so called protector of minors appear to be. Shame on them.

  29. Man it don't have to state anything like that..It's common sense mike r

    good metaphor concerned. Well RSOL I believe you have a consensuses about this bill, at least on here.

    • mike r

      sorry that was me accidentally put that in my name….Anyway I don’t see no reason not to file in ca court at the same time so I am going to prepare it. I would imagine if I did and it went all the way to the CA supreme court, or if I wished to appeal to the fed. court, it would be moot since I would already have a case started that is the same.

  30. Gwen

    I am a mother who understands just how many sex offender laws there are out there and now worries more about my own children doing something nonsensical or just plain stupid that could place them in jail, prison and on our sex offender registry; And today with so many sex offense laws I worry about that now more than I ever worried about my children being a victim of a sex offense. Seriously, these people have to be kidding.

    • Nondescript

      You are very astute Gwen. I too would be concerned if I had male teenagers in this day and age. Parents have been so programmed to focus on some imaginary monster, they don’t realize how close the real dragons lair is.

  31. TS

    Why is Gov Brown so interested in resurrecting this bill? What is the motivation?

    Money because a tiered registry makes the state SORNA compliant and gets them Fed money (of a Republican kind into a Democratic state)? Is making more people in Tier 3 a financial motivation because it would certainly mean more money from those who can pay it with quarterly registration vs less than quarterly? Can’t be about the constitutional aspect of it given current court rulings. Could it be a money grab before the registry is overthrown?

    • AlexO

      T3 itself does not make the state SORNA compliant. If it did, expungement would then automatically get people off. That would actually be a welcome thing for many.

      • kind of living

        is that what you think ? , ok , go live in a tier state SORNA compliant ,

    • Not Really

      This argument is all assumption. Maybe correct, maybe not. Certainly not enough proof to come to any conclusion.

      BTW, it may be obvious, but I think I’ll jump into the debate this time because I didn’t realize so many would try to sabotage any progress for so many.

      • David Kennerly, Poster Boy For Whatever Pisses You Off

        In order for any of us to sabotage this bill we would have to have influence over its substance as well as its outcome in law. Just how bad would this bill have to be before you were to withdrew your (meaningless) support? I say meaningless not to disparage you but to acknowledge our – all of our – utter lack of agency in influencing its fate. The idea that our individual opinions about this bill, racing to its despotic depths, as it is, is completely unfounded. Continuing to accuse those with whom we disagree in our speculative assessments upon the merits of the now desperately unrecognizable bill is unnecessarily divisive and corrosive of our movement.

  32. Jack

    I think the Colorado ruling has to be mentioned in the assembly public safety committee hearing on Monday for this bill. If it isn’t we’re just pissing in the wind at this point.

    • Janice Bellucci

      @Jack – Unfortunately, the ruling by one federal district court judge in Colorado has no bearing on the tiered registry bill.

  33. mike r

    Seems to be a consensus on the bill now. almost every person on here says no way..for good reason…

  34. James Moore

    Hell no! I’ll never get off the registry if this thing passes! I just want my life back. It seems like California is dead set against ever honoring my human rights as a citizen. The way I see it, this bill is going to make the registry FAR WORSE. I say NO. REJECT THIS BILL. Screw the politicians in Sacramento. We can do this on a referendum.

    • Harry

      We are not going to be off the registry if bill do not pass. Referendum? Maybe, with 10 years of educating the public and many millions of $ and or when most of the soccer mom’s kid are on the registry.

      • kind of living

        @Harry so lets not even try anything other than the this stupid ass bill ! this is the great pumpkin we have Been waiting for? this is the only door to freedom .

    • Not Really

      A lot of work is necessary before a referendum would have the slightest chance.

      “Megan’s Law and the misconception of sex offender recidivism”

      https://ccoso.org/sites/default/files/import/patkin-article.pdf

  35. Alexander

    Please fight the Static 99R. It is complete garbage.

  36. JonC

    So is 647.6 misdemeanor now a Tier II?

    • Concerned

      I THINK it’s still Tier 1.
      But I see at the very least, that same inscrutable language later on concerning Tier II “and in respect to 647.6 conviction” for internet publication which, if I recall, hasn’t been entirely cleared as to whether that means a single misdemeanor 647.6, while on Tier 1, would still be made public on the website.

  37. Concerned

    Has it ever been cleared up as to the language concerning Tier 2 and 647.6 for internet publication?
    The language of the bill suggests that even Tier 1 647.6 would be made public on the website along with Tier 2s.

  38. HopingForHope

    Can someone clarify for me: Under the provisions of this new bill, do we get posted on the public website when this is signed by the Governor, or in 2021 when it takes effect?
    Thank you.

  39. Ken

    What Tier would I be with a charge of 288.4(b) under the new bill ?

  40. DavidH

    Just wake me when it’s over

  41. Rodney

    Governor Brown is not, cannot, run for re-election and he has no plans to run for President. I think he’s involved because of that, so he has nothing to lose by becoming involved in this hot topic. Let’s hope he gets the new bill passed and then goes a step further and supports some unpopular amendments like shortening the start date to immediately. I think he decided to take the heat for Legislators who want to pass a new law but aren’t willing to suffer at election time. If Cali gets some fed money out of it so be it. A lot of us will get our lives back after suffering our entire adult lives. I would love to finally be able to apply for employment and not be rejected because 24 years ago I smoked crack with an adult female and it went all bad; and be paid a fair salary and not be afraid to meet a new acquaintance only to have her do an internet search and see my mugshot over the words “Sex Offender.” I would love to live out the rest of my life with my head held high; so go Gov go

  42. Jack

    At the very least it provides an argument that could be used in court in California Janice. Also the politicians do not seem to be willing to listen to reason, if that is the case they must be forced into reasonable behavior by the courts. It’s our only hope.

  43. nylevel1

    possession of child pornography has been level 1 in NY unless accompanied by actual physical
    that’s 20 years

    seems to me getting life in the state that the rest of US takes a lead is no bargain

  44. James A

    Keep in mind that currently, we are all “Tier 3.” I think this might open the door to future revisions. For those who cite the Colorado case, that case is being appealed by the state and might not survive appeal.

    • Not Really

      Good point. We are all Tier 3.

    • TS

      @James A

      Please state your source that says this case is being appealed.

      • AlexO

        I don’t believe it’s officially being repealed yet, but everyone expects it to be. They have another month or so to file. It would be amazing if it’s not as I think it would pretty much end registration post supervision, and I can’t see any state allowing to fold in such a way.

        • Follow the $

          Only in Colorado if not appealed. If appealed it could go to Supreme Court where national precedent could be set. Wonder if the Feds pressure not to appeal so damage to limited to CO.

          • AlexO

            I don’t think it would limit it. It would set a precedent for courts in other states to do it. And as a result, it would eventually end up in SCOTUS anyway.

      • Follow the $

        He can’t. No decision has been made by Colorado AG on whether to appeal yet.

  45. James R.

    What trash! I thought Wiener was on our side?? MOST (but not all) of the guys/gals I’ve met at the meetings were upset about the last recent revisions to SB 421 (at least judging from multiple texts between us all — some of you on this board too). I haven’t talked to anyone from the meetings since this new news broke; but this new bill is just exponentially more flawed than the last one. I have had mixed feelings about this whole “tiered” registry agenda. I know Janice says we have a good Equal Protection case. But remember: it’s all speculation with NO GUARANTEES. Better to fight the current registry in Court, than to rely on the legislature to pass this DUMP bill and have the Equal Protection challenge possibly fail in Court while being stuck with a trashy tiered registry. Like some few of you mentioned about a yr or so ago, civil rights organizations should follow the Hippocratic Oath in, firstly, doing no harm. This bill will do harm. This bill really IS at the expense of others.

    • Not Really

      No reform at all is doing harm. It’s not like condemning the bill ensures the registry harms no one ever again.

    • Follow the $

      Weiner was never “on our side” nor are any other politicians. He was on the side of the LA DA and Alameda DA and other LE organizations who pushed this. Never mistake their support for reform due to the bloated financial disaster of a registry for support for the registered citizen.

      Also…as many stated above, right now every single RC is a Tier 3 registrant. Any progress towards reform is welcome progress and should be supported in parallel with efforts towards dismantling the whole system. Those whose disclosure status is adversely affected should file suit as soon as they have standing to further erode the system. I’m no expert but there are plenty of recent cases regarding due process and ex post facto that should kill the tiering without individual assessment and punitive aspects of disclosure after original sentencing.

      I also encourage each and every one of you to take advantage of your right to 17(b) and 1203.4 where applicable. Should the registry be reformed in the future to be SORNA compliant, I have a feeling the legislature will eliminate those statutes so get them done now.

      • Not Really

        No politician would say, “I side with criminals over you.” Whatever the type of criminal. It would be suicide. But Weiner I think does have some understanding of the overreach of the registry and thinks it unjust. In that context I think he is sincere. If it didn’t benefit LE or something else important, there would be no reason to pass it. Incentives matter.

        To the rest of your comment, kudos.

  46. jo

    who cares? really?

    Colorado lit a fuse that will detonate the whole enchilada.

  47. Rodney

    My internal clock is out of sync and I’m awake when I should be sleep. And I don’t usually make this many comments but I must say that neither Wiener nor the Governor are required to do anything regarding a Tiered registry. They can go their merry ways and we would all still be life time registrants in California hoping to file a lawsuit down the road. I hope we do both but in the immediacy there appears to be a short road and a long road to our destination and passing the bill with the anticipation that there will be positive amendments is the short road. Taking either road comes with a cost to one or another group of registered sex offenders. Choices must be made and I can’t for the life of me understand why anyone would be opposed to helping those who have already suffered the most while continuing to work towards helping the next group. Now that would be standing strong and united. But that’s just me.

    • Timothy Moore

      Like I did, people believe there is a quick, all inclusive solution, something magical will happen in the courts, because judges are free from the biases that plague the plebieans, it won’t take years of hearings and appeals and it will apply to all, and not just the few plaintiffs. I don’t know where that comes from for others or the idea there is perfect legislation or court judgement solutions. For me it was a type of intellectual laziness.
      The route is going to be rocky, no matter which path is taken, but any progress moves people off this registry is to be celebrated but with caution.

      • David Kennerly, Poster Boy For Whatever Pisses You Off

        I think that people are understandably concerned about the effect of this newest iteration of an ever-darkening bill. For starters, it is very confusing – nearly opaque – and really difficult to know how it can be interpreted without painstaking analysis.

        No argument that the path is, and will remain, rocky. However, I’m turning over in my mind how the defeat of this bill might be useful, with no firm conclusions, as yet.

        For one thing, it can be asserted that the legislature has gutted what would have been a much better solution and, having blown that, they now open themselves up to some rocky legal challenges. If the bill becomes law, then there would be less immediate momentum, and pressure, for court challenges while most people wait around to see how it plays out. Its defeat will have no such effect and I anticipate court challenges which leave the Registry open to much more radical changes than from the original bill would have provided.

        I’m weighing heavily towards wishing that this bill dies.

  48. mike r

    MOT>>>>You are not considered violent, Attempted 288(a) is a serious but non-violent offense. Believe me I had to go through hel* to get my half time in the pen. No matter what anyone tells you a 664/288(a) is non-violent….If that is all you have you are in tier two as of this bill. Unless they got you for 288.2 distributing harmful material which they did me for asking the girl to meet for sex (judge said that was considered sending harmful material), 288.2 as of this bill TIER THREE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!An actual 288(a) is even tier two as of this bill. All kinds of contact offenses tier two…But asking a girl to meet for sex is much worse then actually committing a lewd and lascivious acts with a child under 14, so if someone fondles a five year old for sexual gratification or makes out and fondles anyone under 14 they are tier two compared to 288.2 asking someone to meet for sex over the net…….Absolutely insane….Lumped in with SVP’s and all the habitual offenders and the most violent offenders for asking a girl to meet for sex over the net 15 years ago! I repeat ABSOLUTELY INSANE BILL!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • Not Really

      A related question about 288:

      (c)(1) Any person who commits an act described in subdivision (a) with the intent described in that subdivision, and the victim is a child of 14 or 15 years, and that person is at least 10 years older than the child, is guilty of a public offense and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for one, two, or three years, or by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year.  In determining whether the person is at least 10 years older than the child, the difference in age shall be measured from the birth date of the person to the birth date of the child.

      So what about all the internet stings by Perverted Justice? None of the “victims” were under 18 and it is necessary to determine the offense age by birth date. So if the age cannot apply how can the attempt apply? If nothing else, it would be fun to have Chris Hansen and Xavier Von Erck come in to court and show their IDs with their birth dates. Under 18? No. Under 14? No. 14 or 15? No, and not 10 years older than a non-existent 14 or 15-year-old. Therefore, the age cannot be determined but the law requires it.

      I think this is why the legislature drafted new laws to cover online sex stings.

      Anyway, 288(c)(1) is a wobbler and if there was a felony conviction it can be reduced to a misdemeanor.

      • M

        288.2 is a little confusing. First the bill says you only need to register for “any felony violation of Section 288.2”.

        Then listed under tier 3 it’s just listed as “288.2”.

        Does this mean if you had a felony 288.2 plead down to a misdemeanor and expunged it would not be a registerable offense?

        Or if your 288.2 wasnt a felony to begin with you wouldnt need to register at all?

        Im sure there a TON of people with 288(a) and 288.2(b) here who would like clarification. AKA “sting operation”….

        My lawyer wont talk to me unless the bill passes because theres too much chaos around this bill.

  49. Nondescript

    There is no transparency in politics. Everything is decided behind the curtain and then they just put on a little show for the public. Obviously this bill was never “dead” but being tweaked and torqued in such a manner to avail themselves to the most amount of federal grant money that can be had.

    I don’t trust ANY of them- CASOMB, the DA who while testifying in favor sounded like a fox in the hen house and least of all the legislators. It seems as though all felony penal codes are shifted to tier 3 now. What is the point of including in tier 1 language about felonies that are not serious or violent belonging there if they are never going to be there?
    There are so many people who have earned their right to privacy, and now they are going to just have that taken away by some shifty, do as their told minions? This doppelgänger of a registry bill is likely to pass. And it is likely to be held up in the courts for a very long time. 2022 ? I think WW3 will be underway and over by then. What folly.

  50. Change coming

    I hope this bill passes, it’s a start. My reasoning is, if it’s punitive it helps future court cases to take down the registry. It also gives tiers one and two an eventual path off the registry. Right now we are all tier three. Maybe it could be better, but it could be a whole lot worse. With or without our support, change is coming.

    • AlexO

      Sort of. I don’t know how much it’ll help overall as a lot of people are moved to T3 in addition to them having removed the current CoR as a path to get off the registry.

      • Timothy Moore

        Don’t panic. No one is moved, except potentially out of tier 3, which we all are in now, anyway. Few have the CoR as an option now, and it is like applying to the Inquisition for sainthood. If we look at the whole picture now, it may change tomorrow. The board is wise to just back off and watch at this point, be ready for action after it passes. I am going to donate. They are getting a lot of feedback on this. They need the resources, also.

  51. Janice Bellucci

    The ACSOL board of directors has voted to remain silent regarding SB 384, the new Tiered Registry Bill. As a result, the organization will not send a letter of support or a letter of opposition regarding the bill. In addition, ACSOL will not testify either in support or in opposition to the bill during the Public Safety Committee hearing on Monday, September 11. Instead, we will attend the hearing in order to observe what is said by the members of that committee as well whether any amendments are passed. It is expected that the hearing will be televised and others can watch it on TV.

    • Timothy Moore

      The reasons?

      • Eric

        I would guess they are very disappointed in this bill and recognize it as regressive and disastrous, but bills are subject to amendments and makeovers, sometimes they open doors for other things. So although the bill looks horrible, they are watching to see what happens. That is my guess.

    • Harry

      I know, I am spitting in the wind with my opinion. This bill will pass, because the way it came back like a phoenix. The deals have been already made, the only thing left is procedural showboating. Again, thank you Janice and ACSOL for your support of ALL the RCs and their families.

      • Eric

        But what doesn’t make sense is that they will be spending millions of dollars in shuffling 110,000 people’s paper work around and it won’t do much of anything. 90% of the people will be the same. If it saved money for the state I could grasp that, but it doesn’t save money, it doesn’t make anyone safer (actually more people will be unemployable and homeless thereby making things less safe) and it helps only a handful of RSO’s.

    • AlexO

      Thank you for the update. That’s how I’ve felt these last two rounds as well. Nothing much to support given the uncertainty if things can be changed down the road, but also hard to really go against as it’s somewhat movement forward.

      I just hope that if it does pass, positive changes really can be made to it before it fully goes into effect. Or the whole thing goes away in the next three years through positive SCOTUS ruling from the CO case or something similar.

    • Lake County

      Thank you Janice. I originally supported this Bill, but this version just isn’t worth it. Everyone knows the registry needs to be fixed, but the starting point needs to be better than what this new version of the tiered registry offered. Maybe we need to take a new direction. I always advocated starting with small changes to the registry, but with all the recent cases supporting our view that the registry is punitive, now may be the best time for Californians to take on the constitutionality of the registry. It’s a big project, but with all of our support, I’m confident you could put up a winnable case. If it just comes down to money, just set a financial goal and we will likely find a way to come up with the needed donations.

  52. Eric

    Why is the assembly looking at something that will cost tons of money in bureaucracy to do almost nothing?

    • DavidH

      Eric,

      You probably nailed it! I would guess they needed some funding to clean up their house that they’ve perhaps neglected over the years, and this is nothing more than an infusion of funds without having to directly ask for funds.

      Certainly the spirit in which SB 421 was drafted is lost. No one ever thought it was for fairness, but we accept that they grew an unmanageable monster that needs whittling down; So how does moving all the non contact types to tier 3 help the whittling process???

  53. Rodney

    Bills, laws, legislature, and lawsuits aside; when I was smoking crack and having [consensual] sex with an adult female, I didn’t know anything about sex crimes or the sex offender registry; but I did know that smoking crack was a crime and I did know the female was not my wife, who was away with the kids, and I did know that I was disrespecting them and myself. I had placed myself in that compromising situation. No one forced me to do what I was doing. I am responsible for everything that happened to me that night. I am responsible for being on the sex offender registry. No! My punishment does not fit my crime and I spent years wallowing in self pity until I was finally able to completely accept that I had done this to myself.

    Some of us haven’t learned to accept responsibility for placing ourselves in the compromising situations that placed us on the sex offender registry. I can appreciate everything being said because I understand where the anger and frustration come from; but I also hear us talking as if someone owes us something when no one owes us anything. The sooner we accept responsibility for the actions that placed us on the sex offender registry and stop talking as if someone falsely accused us and they therefore owe us something, the sooner our outlooks and attitudes will evolve and we can heal mentally. Non attorneys trying to interpret the revised bill and giving advice is dangerous, unproductive, and causes some on this site a lot of needless anxiety.
    As always, this is just me speaking for me.

    • Unforgiven citizen

      Will said Rodney!

    • Not Really

      Yeah. Right. If everyone just blames themselves for the over-breath of the registry we can all have a kumbaya moment and shut-the-fu*k-up.

      Tell me, Rodney, why is Janice and everyone at all4consolaws fighting so hard? Is it because they never took responsibility for… what?

      Hello? Could it be because they respect the Constitution?

    • Eric

      That’s ridiculous. 90% of SO crimes are not worse than armed robbery, car jacking, purse snatching, selling drugs to children, and drunk driving. Drunk drivers kill 12,000 children a year. That is a horrible statistic, and I bet over half of our elected official have been guilty of having a few and getting behind the wheel. I never touched anyone, have no criminal history prior to my incident or after. I was polygraphed, psycho analyzed, and took psychosexual exams and competed programs, all came out with positive evals. I made a mistake around my human sexuality. Don’t tell me I deserve to be punished and harassed for life, unable to find decent housing, or have normal relations with a woman because I made a poor choice around my sex drive.

    • kind of living

      what ever man , so you have no point that truly belongs to you? you think we have no reason to complain ! lol because we don’t know how to take responsibility ? so we should just fall in to place and suck up every bill that comes along , well again you cant speak for any of us , or what we have takin responsibility for or when . your narrow point of view that looks like it fell out of a text book, might infect others and have them feeling they should be punished forever seething with guilt{ forever} , already took responsibility years ago and tried to move along , mistake / a crime that must be paid forever , well I don’t want to be punished any more ! and we are not asking for anything that should not already belong to us already , we did our time years ago , and they used an unconstitutional law after our plea , pushed for ever by moralist , now more laws keep coming , enough is enough , your nothing new , as I am nothing new , but the one thing that will never change is trying to cover a wrong with another wrong , the registry is wrong .. it gets many of us “KILLED” crimes committed against us every dang day , you don’t have a better grasp of what’s going on in our life . or what happened in our court cases , seems to me that the judge in CO knows what the law says , others are looking closer at it as well , and what they are not saying is that we need more stupid unconstitutional laws to fix the problem , at least the judge in CO has a “set” and willing to call it like it is , this tier system is going to create more division , as well as more punishment for many , the drama this is causing is counter productive in ending the registry

  54. TM

    Hi Janice and all,

    Although I would be one of the few people benefited by this bill, I do not think it should be supported by ACSOL or anyone interested in RSO rights. Many people will be in wore shape and, as mentioned throughout, it serves to further legitimize the registry. I agree with those who believe the answer lies in the courts. Many decisions have gone in our favor recently. Ultimately it will probably depend on reeducating the courts and public at large. It’s my understanding that in order for registries to be constitutional (borderline, or at least the current argument), the rights of registered citizens must be outweighed by public safety. This is clearly not the case. The prospect of drafting another bill in 2019 is of course another that should be pursued, but it is likely to have a similar fate.

    That’s my 2 cents.

    • Timothy Moore

      TM. I believe that registrant rights and public welfare are not in opposition . In fact we find the registry laws are tending to decrease public safety by destabilizing the lives of former offenders and their families. Restoring rights to those who have learned their lesson is the best way to achieve a more civil society.

      • TM

        Hi Timothy,

        That is correct and the point of my comment, so we agree, thanks for responding.

        • Timothy Moore

          My pleasure. Yes, we have to stop feeding the myth it’s a choice between rights and safety. That is a construction of the other side to justify the registry.

  55. Counting the days

    I want to say something, but can’t seem to find the words. The anger that is in me is being pushed down to avoid doing something that will surely put myself or someone else in harm’s way. I read some here say you must accept your actions. I do everyday. I have never turned away from accepting my actions. But to be used as a mat, a punching bag, a mutt to be kicked , well I don’t have to accept that. I might sound negative, and not be as “forgiving” as others here to the actions taken by this government. But maybe that’s because I have lost EVERYTHING I held dear. When you have nothing, you have nothing to lose. I will go into that night, but not quietly.

    • Not Really

      I hear ya. When sentenced to a year in jail and 3 years probation, I was then told I would have to register as a sex offender.

      “For how long?” I asked.

      Judge: “Life, as I understand it.”

      Court Clerk: “No, it is until completion of probation.”

      Judge: “All right, until successful completion of probation.”

      That was in 1980. So I successfully completed probation, but they lied. I could still accept the police keeping an eye on me, but they kept adding more and more collateral consequences ex post facto until I held them on contempt. And still do.

      • RK

        This is what happened to me, I was told during my plea agreement that this was only for probation, had never heard of the phrase ‘registered sex offender’ this was in 1992.

        I’ve often wondered if I could withdraw my plea.

    • Rodney

      Good job Counting The Days. If no one knows no one can help. All I can do is share the contact information below. If there was a way to do it privately I would have. My intent is not to disrespect you or to minimize what you said. My intent is to do what I can regarding what I heard you say. Please do not misinterpret this note.
      To anyone who is offended by my response I apologize ahead of time.
      https://www.mentalhealth.gov/get-help/immediate-help/index.html
      National Lifeline – 1 800 273 TALK (8255) or Live Online Chat
      Trained crisis workers are available to talk 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Your confidential and toll-free call goes to the nearest crisis center in the Lifeline national network. These centers provide crisis counseling and mental health referrals.

  56. Jack

    Exactly it’s ok to be angry about something like this. You can only push people so far after all. I thought I was at my limit years ago. But I guess that wasn’t the case.

  57. Matthew

    Anyone know the steps of getting a 17(b) for 311 in 2012?

    • AlexO

      Are you talking about 311.11 (cp)? There are lots of codes for 311

      If so, we’re you granted probabtion and did you complete it without infractions? Did you pay off your restitution? If yes, than you should be able to get the reduction and expungement (in 2014 they moved 311.11 to a no-expungment list but convictions prior should be grandfathered in). Go to the courthouse clerks office and ask for the 1203.4 expungement and 17b forms. Fill them out and schedule a court date (the clerk’s should be able to help with that as well). Both are just about guaranteed if you completed probabtion without messing up.

      • Matthew

        yes sir. Sorry it was 311.11(a) and completed everything.

        • Follow the $

          I used recordgone.com for exact same charge and same year of conviction. Contact them about getting it based on constitutional grounds as the legislature removed it from wobbler category in 2014. Took about 4 months start to finish.

          • MS

            If you took a plea deal (convicted) before Jan 1st 2014, you can still have a conviction for possession expunged if you didn’t serve time in prison. Have it reduced to a misdemeanor first, then expunged…or have it done at the same time. This way your record shows you had a misdemeanor expunged rather than a felony. I was arrested in 2012 and convicted in 2013. Since it was before 1/1/2014 I was able to have it expunged because when I took the plea deal the law (as it was at that time) would allow for me to have it expunged later. I hired recordgone to do the work and it was granted. Once it has been reduced…you can send a letter to the DOJ showing the reduction has been granted and they will then remove you from ML website.

          • Matthew

            Thank you for the info. Wish me luck please

  58. KM

    Just a thought, but an organization like this (ACSOL) isn’t going to hold much weight in regards to its support or opposition. In fact, legislatures will probably be inclined to do the opposite of what ACSOL promotes or supports.

  59. Robert Curtis

    Better solution would be to get a Proposition op for vote by the people coming election day. A catchy name like, “Child safety against sex offenders Act” might sell but have it more reasonable that these watered down bills.

  60. Chris F

    If anyone cares about an outsider registered citizen from Texas’ point of view, here it is.

    I’ve spent the last 7 years reading everything I can on the registry and constitutional law. While at first it was in my spare time, the last 3 years I’ve been un-employed and my research has exceeded the time I would spend on any real job.

    You just have to trust me that the tide is most definitely turning no matter what happens with this bill. I’ve researched other historical situations where the constitution was ignored for undesirable classes of people. The commonality among all of them is that what’s happened the last two years with judges finally outright siding with us is what happened in all the other situations. This IS the turning point. Be patient, don’t give up, and keep up…no, increase, the things you are doing to spread the word and help the cause. It’s time to double down.

    The TRUTH will come out. The federal courts are finally showing they won’t just accept the word of our opposition without question. The state courts won’t follow suit (Other than a few). They NEVER did in previous similar battles in our nations history. Elected state judges can’t do it any more than elected state politicians. The federal cases, or state cases that reach SCOTUS are where the victories will be and they are adding up.

    • pgm111

      I agree with you Chris. I intend to mimic the recent Colorado case here in California. The Ninth Circuit should be very amenable to a due process, 8th and 14th amendment claim.

      I say all of us must attack, attack, attack vigorously at every opportunity. Recall the prison yard? SOs are always the smartest bunch as a whole. Let’s use our collective brain power to further our cause.

      The ACSOL website is a very good resource but it would be helpful if we can persuade Janice to create a new tab or section of the site to function as a portal for all the legal resources we need to craft motions and help our local attornies. Collectively, we know much more than 99% of the defense attornies out there.

      Janice, please think about how we can aggregate the best thinking on this entire subject matter – registration scheme, endless court-mandated therapy that goes nowhere, etc..

      Let’s create a blueprint for effective legal action in the federal courts. We must be willing to crowd-fund the expenses and provide a profit incentive for Janice to file these cases everywhere! Yes, Janice needs money! That is okay and fair.

      We should attack this problem with a marketing campaign to ALL SOs in the country. This is our tribe in this fight and we can prevail if we are organized and tenacious.

      Janice, does this website allow for posters and readers to receive emails whenever there is a new post or comment? I find myself returning to this site and hinting around for insightful commentary. Perhaps we start with a well-functioning WordPress site with a team of moderators and the functionality to collect emails and contact info so that we initiate and sustain a dialogue, update members more effectively and ask members for financial support.

      Janice, in my opinion you need a more expansive, comprehensive marketing plan.

      I want to hear from others. I await your comments.

      – Paul

      • TS

        @pgm111

        Why are you starting with the Ninth? Shouldn’t you start with the Fed District for your area first?

        • pgm111

          For the record, I am in the Ninth Circuit – San Francisco.

          I wholeheartedly agree with those who have cautioned against a rush to file poorly crafted motions and I also agree that we should collaborate with each other, share expenses and file class action with a small team of highly competent and knowledgeable attornies.

          Let’s do this in the Ninth otherwise, I will relocate to New York state where I can fly under the radar until this whole mess goes away.

      • Chris F

        Careful. The worst thing that can happen is for some people to file bad pro-se or even lawsuits by bad lawyers. Those will cause rulings against us and be ten times harder for good cases to get through later.

        We need a careful approach, with only the least offensive sex offenders that are off probation and parole that have spotless records since. It can be pro-se, but only if done with well written and cited arguments. The Colorado lawyer will be filing more cases. Janice has also said she will if she gets the right plaintiffs.

        • TS

          @Chris F

          That is exactly right! People need to be careful about filing pro-se as was mentioned on the NARSOL call. It would be much better if the plaintiffs put together their cases with one atty to split the cost and build the case. If multiple attys file for multiple plaintiffs with good cases, then the difference will possibly be made. The homework has to be done and properly. Don’t be in a rush to file just because you can and then set back the movement.

          The CO case is a benchmark to see that and understand the path forward. Calhoun in CO did some damage when he filed his case pro-se years ago, had it heard and set back the movement in CO.

        • Timothy Moore

          Chris, would Colorado be accepted as a precedent by any judge, yet. Wouldn’t the appeal process have to play out first? Your thoughts.

          • Chris F (@Timothy Moore)

            From what lawyers have told me, it is all counted but given much different weight.

            A state court likes to see state court cases giving precedent, not federal stuff other than SCOTUS, but they will take it into consideration.

            A federal court likes to see federal court stuff but will also take state stuff into consideration. A judge doesn’t like to re-invent the wheel or do tons of research if it has already been done by a reliable party.

            As far as waiting until appeals deals with it, not really needed. Appeals generally look for errors in the way the law was applied and don’t re-open all issues to examine again. Of course, an appeals court ruling in our favor is helpful, but not needed. As a matter of fact, you can even quote dissenting judges from cases that were lost for us if it helps describe the injustice and that’s better than nothing or just using your own words and arguments.

            I’m no lawyer though, but I don’t often see legal advise given on here as it may leave them liable for their answers without compensation. Janice will give very basic advise at times though.

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

    I agree with your take completely, Chris. The tide IS now turning and it’s not going to stop. There is now the momentum to ensure that. Also, you are right that the states will have to be dragged kicking and screaming into reform by the federal courts and SCOTUS. Think of Jim Crow. What we are up against is populist majoritarian authoritarianism. Elected judges and prosecutors are a very bad thing because most people don’t possess the wisdom, the intelligence or the sense of justice to make it work.

    • Timothy Moore

      Think of Roe vs. Wade. Abortion is supposedly Constitutional, but some states have functionally made it hard to get one safely. I don’t want to argue abortion here, but it is a good example of how states can deflate court mandates. Some think that is a good thing, others do not. You need to focus on the culture in addition to the legal if you want long term change. Most people could care less about the constitution unless they are being violated in some way. But they care about what other people say within the sphere of their clique. I know you both know that, because you both work towards changing attitudes of those around you through your comments. Change will happen from the top down, but it won’t last unless it comes from the bottom up.

  62. Illinois Contact

    AlexO (or anyone who knows): Would the 17(B)/1203.4 procedure work if you were convicted in another state for felony CP possession (in my state there is no misdemeanor for this crime)? I guess you would first register in CA when you moved there. Would I be designated felony or misdemeanor 311? What’s the difference in CA for CP felony versus misdemeanor conviction? My conviction was in 2006, probation only, lifetime registration (automatic with CP in my state), no subsequent problems. And then after registering start the expungement procedure. I probably would need a lawyer to help with this (Chase?).

    • Hopeful

      In ca a cp felony is not expungeable if u did time in state prison. I have a felony 311.11a from 2013 and just met with a lawyer last week and he confirmed that.

      • Not Really

        That goes to What is Child Porn. Maybe you could prove it would be a misdemeanor and not a felony in California, because of the type of images. I not sure what the difference is or how it could be done, but there should be a way IMHO.

        • Follow the $

          If you served prison time, it is not a wobbler and cannot be reduced. Only if you served in county jail or probation would you be eligible and your conviction must be prior to 2014. And especially now since all CP is felony I would assume the state would not give you the benefit of the doubt and consider it misdemeanor unless it was prosecuted that way in your state.

      • MS

        in CA possession can be charged as either a felony or a misdemeanor. It’s up to the DA how to charge but it usually comes down to what county you are in. Santa Clara County for example always charges it as a felony regardless of the details. Regardless…it’s still a “wobbler”. If you have completed probation, submit the paperwork or hire an attorney and pursue a 17b (reduction) from a felony to a misdemeanor. If you served time in prison, expungement isn’t available to you but I believe the reduction still is. Get it reduced and then get yourself removed from the ML website.

    • Follow the $

      The 17(b) and 1203 are only for violations and convictions of California Penal Code and not applicable to out of state violations. You would need to research what options you have in the state in which you were convicted.

      Since it was a felony in your state, CA would treat it as felony here. You would be subject to disclosure on Megan’s Law website and lifetime registrant now and if current bill passed a Tier 3 lifetimer as well.

      • John4

        I see the discussion on 17b and 1203.4. If one should obtain this Would anyone happen to know where exactly would one be placed if this bill passes. Thank you.

        • Mr. D

          @John4 – if u earn your 1203.4 I believe your requirement to register would end under the new tiered registry bill. Tier assessment is based on convictions in this example you would no longer have a conviction .

          • NPS

            Mr. D.,
            I was going to refute your statement, but you raised an interesting omission.

            Right now, under 290.007 Any person required to register pursuant to any provision of the Act shall register in accordance with the Act, regardless of whether the person’s conviction has been dismissed pursuant to Section 1203.4, unless the person obtains a certificate of rehabilitation and is entitled to relief from registration pursuant to Section 290.5.

            However, in this proposed bill, that code is missing. It goes from Section 4, 290.006 to Section 5, 290.008

            Janice? Care to weigh in here?

            • AlexO

              I believe they only list the sections that had a change. Most of the sections had a simple change of an expiration date added followed by sections in blue that will replace them. If 290.006 stays as is, there’s no reason to list it.

            • Follow the $

              @Mr. D…since there is no proposed change to 290.007 it is not amended in this bill. It stays as currently written if this bill passed and from my interpretation you would not be granted relief with a 1203.4.

              • John4

                Follow the $… thank u for your help regarding the 17b/1203.4. Given the fact it does not relieve one from the duty to register, would u happen to know if it places one in tier 1. Many thanks again for your help.

                • Follow the $

                  If your are eligible for the 17(b) and 1203.4 and you successfully got your felony reduced to a misdemeanor, you would likely be Tier 1 as it appears they are lumping all misdemeanor violations in that tier.

                  • AlexO

                    Maybe. Some of the codes in the bill specifically refer to a felony while others simply state the code as a blanket sweep. Though if you’re eligible for the 17b and expungment, there’s zero reason not to get it.

                    Both are pretty much guaranteed to be granted and are easy enough to file for that you can probably do it yourself (I know several people that have). And registration notwithstanding, it will make your record look better and would allow you to answer “no” on most applications asking if you’ve ever been convicted of a felony.

        • NPS

          John4,
          You need to take it to the clerk recorder at the courthouse.The clerk will give you the date and department number of where you’ll have the hearing. Be sure to have three copies; one for the clerk, one for yourself, and one for the DA because they have to be served with the motion.

        • Follow the $

          If the misdemeanor violation of the code under which you were convicted is not specifically listed in section describing Tiers 2 and 3, you would be Tier 1.

          And Mr D has an interesting point. If the code regarding continued registration requirement even with a 1203.4 has been removed, would those of us who received that benefit have our registration requirement removed? I think someone with a more thorough understanding of the proposed bill or law should weigh in here because that would be huge. I am also going to read more.

      • Not Really

        Does the bill change that? It looks like it may be possible to earn a Certificate of Rehibiliation after 5 years or more.

        4852.03. (a)  The period of rehabilitation commences upon the
        line 7 discharge of the petitioner from custody due to his or her
        line 8 completion of the term to which he or she was sentenced or upon
        line 9 his or her release on parole, postrelease community supervision,
        line 10 mandatory supervision, or probation, whichever is sooner. For
        line 11 purposes of this chapter, the period of rehabilitation shall constitute
        line 12 five years’ residence in this state, plus a period of time determined
        line 13 by the following rules:
        line 14 (1)  An additional four years in the case of a person convicted
        line 15 of violating Section 187, 209, 219, 4500, or 18755 of this code,
        line 16 or subdivision (a) of Section 1672 of the Military and Veterans
        line 17 Code, or of committing any other offense which carries a life
        line 18 sentence.
        line 19 (2)  An additional five years in the case of a person convicted
        line 20 of committing an offense or attempted offense for which sex
        line 21 offender registration is required pursuant to Section 290, except
        line 22 that in the case of a person convicted of a violation of subdivision
        line 23 (b), (c), or (d) of Section 311.2, or of Section 311.3, 311.10, or
        line 24 314, an additional two years.
        line 25 (3)  An additional two years in the case of a person convicted
        line 26 of committing an offense that is not listed in paragraph (1) or
        line 27 paragraph (2) and that does not carry a life sentence.

        • AlexO

          You can still get the CoR. It just won’t end your duty to register anymore.

          CoR itself doesn’t nullify the registration. It’s getting the CoR and then applying to the current 290.5 that does it. This bill removes all the current language of 290.5, and replaces with new language that states if you’re T 1 or T2, you can file for relief after X period.

          With this bill, T3s have no way off unless you’re T3 only because of your Static-99

  63. B.Wat

    Lake County, Good post! I agree with what you are saying. If it comes down to getting the money, to fight for real change, I’m sure we can all, and I mean everyone, donate to help Janice, challenge, these unconstitutional laws in court, and not leave it up to our fearless leaders in Sacramento, to do the right thing! Just look what the Bernie Sanders campaign did in 2016. They raised 8 million dollars, buy just donating, an average of $27.00 each!!

  64. Stephen

    Question if this bill passes why wait an extra 5 years to get off the registry in California why not move to Oregon or Washington State where they have a tiered registry set up already?

    • Stephen

      Oregon tier1 offenders petition after 5 years to get off the registry tier 2 offenders petition after 10 years but must reclassified to tier1 to get off registry tier 3 offenders life Oregon only list tier 3 offenders on registry
      Washington state tier 1 offenders petition after 10 years to get off registry tier 2 offenders petition after 15 years to get off registry tier 3 offenders life Washington state lists everyone on the registry

      • Timothy Moore

        The big question is which registry protects the public better? Not to my knowlege has any state measured the effectiveness of these registries to prevent offending.

  65. mike r

    Take responsibility???Was that whole post like satire comedy or something? lmfao is what that was…

    • Stephen

      Not being funny or anything just stating facts if you have done your time why wait an extra 5 years in California

  66. HopingForHope

    Quoting from the SFGate report:

    “Critics of the bill said too many crimes were included in categories that allowed sex offenders to eventually come off the registry, including rape by force, rape of an unconscious person and lewd acts with a child. After amendments to the bill, people convicted of those crimes will still register as a sex offender for life, Wiener’s office said.”

    288(a) would fall under lewd acts with a child, but as I read this new bill (and I’m no attorney), it appears 288(a) would fall under Tier 2. True? Also, if this becomes law, would notification on the Megan’s law siite begin immediately, or when the rest of this takes effect in several years?

    Thank you!

    • Timothy Moore

      2 or more separate convictions of 288 (a) would end up on tier 3, as would lewd acts involving PC 272, contributing to the delinquency of a minor.

  67. USA

    This is truly great news! There are many people who have paid their debt to society, had their charges reduced to a misdemeanor pursuant to 17 B, expunged etc. The registry is far from perfect, but change must occur. There is a small percentage that won’t prevail, but we need to look at the big picuture.

  68. Jack

    @hoping for hope, no 288a is tier three. 288 is tier three if you had it occur on two occasions brought and tried separately.

  69. HopingForHope

    Stephen- I have lived in another state for more than 26 years, and unfortunately, it’s the long arm of the law that gets you. Even though you have lived half your life somewhere else, your current state will conform to California law if that’s where you were registered. You do not get to pass GO just because you move. Doesn’t work that way.

    • Stephen

      Jack how can they make a 288(a) tier 3 in this bill when most people have a 288(a) what happened to slimming down the registry

  70. Laura

    My husband just showed me a copy of this bill and I must say that we are both quite disappointed. We hope this bill does. It is a risky piece of legislation!

  71. registry no more

    I just read an interesting comment from a member. Is it true that once your conviction has been expunged, you are no longer required to register once the tiered bill comes to law? I was convicted of voyeurism, upskirting adult females. Apparently, I had captured a minor, 17, and was charged with 647.6. It has been 3 years going 4 since that day I was arrested. I was granted early termination last month after serving 1year and 3 months out of my 3years probation. I filed for my expungement as soon as I was granted. The judge was an excellent judge. He used common sense and law to make his decision. He went against the DA, who did not agree with my request, stating “I was a danger to society.” Most judge would agree with the DA but this judge use reason and sound mind. The judge basically ask if I have been convicted since then and the DA said no. The judge ask how is he a danger to society then? In an instant, he granted my request. I choked up and did not think my request would be granted. My wife was crying with tears of joy. Sorry for getting off course but if it is true then I would no longer register as a sex offender? Is that true? Can someone verify. Thank you.

    • Not Really

      You would be Tier 1 anyway. Tier 2 if a subsequent conviction of 647.6.

      Tier 2=
      “or Section 647.6 if it is a second or subsequent conviction for
      that offense that was brought and tried separately.”

    • Follow the $

      Sorry to say that’s an incorrect interpretation by the other commenter. This proposed law does not change 290.007 which deals specifically with 1203.4 expungement and that it doesn’t relieve you of you requirement to register. Only sections of the law being changed are spelled out.

  72. Robert R.

    I am glad our board has decided to remain silent with regard to this bill.

    It helps a few, but does more harm to some.

    The bottom line is that every individual case should be evaluated on it’s own merits. This is in our mission statement.

    The cops, the DA’s and therapists know. If a person is in society for 20 years without incident, putting their info on the internet and processing them at the station is a colossal waste. And there is no proof that the website and/or registration proctects the public.

    The public feels that the website makes them safe, but we all know that it is a rare instance when the victim is a stranger to the perpetrator.
    The entire approach is wrong!!

    I wish our organization spoke more about legitimate methods of prevention.

    We would increase our credibility if we spoke more about our commitment to change (Never harming a person.) and prevention. The public gets nauseous when we speak only about our rights.

    I feel the answer lies in educating the public regarding legitimate prevention methods and our recidivism rates, And the colossal waste of a registration for life and the Website.

    And lastly all the collateral damage the website creates. Women Against the Registry does an excellent job I must say.

    Lastly my personal opinion is that this bill has a good chance of passing, but it is not reform. It is more of the same old ideas. It’s not supported by fact. It is for show. It does nothing.

    • Timothy Moore

      I agree with you on advocating for legitimate means of prevention, say like supporting a bill to fund a hotline for potential offenders, or something like a bill for Circles of Accountability. Then we can work on getting legislators to quietly defund registry operations. Without the hope of more funding, the registry idea will die, especially if real solutions are taking its place and getting the money. What do you think of that?

      • Robert R.

        Those ideas are good. In Germany people can ask for help without fear of repercussions.

        There is an organization called Darkness to Light. Check out their website. They know that the offender isn’t lurking in a park. It is somebody close. They know the website is NOT the answer.

        • AlexO

          They actually made it even harder to get help pre-arrest about 2 years ago, here in California. Before, you could seek help for viewing CP and a clinician could choose accept you without reporting. Then, two years ago, California changed the law that if a clinician finds out someone views CP, they are now obligated to report the person or risk losing their license.

          Our rehab program actually had a man who came into the program voluntarily (unlike most of us, he was able to break out of his bubble and recognize he had a problem, AND had the strength to seek help with such a taboo subject). A year after he joined, the program this law changed. Thankfully, he was grandfathered into not needing to be disclosed. But accepting anyone new under the same circumstances would be really difficult.

          We’ve even brainstormed on how someone could by-pass this law and be able to find help by subterfuge such as “I keep having thoughts about this” or “I dreamed I was viewing this”. So complete BS that everyone knows is BS, but said so that the person could seek help, and a clinician could provide it, all without breaking the stupid new law. Our program admin was very angry about the passing of this law.

  73. Not Really

    If your only registration requirement is for 290.006, you can petition to have the felony reduced to a misdemeanor. “But people who need to register as a sex offender because of a judge’s order ARE eligible for sentencing under Proposition 47. You are only ineligible for Prop 47 sentencing if you were convicted of one of the offenses specifically listed in the Sex Offender Registration Act.45”

    https://www.shouselaw.com/prop-47.html#2.1

    Penal Code 290.006 – Court order of registration for offenses committed out of sexual compulsion or for sexual gratification [does not affect eligibility for Prop 47 sentencing]. (“Any person ordered by any court to register pursuant to the Act for any offense not included specifically in subdivision (c) of Section 290, shall so register, if the court finds at the time of conviction or sentencing that the person committed the offense as a result of sexual compulsion or for purposes of sexual gratification. The court shall state on the record the reasons for its findings and the reasons for requiring registration.”)

  74. mike r

    I’m glad you, and the members of the board, have recognized the fallacy in this bill, and the harm it will do. It is really encouraging to hear from someone on the board state their opinion and actually converse with the people on this forum. I know people are busy but it doesn’t take long to reach out on here, and give some insight into what these organizations are doing or their positions and opinions.

  75. Laura

    What I meant above is we (my husband and I) hope this bill dies.

    By far, it is obviously worse than the last amendments. Unless this civil rights organization has some type of foolproof, clever, trick up its sleeve to have the new law struck down in our court system, it is a risky bill. I say this because each RSO should be scrutinized carefully. And each person should be given an individualized assessment. Arbitrarily lumping crimes into tier 1, tier 2, or tier 3 makes no sense when there is no individualized assessment determining whether someone should be required to even register in the first place! The tiers are too arbitrary. Then on top of this mess, this bill is giving the Static 99 way too much power.

    My husband and I have talking about this bill for the past 12 hours or so now. So it’s time to sleep lol. Take care all.

  76. Has Had it...

    I’ve had to read this 3 times and walk around the block to make sure this wasn’t a bad dream.

    I have a 311.11a. First I was hopeful because I was in Tier 1, then I was saddened to hear I’ve been moved to Tier 2, now I’m Tier 3?? Along with monsters to rape and kill children? WTH? I don’t see how this is a good thing at all.

    Can someone explain why I’m a Tier 3 now? I never touched anyone.

    • Not Really

      Get it reduced to a misdemeanor and then it won’t be a Tier 3 because it must be a felony to be a Tier 3.

      “(U)  A felony violation of Section 311.11.”

      https://www.wklaw.com/relief-from-sex-offender-registration-for-possessing-child-pornography/

      • AW

        Could we please stop saying “just get it reduced to a misdemeanor.” Some of us did prison time and are not eligible. Also, this will not be available if your felony conviction for CP was in 2014 or after. If you’re lucky enough to have received only probation prior to 2014, then this is an option for you. Otherwise, it’s not. My only remedy, a COR, will be gone with this new bill.

        • John4

          AW…… it was this site that I learned about a 17b reduction and 1203.4 dismissal which helped me tremendously. Had we gone with your demands of “stop saying” I’d still be on the web. I’m sure There are many registrants who don’t know exactly what a wobbler is. Thank u all for helping me!!

      • TM

        I would discuss this offline or you will start to see even more offenses move up the tier chart…

        • Not Really @ Rodney

          I don’t understand. Wobblers are recognized as such, and it is assumed they do not carry the same weight as felonies. I’m sure the lawmakers understand this. If they wanted the punishment to be as severe as felonies, they would have made them felonies. But I think they see the differences in 311 cases and intentionally provided an out for some. What’s more, a 17(b) hearing is an effective way to filter who is granted the motion. So it wouldn’t be a blank check. All of this is intentional, is my bet.

  77. JSCLASER

    Can someone please answer my question.

    If I am zip code only right now and if this law passes I know I will be tier 2. Will this show my address and a blue dot on the map? If so, scrap this bill immediately.

    • AlexO

      For the moment, T2 is zip code only, so your position would remain the same. Though full address or zip code only is a superfluous distinction in this day and age of the internet. In most cases, a simple Google search will reveal a persons address, even if you’re not listed in the White Pages.

  78. Jack

    @jsclaser yes tier 2 is on the website.

  79. Has Had it...

    For the last Appropriations Committee I strongly urged everyone I knew (who knew my situation) to call and plead for them to release the bill. This time I’m not telling anyone and will not call myself. This is just insane. It gets worse with each amendment. If this bill passes I will be in a no better position than when I started with. Registrants with felony 311’s are the most screwed. And please don’t tell me to get it reduced. Thank you.

    • AlexO

      With the current wording, it seems only a few of the 311 will be effected by reduction, while the majority are just blanket.

      • Not Really

        We can know precisely. There is a graph in the middle of the page.

        311.1 = Wobbler
        311.2 (b) Felony
        311.2 (c) Wobbler
        311.2 (d) Felony
        311.3 (a) Misdemeanor (first offense); felony (second and subsequent offenses)
        311.4 (a) Wobbler
        311.4 (b) Felony
        311.4 (c) Felony
        311.10 Wobbler
        311.11 Wobbler

        6 wobblers or misdemeanor vs. 4 felonies.

        Since the bill would not take effect until 2021, it is possible to get the wobblers (most of the sections, 60%, not “a few”) reduced to misdemeanors and then they would not be included in Tier 3 when it becomes law. My guess is that would be a vast majority of of 311 registrants.

        • AlexO

          Well you’re assuming on that. Some parts of this new bill specifically state Felony, such as 311.11. So getting that one reduced seems like it’ll move you down to T1. But others, like my 311.4a, seems to be blanket (simply stating 311.4) without specifying misdemeanor or felony. So at least for the moment, it doesn’t seem like a reduction would matter. Obviously I and everyone else are hoping that a reduction/inherent misdemeanor will not be treated so harshly.

          • Follow the $

            Remember only 311.1 and 311.11 convictions before 2014 are wobblers. Amended PC 1203.4 removed this benefit for any violations of 286, 288, 288a(c), 288.5, 289(j), 311.1, 311.2, 311.3, 311.11 or any felony violations of 261.5(d). If you were convicted prior to 2014 AND SERVED NO TIME IN PRISON…go get your reduction then expungement.

            • Not Really @ Rodney

              I don’t understand. Where do you read 17(b) PC is nullified in PC 1203.4? I don’t see any mention of PC 17(b) at all.

              PC 1203.4 is used to dismiss the conviction for most purposes. 17(b) is to reduce the felony to a misdemeanor, not dismiss it. The conviction would stand but as a misdemeanor it would make that difference in what Tier the offense and land one in.

              PC 1203.4:

              (b) Subdivision (a) of this section does not apply to any misdemeanor that is within the provisions of Section 42002.1 of the Vehicle Code, to any violation of subdivision (c) of Section 286, Section 288, subdivision (c) of Section 288a, Section 288.5, subdivision (j) of Section 289, Section 311.1, 311.2, 311.3, or 311.11, or any felony conviction pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 261.5, or to any infraction.

            • Timothy Moore

              So you are saying these offenses listed are eligible for reduction and expungement if sentenced before 2014? I don’t believe it. I guess I should go ask my lawyer that promised me an expungement after ten years. He wouldn’t pass up the chance to get another n x $1000 more if it is true. The online expungement services say PC 288 is not expungeble. The sentencing was 2000, and no prison, but after Gardner we all needed more punishment to make politicians seem like they were doing something, to provide group catharsis, to appease the gods or something.

              • Mr. D

                @ Timothy Moore – Which 288 offense are you referring to as it relates if it’s considered a wobbler or not?

                • Tim Moore

                  I was wondering if all the offenses mentioned by follow the $ were wobblers before PC 1203.4 was amended. For me my former lawyer said mine could be expunged in 10 years, but not get off the registry. I should look him up and ask him. I think I have it in writing, too.

          • Not Really @ Rodney

            AlexO, none of these sections apply to me. I only suggest the possibility of further research. I looked at it because 311 was a search hit so many times in this thread and so many were certain they all would be Tier 3. It didn’t make sense. Maybe I got it all wrong, but I suggest taking a closer look if anyone was convicted of these.

          • Not Really

            AlexO, none of these sections apply to me. I only suggest the possibility of further research. I looked at it because 311 was a search hit so many times in this thread and so many were certain they all would be Tier 3. It didn’t make sense. Maybe I got it all wrong, but I suggest taking a closer look if anyone was convicted of these.

        • TM

          See my comment a few lines above

  80. American Detained in America

    I tried to warn you people, now I hope you listen to me. Scott Weiner is NOT on your side, he doesn’t have your best interests at heart, nor the best interest of the state. He is simply trying to make a name for himself by taking on the tiered registry. Under the previous version, I would have been Tier 1 and still was warning against it, now this one would have me Tier 3 with no hope of ever getting my life back. I have no victim(internet sting), I didn’t do what I was accused of in the first place(I even went as far as told them I believed they were law enforcement), and the state even has me as low-medium risk only because I’m homeless. Now hopefully you people will catch on, our only real hope is absolute abolition!

  81. Matthew

    To be honest, it seems like Senator Weiner is trying to get this bill passed regardless of how he amends it. It really sounds like he is trying to get it passed either for 1) someone he personally knows 2) Someone that is financially supporting him is in need of this bill being passed. Why else would he take this route and amend to where it is pretty much the same as before with minor changes. I think this bill is focusing on a select few in his inner circle and he is trying to clear them. What else would only certain charges be classified in the tier?

    • Laura

      To Matt and American Detained In America:

      I know what I’m about to say isn’t popular: but read the bill and see how many times you find this: Sex Offender Management Board-certified sex offender treatment program.

      Again, read it and find how many times you see the following words: “Sex Offender Management Board-certified sex offender treatment program.”

      If you remember about two years ago, Sharper Future — California’s largest CASOMB-certified sex offender treatment program — was all over the news for trying to quietly open a “treatment” center in San Francisco (which is Scott Wiener’s district). For some strange and mysterious reason, Scott Wiener seemed to take flak from Mary Perry Miller for mishandling the opening. Here is the e-mail:

      http://www.ebar.com/news/article.php?sec=news&article=71280

      Remember, CASOMB’s co-chair is Tom Tobin. Tom Tobin is also the CEO of Sharper Future. Yes, public corruption in plain view. Conflict of interest aside, If I were to guess, Tobin is trying to influence Wiener to introduce this bill NOT for public safety. But rather, judging from the amount of times this ‘tiered’ registry bill wants a person to complete a CASOMB program (Sharper Future), Tobin may or may not be pulling strings to get this bill passed. Yes, my husband and I discussed this too: there might be corrupt motive?

      If you think about it, finishing a program like Sharper Future might cost us maybe $10,000. Say 100 registrants finish his program. That’s one million dollars right there.

      That’s potentially a lot of money for Tom Tobin.

      Your feelings about our theory?

      • Matthew

        I think we are on the same page. I knew there had to be a reason in which he is pushing so hard for this bill to be passed.

      • Something Interesting

        While I can’t argue with what you are saying, have you noticed that Tom Tobin has been absent from all the hearings? Why hasn’t he been all over interviews?
        Also Sharper Future mainly sees parolees, which means the state covers that $10,000; not like the people who are on probation and have to pay for the ridiculous cost of treatment from the other ‘certified treatment program’ themselves.

        • Laura

          Just because Tom Tobin has been absent from the hearings, doesn’t mean he doesn’t have interest and is pulling strings behind the scenes. A comparison can be made with how in some hearings, it is suggested that we not attend: because it will show unpopular parties interested in the passage of a particular legislation.

          I think in recent months, Tom Tobin knows people are more aware of this dual CASOMB-Sharper Future relationship that he’d much rather keep a low profile to keep his cash cow running. I’m going to guess that Tobin isn’t an idiot and he knows full well that his conflict of interest would generally be despised should it be exposed by media outlets.

          As for Sharper Future servicing mainly parolees, that is true. But, if I am not mistaken, they also service private clients — as we’ll as some on probation. So I guess the point my husband and I were discussing is that is is probably no confidence that Sharper Future happens to be the states’s largest “CASOMB-certified sex offender treatment program.” And why this tiered registry bill, right from the beginning, mentioned that RSOs complete such a program three times in this bill. The emphasis is quite clear.

          In fact, it wa CASOMB who drafted this will. And despite numerous amendments, one of few things have remained: the requirement or urgency to complete a CASOMB-certified program. Remember, Tom Tobin is co-chair of CASOMB so his agency had direct impact on the wording of this bill. The foundation has been build — and there is no longer a need for him to involve himself.

          With Sharper Future as, by far, the state’s largest CASOMB provider, it’s common sense that Tobin will get most of the business for those seeking to petition.

          It’s corruption, no?

          • David Kennerly, Poster Boy For Whatever Pisses You Off

            So, my question is: if the program that one attended more than twenty years ago (at the Center for “Special Problems”, S.F.), and whose group leader was Tom Tobin, himself who then threw one out of the group therapy component of the program (but continued to see another, equally ersatz counselor, one-on-one), does that count as a successful program completion? 🙂

            • Laura

              My husband was mandated to attend Tom Tobin’s “treatment” scam as well. He was discharged with no violations; but yet he, nor anyone else who discharged (that he knows of), never received any type of certificate indicating that he “successfully completed” the program. So how would someone prove “successful completion?”

              I am going to bet that this might be of issue for many who seek to petition. The DA may very well dig and criticize “treatment” records, even if many years back (and regardless of offense-free behavior), in hopes to keep a person registering. Those unpaid intern’s Sharper Future notes may very well come back to haunt those forced into the Tom Tobin “treatment” scam.

        • Unofficial Advisor

          OK interesting theory. I just looked back at previous tiered registry bills, circa 2006/2008, and they were also originally drafted by CASOMB. And even back then, Tom Tobin was still vice chair of CASOMB. What’s interesting about the older bills is that they also include requirements, or that a judge consider, to whether a petitioner finished a CASOMB treatment course. So at this point why would Tobin need to involve himself, for risk of being exposed by bill opponents, when the CASOMB treatment clauses have survived amendment after amendment even since the 2000s? Should Wiener’s bill pass, Tom Tobin’s SF company could easily cater to petitioners by merely revising client contracts to reflect out-of-pocket transactions. I would guess Tobin would continue to exploit unpaid interns and use polygraphs under such a possible circumstance? Laura, your crazy conspiracy theory may be more truth than fiction!

        • Tim Moore

          Intriguing, but Tobin is not the dictator of CASOMB. There are several other board members that would have to go along with the scam. What are they getting out of it? Why are the minutes of CASOMB hearing unavailable to the public? Isn’t that a violation of the Brown Act or something. They are a public body. If they are meeting in secret, that is a violation. Anytime a quorum is present, it is officially a public meeting and it has to be announced. If the minutes are available somewhere, how does one obtain them? I tried to find them on the CASOMB site and couldn’t.

  82. Unofficial Advisor

    Well, if this so-called “tiered registry” (lol) dies, I think we dodged what many might have come to regret. As a now avid chess player, what some are failing to see is unless registration schemes are declared a form of punishment, the tiered registry may very well be amended in years to come to include more and more offenses into tier 3, until we are back to where we are now (but perhaps worse, as I shall explain). What is being discounted by most is how this “tiered registry” is setup so that it is one-step from complying with AWA. AWA would give California federal funding for its registration scheme, under the condition that tier 2s must register every 6 months and tier 3s must register every 3 months (compared to the one year that it is now). Just be forewarned that the grass is not always greener on the other side of the fence.

    • steve

      Enough of this AWA scare tactic to promote your beliefs. Everyone in California is in agreement that AWA is bad and none of them want to include juveniles like AWA mandates. The only way AWA happens here is if Republicans take over otherwise it ain’t happening.

      • Laura

        The “unofficial advisor” does have a point with regard to more offenses being included in the 3rd Tier if this bill were to pass. I mean look… tiered registry hasn’t even passed and the politicians are already adding more offenses in the 3rd Tier. It’s like full circle — and in a few years we are near back to where we are now. My husband an I talked about this all yesterday.

        This tiered registry is barely a tiered registry as someone said above.

    • Matthew

      Another reason why anyone is able to reduce or do whatever they can to lessen the charge, do it!

  83. bill

    so i get 4 emails from someone from a chat room 6 years ago and i get convicted of possession of child porn, 311.11. I am given a felony conviction and 6 months in county jail for a first offense. It has now been 5 years since I was released no issues. I was told that you should get a COR prior to getting my wobbler reduced to a misdemeanor anyone have any information that might help me.

    • AlexO

      I think something was lost in the communication.

      Generally you want to get a 17b reduction to wobblers, then expungment, then CoR. The first two are usually done at the same time and both can be done as soon as you’ve completed probation successfully. The CoR you have to wait 8-10 years post conviction to file for.

      Since your conviction was prior to 2014 and you were granted probation which you’ve completed successfully, you shouldn’t have any issues getting the reduction and expungment.

    • D

      If I remember right, I don’t think you can get a COR until you have your conviction expunged, which I don’t think you can do until it is reduced. Just would suggest getting the reduction and expungment as soon as possible.

      • AlexO

        You don’t need a reduction to get an expungement. It just looks a lot better if you do as then someone looking at your recorded sees a dismissed misdemeanor instead of a felony.

  84. Pedro

    WE can talk and complain all day long among ourselves. But until we all come together and become a powerful lobby group to change elections we’re watching the same super bowl wanting different results.

    Janice how and what do we need to become a powerful lobby? Is it money? Marches? numbers? etc.

    I’ve been in this game for 36 years and have enormous empathy for all you young brothers and sisters. The one thing I know is we grow larger every year in-spite of the tougher laws. I had a 288(a) felony that was expunged by the prosecuting attorney after he became a judge. He knew the deal and and false accusations we made so I would not have to serve time in prison. Go figure! I still have hope that before I get to heaven i’ll be off this God forsaken registry. Gods Blessing and praying for all…

  85. Aero1

    If you’re not a violent sexual predator you have nothing to worry about ..THE END 😂

    • AlexO

      You’re probably right at the end, but what about the current bill makes you say that?

  86. TG

    I think the question is largely moot. What are the chances this thing can pass through the necessary committees in three days?

    • AlexO

      Not much different than other bills. They sometimes jam these things through multiple rounds in a single day.

      Janice is already preparing to battle the bill after it’s signed into law (she made a statement in the above opening that the bill can be modified prior to going into effect).

  87. ExpatRFSO

    I think I am still one of the few that will benefit from this. (Federal conviction in CA of CP in 2003, discovered in 2001). Somebody tell me if I am wrong:

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

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

    Meghan’s Law Website:
    PC 290.46
    (2)  This subdivision shall apply to the following offenses and
    offenders:

    (U)  A felony violation of Section 311.11.

    PC 311.11 was a misdemeanor in 2001.

  88. DavidH

    Tomorrow is the big day

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 *