ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Mtgs: June 15/16 Los Angeles (Conference), July 14 Phone [details]

2018 ACSOL Conference – Sign Up Now 

General News

General Comments May 2018

Comments that are not specific to a certain post should go here, for the month of May 2018. Contributions should relate to the cause and goals of this organization and please, keep it courteous and civil.

Join the discussion

  1. UplandCA

    Looking for help!
    My polling location is at an elementary school. I am a 290 registrant in California who is NOT on parole/probation. Am I allowed to go to this location in order to vote? Called the local police and they said it was fine, but I wanted to check.

    • David

      @ UplandCA: Whoever you spoke with is incorrect. As a 290 registrant, you are required to get the written permission of the school administrator/principal in order to be present on school property. I know this because I am also a 290 Registrant and in the same situation as you are. (So far, I have been granted permission to attend events on public school property. However, I was denied permission to attend a community meeting at a private school.) Definitely get written permission. I believe you can be charged with a felony if you do not.

  2. mike r

    Yeah Chris, I really do not see how much power the $25,000 price tag really has. Am I missing something obvious???? It certainly suggest that the registry is punishment and is another probative factor but I do not think this cements it. You know they put people in prison for other crimes and those laws are not deemed unconstitutional. I understand the relationship but Just cannot wrap my head around a definitive fact. Correct me if I am wrong and just missing it. LOL

  3. mike r

    I know what I need is a bunch of gov reports from in the early 90s or before the registry showing no meaningful difference from rates back then compared to now so that they cannot say “well it looks like the registry must be working’ crap…..

  4. Jason

    Election… my wife received her Statewide Direct Primary Election Ballots in the mail for Cali/LA.

    A lot of names, and google searches really don’t state anything on candidates views and stances on SO’s. Example there’s one crazy Attorney General candidate who criticized a recent court ruling that could lead to the release of potentially thousands of sex offenders under Prop. 57, yet another one supported it.

    I haven’t seen anything on who is voting for who?

    • Celtic

      I sent my mail-in ballot for the June primary last week and, being rather conservative, voted Republican or Libertarian and against anything that smacked of a tax increase. Hopefully Becerra won’t pitch my ballot into the round file because my “signature doesn’t match,” as he’s been prone to do lately.

      BTW – I never vote for judges because I’m not familiar with any of them. It would be nice to have a record of each and how they’ve ruled in matters important to us so we can cast educated votes in that category.

  5. Lake County

    Great news! Lets take the profit away from these websites. If they can’t make money, they wont keep doing this! It’s about time.

    Mugshots website: Posting mugshots on internet draws criminal charges from California attorney general. California Attorney General Xavier Becerra on Thursday filed extortion and money laundering charges against the owners of a website that publishes mugshot photos and charges a fee to remove them.

    I bet some of these sites will be very scared now. Most of these sites certainly don’t have the money to fight the CA AG.

    • Lake County

      Registry is not punishment but: “This pay-for-removal scheme attempts to profit off of someone else’s humiliation,” Becerra said. “Those who can’t afford to pay into this scheme to have their information removed pay the price when they look for a job, housing, or try to build relationships with others. This is exploitation, plain and simple.”

    • Lake County

      I don’t have Netflix and haven’t seen this, but I found someone posted this:

      “NETFLIX has the ENTIRE documentary on Mugshot Extortion called “The Naked Truth” Episode 2.”

    • Jason

      @Lakecounty – Thats amazing news, I remember a month ago I couldn’t sleep and I must have spent hours going over laws to get my photo off the internet. Pray for the best.

  6. David

    @ Bee and Someone Who Cares: OCSD website (Bee’s link) states “SONAR Team … utilize[s] the following methods to supervise registered sex offenders; residence and workplace visits, ….” Stop there – I am having trouble understanding how “compliance checks” are legal and not a violation of our civil rights. It seems to me that a Compliance Check is a police “stop” (because they are halting you from going about your business) WITHOUT:
    1. probable cause/suspicion of a crime occurring;
    2. a complaint of criminal wrong-doing, or;
    3. a search warrant.
    Do they do “Compliance Checks” on those previously convicted (even decades ago) of domestic abuse, aggrevated assault, manslaughter, assault with a deadly weapon? No, they don’t.
    So does anyone know where it is written into the law that they are permitted to do Compliance Checks on non-probation, non-parole Registrants? Please friends, seriously, if you know, please direct me to the appropriate statute. It’s been 20+ years that I’ve been tolerating this harassment. I’m done with accepting it as “‘required'”. 😡

  7. Lake County

    Police Mugshots:

    I don’t know if this court decision has ever been mentioned here before, but a 2016 ruling from the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, held that a federal agency can, on a case-by-case basis, decline a Freedom of Information Act request for a mugshot due to privacy concerns.

    And here is a very good article that describes how Police Departments can use copyright laws to keep their booking photos from being published by anyone else.

  8. AJ

    Very nice. I especially like that it involves other Attorneys General. ([Becerra’s] office said investigators are working with law enforcement in Broward and Palm Beach counties in Florida, and state police in Connecticut and Pennsylvania.) That will raise the issue in those States as well, since they’re already collaterally involved. This could start a tide against these sites. Warms my heart. 😀

  9. Lake County

    For those that live in Florida, this law is to take effect July 2018.

    Florida enacted a law that requires mug shot publishers to remove a person’s arrest photo from their websites, at no charge, within 10 days of receiving a formal request for removal. The measure passed with wide bipartisan support and Gov. Rick Scott signed it into law in June, 2017.

    Under the new law, if a Florida court issues a mug-shot-removal injunction and a publisher does not comply, the court can authorize a $1,000-a-day fine.

    • David

      @ Lake County: I suppose time will tell if the Florida law will be effective. It’s certainly going to be a challenge for the prosecution when you consider the details about the Mugshots website: “….. the business was registered in the Caribbean island of Nevis ….. domain name was registered in Belize ….
      internet hosting company in Australia.” Quite a path to follow…. (said the Nigerian prince to Fancy Bear as they road-tripped to Burning Man.)

      • Lake County

        This might be a large enough fine that an attorney would be willing to follow the dots to the website owner. No one can completely hide on the internet. You just have to follow the money. But you’re right, it won’t be easy. It would likely help out when dealing with less slippery website owners.

    • CR

      If it requires a court to issue an injunction, the question becomes whether the court would grant one to a sex offender, or if the usual sex-offender exception will apply.

      Even though mug shots are matters of public record, in most cases they are not published, or they are published locally around the time of booking, perhaps again if it is a major case when it goes to trial. Then it is pretty much dropped and forgotten. This is true in nearly all cases other than sexual offenses. Of course, there are heinous non-sex offense cases that generate national interest that may get a lot more publicity. But for run of the mill arrests, most people’s mug shots are seldom if ever seen, despite being a public record.

      Given that registrants have their photos proactively published by the state (sometimes in multiple states), and often for life and beyond, what possible reasoning could induce a judge to issue an injunction to a mug-shot site requiring it to remove a sex-offender’s mug shot or registry photos? Does anyone really think that’ll happen?

  10. someone who cares

    Here is a link to the law dealing with entering a school, whether for voting or attending a child’s event. It has been amended, it seems, and you can read through what has been eliminated or added. It seems, voting is ok, and unless it is a certain offense, you can enter a school ground without getting written permission. Just read through the whole section and see if you fall into any of those categories:

  11. TravelingMan

    Hi all. In one of SCOTUS’ oral arguments one of the judges quipped about the impossibility of registering while traveling. I think his point was that if a traveler was not in town long enough to be required to register, registration law fails.

    So my question is about boondocking. That is, living in a motor home and traveling. I’m thinking of traveling to do research for my business but don’t know how it would work. Do any of you have experience?

    What if California relieves me of the registration requirement in 2021 when the new law goes into effect? Will it still be necessary to register in other states due to the conviction still being on the record?

    Any thoughts appreciated!

    • AJ

      In one of SCOTUS’ oral arguments one of the judges quipped about the impossibility of registering while traveling.
      What case mentioned this? I haven’t listened to all that many oral arguments, but it’s certainly intriguing.
      So my question is about boondocking. That is, living in a motor home and traveling.
      Where would you “reside” for mail delivery purposes? Whether domestically or abroad, you will have to have some sort of mailing address. I suspect that will throw a monkey wrench in attempt to evade residency and registration. Most RVers use a specific county in SD (I forget which county) for their residency, because they can do almost everything by mail after one visit in person first. I think even DLs can be renewed by mail/online. I have no idea what SD’s RC laws are. May be worth it, may not be.
      What if California relieves me of the registration requirement in 2021 when the new law goes into effect? Will it still be necessary to register in other states due to the conviction still being on the record?
      It all depends on the individual State’s laws. Some yes, some no.

      • Not Really


        “What case mentioned this? I haven’t listened to all that many oral arguments, but it’s certainly intriguing.”

        I couldn’t find it but the justice mentioned the time requirement. It is at least a few years old and I think it involved a move to Florida.

        Also, my comment was not about attempting to evade residency and registration conditions, but questioned how to comply. As you allude to, it seems rather impossible. California no longer uses a mailing system. Maybe another way to phrase the question is this: Have any of you gone camping for more than 5 days (or whatever the deadline would be in your state) and if you tried to comply even though the time limit would pass, how did you do so? Or is there a blanket no camping for more than five days (in California) without notifying the proper authorities? It might even be necessary to notify them before going camping even if not for the full 5 days. Apparently, I’m getting at the constitutional right to travel and it seems to be denied.

        Also, how did you arrive at the “It all depends on the individual State’s laws” conclusion regarding the still a conviction even if California no longer requires registration?

        • AJ

          @Not Really:
          Also, how did you arrive at the “It all depends on the individual State’s laws” conclusion regarding the still a conviction even if California no longer requires registration?
          Each State creates its own regulatory scheme, and appears to be under no obligation to honor anything from outside its boundaries.

          The example State I like to use, because they’re so draconian, is Mississippi. Mississippi does not give credit for any time on a registry outside MS. MS only starts and runs the clock while one is a resident (defined as 7 days in-state) of MS. So you could have been convicted 70 years ago in a non-lifetime State, and the moment you’re in MS for 7+ days, they will require you to complete 15/25/life with them before removal from their ML. They also keep you on if you move away or die.

          Personally, I suspect this sort of behavior by a State violates the Full Faith and Credit Clause, but I don’t know that anyone has challenged it. It almost certainly violates the Equal Protection Clause as one receives disparate treatment for not being a MS resident. It also probably implicates fundamental rights as the law has a chilling effect on MS residents exercising freedom of travel, movement and migration.

        • Not Really

          Thanks, AJ, I’m going to have to take a close legal look at this.

      • Not Really

        A little more search found the case. It is rare for a sex offender to win a unanimous decision.

        Nichols v. United States

        Fascinating Oral argument!

        An analysis:

        • CR

          Interesting, but of no particular consequence. Congress “fixed” the law to close the “loophole” that Nichols took advantage of, little good though it did him.

          And if Gundy wins on his delegation of authority challenge, while it may have a wide-ranging impact in regards to how and to what extent Congress delegates authority to executive agencies, I doubt there will be any lasting advantage to registrants for the same reason. Congress will simply “fix” the law by amending it to say what the AG already implemented.

        • Not Really

          CR, how did the “fix” fix the question of continually traveling?

  12. AJ

    Here’s a story that, though about a gun shop, highlights the same regulatory BS and games government plays to get what it wants:
    Alameda’s true motive, of course, was to outlaw gun stores. But the three men managed to find a location that complied—it was over 500 feet from the store to the front door of the nearest home—and Alameda’s zoning board approved the application. After complaints from anti-gun activists, however, the county changed its policy to require a distance of 500 feet from the store to the nearest area that was zoned for residential use. That made the distance from the store to the nearest home 446 feet, which the county said was not far enough.
    Does that modus operandi sound familiar? No matter how much one tries to comply, government, in the almighty name of civil regulation, can retroactively screw you over. Ah, the land of the free…

  13. concerned

    I have a question for all the brains out there.

    If you’re a photographer and take a picture of someone and make money you must have consent release. states make money from the feds for the so websites with photos on that they do not have a signed consent to for

    • Lake County

      “states make money from the feds for the so websites with photos on that they do not have a signed consent to for” How do states make money specifically for the photos of registrants? States get paid for their registration program depending on it’s size, but how do they make money on individual photos? I’m pretty sure any court would say they are not making money on the individual photos themselves.

  14. Tim Moore

    In front of Home Depot I met a guy gathering signatures to defeat proposition 57 by classifying misdemeanor sexual offenses as violent.

  15. Not Really

    There is a lot that is interesting in this post:

    This morning, the US Supreme Court granted cert in Gundy v. US to consider whether Congress’s delegation to the attorney general the power to issue regulations interpreting the federal Sex Offender Notification and Registration Act violates the nondelegation doctrine. That grant on that issue right has Con Law fans buzzing. But sentencing fans more interested in the substance of sex offender registries will want to check out this new commentary by Jesse Kelley in The Hill under the headline “The Sex Offender Registry: Vengeful, unconstitutional and due for full repeal.”

    • CR

      Great thread! Thanks for posting it. Some of the comments are priceless. I liked the comment about the baboons in black pajamas.

    • David Kennerly, The Government-Driven Life

      Yes, “The Hill” piece by Jesse Kelley of the organization “R Street,” is really excellent. Once again, it is a LIBERTARIAN organization which is coming to our defense. About “R Street:” “R Street is a free-market think tank with a pragmatic approach to public policy challenges. We draw inspiration from such thinkers as Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, Ronald H. Coase, James M. Buchanan and Arthur C. Pigou.”

  16. PR

    I listened to the Live report this morning coming from the White House regarding Prison Reform. Does anyone know if there is representation on the behalf of individuals that are currently incarcerated for sex related crimes and those that are currently on the registry throughout the United States? They spoke of 2nd chances for all? And coming up with a bill that would be signed into Law that would do just that.

  17. David Kennerly, The Government-Driven Life

    “Stephanie Adams is a proud advocate for women and children’s rights as well as the prevention of domestic violence.” This, from her website:

    Yesterday, this self-proclaimed advocate of “children’s rights” murdered her seven-year-old son, and killed herself, by throwing him and herself off of the upper floors of a New York hotel.

    “Woman, Child Dead After Fall From Midtown Manhattan Hotel”

  18. concerned

    Is a movement starting?

    Is this the start of a movement where book is the first then start going after others including politicians? i hope so!
    i just seen this:

    and the the web site

    Please everyone when you see any report or anyplace you can comment copy and paste a link to a video, web site, news story etc… and then when someone searches for ron book all these sites will come up first showing the world the real criminal ron book

    everyone can do a little something, lets start dropping links everywhere – even if you sit on your fat ass at home and are afraid to personally get involved like me. lets start dropping links or create a video about some idiot that makes our lives hell and lets fight back and now we start to make there life hell! like here is a great video that just popped upped about a Florida A-Hole!

  19. Chris F

    About that Gundy SCOTUS thing:

    From this:
    Gundy then asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review his case, which it agreed to do only as to the question of whether SORNA unlawfully delegates authority to the U.S. Attorney General under 42 U.S.C. § 16913 to impose the law’s registration requirements upon offenders who were convicted before the statute was enacted.

    That’s a shame they didn’t include that the AG also decided it applies to those given “deferred adjudication” where the AG actually re-writes the common dictionary so that the term “not convicted” actually means “convicted” if the case was sex related and they plead guilty or no contest to avoid a trial. I’m not quite sure the AG should have the god like power to define our words, especially to mean the opposite of what they actually mean, just to force people that thought they took a deal to be free and clear to now be subjected to the same punishment as those convicted in a full trial.

    • AJ

      @Chris F:
      Though it sucks they’re only looking at that particular question, I don’t know that their accepting any or all of the other 3 questions would change things for most of us. And since there’s no broader non-delegation question before them (even though one may exist), they had no choice but to keep it constrained. I hold out hope that they rule in our favor on this, and such ruling could then be used to undermine the rest of the delegation Congress did.

      Historically, I would now add that all it does is stall the issue until Congress passes a change to fix things, but anymore I’m not so sure Congress would do so. They are not deaf or blind to what goes on, so the many op-eds and articles, the academic and governmental research, and the handful of court victories may steal the wind from their (read: Chris Smith’s) sails to dive into it again and more. Also, as of April 5, 2018, SORNA (the federal law, not the concept) is still being ignored by 32 of the States,* so why bother redoing an ignored law? Could I be wrong and Congress does another slimy voice-vote maneuver? Absolutely. But that’s why it’s called optimism, and not knowledge. 🙂

      * I find it ironic, and somewhat confusing and comical, that DC is non-compliant. Congress has full authority to force DC to comply, yet hasn’t done so.

    • David

      @ Chris F: It is my understanding that, legally speaking, unless the situation applies to the plaintiff, the plaintiff would not have “standing” to bring such arguments. Therefore, plaintiff Gundy would not have “standing” to bring the argument you suggest unless his own case belongs in the category you refer to as “non-adjudicated”. (The first lawsuit against IML was dismissed by the judge because it was the judge’s finding that the plaintiffs had no standing because no actions related to IML [i.e., revocation of passport or receipt of a passport with a unique identifier on it] had yet taken place. Therefore, plaintiffs had not actually suffered any injury from IML. Might be injured/could be injured/probably would be injured – in the future – was not deemed sufficient.)

      • Chris F

        That is true. I guess it’s just a shame it wasn’t a better plaintiff. Especially if there is one out there with both an ex-post facto issue and with a type of deferred adjudication.

        As AJ points out though, at least if they say the AJ can’t do what he did, that logic could be used in a separate future challenge against the AG defining “not convicted” to mean “convicted”. I think that would have been an easier case to win, and could be challenged even if Gundy loses. I find it absurd to think the AG was delegated by Congress to define the English language any way he sees fit to add people congress did not intend to the registry.

  20. MS

    Before I consider inquiring with my local school district (find out if they have a district policy that the principals have to adhere to) I figured I would ask what experiences others have had with requesting permission to attend a graduation. Have two kids and the first one will be graduating from middle school in a few weeks. I would be attending with my wife and our other child. Convicted of a non-contact offense and not on the public registry. Since I’m not on the public registry I’m able to fly under the radar a bit so I don’t want to draw any unnecessary attention to myself, my wife, or our kids but I also don’t want to come up with some lame excuse as to why I couldn’t make it to the graduation. I’m hoping to hear that others have asked and have been granted permission before I consider contacting the district or the school. The graduation is being held at the local high school which I actually attended and graduated from 3 decades ago. I know that if I do nothing, thanks to the law, I won’t be able to legally attend their middle school or high school graduations.

    • steve

      If you are not publicized on any website and are truly under the radar, I would not say a damn thing. I met once with our middle school principal who forwarded my info to our high school and met once with them and went to every school event (all on sports teams graduations etc…) for three kids all 3 years apart, and never had one issue. I am listed on the internet. If it were me I wouldn’t say a thing most don’t even know what the laws are. I would play stupid if confronted and say you thought because you aren’t listed and considered not a danger that it was fine. It’s hard to imagine someone would punish you for being a good parent. Not everyone will like my advice but I’ve been through it for 15 years and never an issue.

      • AnonMom

        @MS-thank you for posing this question. This is one of my biggest concerns as a mother. My husband, like others here, messed up one time in his life, and I fear how he will be able to parent our daughter through school. Girls really need their father present as involved, and i hellbent on insuring he has the opportunity. She is not in school yet, we have a few years, but this is a huge concern for me.

        @Steve-thank you for your insight. This gives me hope! I live in a very consevative community, the same community that saw our house get turned upside down by the FBI, but this really helps me to believe that my husband can be involved with our daughter’s schooling and activities.

        • steve

          I would also just try to be as low key as possible. It will get hard when your kids want to have kids come over and play. Middle school was the hardest but parents all knew and it turned out fine. There were some people that took longer than others but they eventually see your just trying to be a good parent. I had the attitude that I didn’t give a crap if I got busted trying to be a good parent. I was also gracious when I needed to be. Again some might not agree but you gotta do what you feel is right for your situation.

  21. David Kennerly, The Government-Driven Life

    I can think of no starker illustration of the disparity between how this society treats physical and emotional child abuse, on the one hand, and sexual abuse, on the other. Moses Farrow, now an adult and one of many adopted children of Mia Farrow (who was something of a high-status “collectionneur” of foreign-born or disadvantaged kids, years before Angelina Jolie), has made consistent, compelling and harrowing allegations of physical and emotional abuse against his adoptive mother but is largely ignored by the media. There are no celebrity ‘call-outs’ for her behavior and demands to destroy her career or her life, as there has been with Woody. She is still showered with the accolades bestowed by a celebrity-worshipful society that are seen to be commensurate for rich women closely identified with the correct progressive politics and the correct emphasis on ‘social justice.’ There are no late-night television comedy bits about Mia’s abusiveness towards her fetishized, underprivileged child-objects as there have been about Woody’s alleged pedophilia. It doesn’t matter that two of Mia’s children no longer speak to her and have stood firmly with Woody over these many years and can articulate a history of harrowing abuse as children at her hands. This is the difference between allegations of sexual abuse and physical or emotional abuse and how society takes one very seriously, indeed and can’t be bothered with the other.

    “Moses Farrow defends Woody Allen, details Mia’s alleged [physical] abuse”

    • David Kennerly, The Government-Driven Life

      Correction: “collectionneuse.”

    • CR

      Another Mommie Dearest? Mia Dearest, perhaps? Echos of Joan Crawford.

      • David Kennerly, The Government-Driven Life

        Both were Hollywood phoneys. Both indifferently exploited children to carefully craft their public image. Both were sadistic.

  22. mike r

    Maybe a stupid question but who thinks the following can be considered a judicial fact for purposes for a court to take judicial notice? I do not know if reasoning or suppositions provided by a state gov agency can be recognized as judicial facts. I find some sites stating that they can, but it is only logical to me that a court cannot take judicial notice of a supposition or opinion at all.

    Wex Law: Adjudicative Fact
    A fact that is either legally operative or even so important as to be controlling on some question of law. Adjudicative facts are those which concern the parties to some dispute and are helpful in determining the proper outcome in the case.

    California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) End of Year Report 2014:
    “Some of the consequences of lengthy and unnecessary registration requirements actually destabilize the lives of registrants and those – such as families – whose lives are often substantially impacted. Such consequences are thought to raise levels of known risk factors while providing no discernible benefit in terms of community safety.” (emphasis added) (p. 12) [visited April 4, 2018]. Complaint pp 4 ¶ 12.

  23. Counting the days

    Has this happened to anybody?

    Santa Clara police pulled me for no turn signal ( yeah right). When the officer ran my license, he went into an in depth inquiry about my 290.

    Are you current?
    What was your charge?
    Did you have a jury trial?
    How long were you incarcerated?
    What is your PFN?
    When was your conviction date?

    He never cited me for original issue. He was more interested in demeaning me and learning about me as a registrant. I don’t even live in Santa Clara. In fact he pulled me over in San Jose.

    • R M

      I do not live in Ca. Haven’t had that problem in NJ or Ga. What I want to know is, how did you handle the situation?

      • Counting the days

        I answered the questions. He kept asking about the perticulars of my case , so I informed him that since I was no longer on probation and in compliance with San Jose P.D. that he should direct any questions to their registration dept. He then let me leave.

    • NPS

      Interesting. In 2015, I was pulled over in Santa Clara for speeding. I was going 30mph in a 25mph zone past a senior citizen facility.

      The officer just gave me a ticket and told me to drive safely. No inquiries about my registration status. I have always wondered what happens when they run my license and what it shows.

      Question: Are you on the public registry that it would show up after running a license? In my situation, I am not nor have I ever been on the public registry. So I wonder if that makes a difference in treatment by law enforcement. For people like me, we’re only known to our local law enforcement. I do not live in Santa Clara county so, perhaps it doesn’t show up?

      • New Person


        On a tangent about your information being brought up…

        290 is supposed to be only for police purposes, but 290 will show on a background check. According to a background check, 290 is criminal in nature – not statutory.

        Now, if you’ve earned a 1203.4 in Ca, then your case has been set aside, accusations/information against you dismissed, and relieved from all penalties and disabilities from the conviction.

        You can be denied employment with a 1203.4 and still be on the registry, with the registry being the only component for the denial. Not all employers use background checks, and of those who use background check, not all receive the same information.

        Back to the original situation, I wonder if ‘Counting the days’ is a guy. Also, did “Counting the days” earn a 1203.4? These are two traits that NPS has. But I do hope that ‘Counting the days’ didn’t answer the officer’s question that went out of the scope of what he was pulled over for because that would be a form of harassment. He’s a police officer. If he knew you’re a 290, then he should have all the info at his disposal. I don’t comprehend querying for information that he can get on his own from his car or his dispatcher.

      • Counting the days

        I am on public registry for another couple of months, but the police use their own data base I assume.
        As to how I handled it? I answered the 1st couple of questions, and when he started getting nosey, I told him that since I was not on probation and in compliance with The city of my residence, he should direct any other questions to S.J.P.D. He seemed flustered at my response and dismissed me.

      • Tired of this

        I was driving through this little town on the eastern side of the Sierras in CA heading down 395 one night a few years back. I pulled over to check my phone for somewhere to get some food and while I was sitting there a local deputy with nothing to do rolled up on me and started asking questions. He said I seemed nervous, which I kind of was (as I’m sure most of you can relate), asked for my license and when he ran my name I overheard his police radio relay back that I was a 290 registrant out of (city I was living in). His demeanor changed a bit to that of outright suspicion- where was I going, did I have anything in my car he needed to know about, sobriety check, flashlight pointing around in my car- you know, the criminal treatment, though I had done absolutely nothing wrong. So, yes, they do connect the dots. But then again, I was publicly listed (zip only).

      • Pulled over in CO

        Had a cop in CO Springs pull me over in a work van late one evening with a dull headlamp. Did the usual wants and warrants search but threw in there a question if my registration was up to date. He knew it was because they can see in their system if there’s a FTR. I reassured him it was but they’ll play that CBP question trick.

    • David Kennerly, The Government-Driven Life

      Why did you let him get this far? Never grant an interview with the police! I see that we need another reminder in the form of a YT video from James Duane, a professor at Regent Law School and a former defense attorney, to tell us why we should never agree to be interviewed by the police. “Any lawyer worth his salt will tell the suspect, in no uncertain terms, to make no statement to the police under any circumstances.” – Justice Robert Jackson

  24. Counting the days

    I gather from the responses that what I experienced was a “normal” registrant traffic stop. Now for an observation.
    Why doesn’t the powers that be put the entire charge and final disposition on the police computer ( and passport for that matter) . I wonder if cops and immigration would take such a hard line if they had all the information.

  25. AJ

    FYI, the reply from Millard’s side in Millard v. Rankin (CO 8th Amdt. case) has been kicked back a month. Reply was due May 25, but is now due June 25. I’ll try to keep tabs on status and post as soon as I stumble across anything.

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 refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  • We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please send any input regarding moderation to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  

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

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