ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (10/16 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings

We have emailed a link to the conference videos to all attendees and those who purchased the videos. If you haven’t received it and it is not in your spam folder, email

conference at all4consolaws dot org



Pending Legislation – AB 702

Bill introduced by Assembly member Ammiano that would instead establish 3 tiers of registration based on specified criteria, for periods of 10 years, 20 years, and life, respectively, as specified.

Bill Info

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. 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.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. 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.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email 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.  
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

The amended bill in now posted and it seems the exact same as ab 625. Anyone know what this means

“the person is not eligible for assessment under the
applicable coding rules, pursuant to Section 290.06.”

I’m pretty sure I was never assessed 20 years ago.

nevermind I just found my answer….Thank god!

“… and offenders who have been offense free in
the community for over 10 years may not qualify for scoring.”

I think it would be very important to change the language to measure the registration period not by counting “subject to the registration requirements of the act for a period of 10 years” to instead “subject to the registration requirements of the act for a period of 10 years from date of conviction.”

If you make that language change, then anyone in tier one is simply out from under registration 10 years after their conviction, absent any subsequent offense, regardless of how many years they might have registered in California. If you don’t add “from date of conviction,” then you will find that anyone who might have to move out of state for any period, maybe for a job, maybe to take care of a sick family member, whatever, will have to register for up 10 years upon return, even if that might be 30 years after the conviction, and even though they might have registered as required in the other state. This is what has happened with the certificate of rehabilitation.

This needs to be written more like a statue of limitations, so that once that 10 years from date of conviction expires, the state can’t go after you for registration no matter what, has just simply lost any opportunity to go after you to register as if it were a statute of limitations.

Do not let it require 10 years of registration rather than 10 years from date of conviction.

Lets not forget about people forced to register in california now living in other states. Let California take you off their list so you can be released from your current states list

I have been offense free since my release in 1994 which I believe precludes being assessed. I had not previously served time for any crime.
I have not been deemed a sexually violent predator or high risk.
Are their convictions that could prevent someone from not coming off the registry if this law is passed?

Did I miss something? I don’t see anything in that bill that precludes anyone from being assessed. I presume that everyone will be assessed now.

There was no assessment in the 1990s — there was no reason to, there were no tiers, everyone got the same, there were no other considerations.

And that is a point of my post above: If your offense was 1994, and no subsequent offense, you should just simply be out from under it, not have to start counting 10 years of registration or be assessed. Simply the fact that your last offense was more than 10 years ago should be all that matters, presuming you are a tier 1 offense.

In fact, an assessment should not even be required — a certain offense should get a certain tier, no assessment needed. And so, 10 years after that tier 12 offense, your registration requirement is over.

And you should not need to file an application to end the registration requirement — it is 10 years later, it is simply over. I guarantee you, if you provide for a requirement that SORs have to file an application at the end of the term in order to be released from registration, that leaves a huge hole for all kinds of crap, including later having more and more reasons to deny the application, just as has been done with 1203.4 PC.

Please, stop the assessments and simply link the tiers to the offense, automatic. Assessments will only build a huge bureaucracy that will fight for more and more SOR laws, to keep their jobs and provide for higher pay, just like the prison guard lobby. In fact, I expect that is a big reason behind this push for assessments, to build the bureaucracy to provide for that power. For example, what in hell is the need for an assessment of someone who committed indecent exposure? Did you think they should be tier 3? And, do you think they will assess anyone down, rather than up? This assessment bit is a time bomb waiting to go off, and so is the requirement to file an application at the end of the term asking to be released. The state doesn’t need any notice form the SOR, the state already has the record showing the date of conviction, so knows the time if passed.

You may be be removed from the register 10 -20 years after you conviction date or removed as soon as the law is passed if the conviction is prior to 1987 life time on the register if a person been deemed a sexually violent predator or a violent crime

Oh, oh. I just noticed. ALL out-of-state violators who moved into California will be assessed as a MINIMUM of Tier 2, even if their offense was similar to that of a Tier 1 offense committed in California. I guess this ostensibly ensures that nobody moves to California in a “state-shopping” effort.


Regarding the assessments, can you ascertain from reading the bill how that is going to happen? People like me who are not sure if they were even assessed originally? I was convicted in 1997.

I noted that all registrants who were adjudicated out-of-state will be assessed at Tier 2, even if their offense corresponded to Tier 1. I see a potential federal commerce clause violation.

Makes me wonder.. If it does pass.. I can imagine all the footwork and all those people who didn’t know that this happened… I wonder if the state would figure it out or they just going to sit back and wait for people to call them…

Now that it has been introduced … what does that mean, exactly? Will it wallow there for years? Does it get implemented/voted on quickly? This is so very, very important to so many!!! Do we only have to a wait a short time to know?

I figure I’m not the only one who doesn’t remember how an introduced Bill is passed … so, I looked it up.

It doesn’t state in this link, but did in another that a passed Bill would/could become law, once approved, the followintg January .. this January? (one can be hopeful) or … next January 2015?

I know how you feel. At the same time I am unclear if I should get my hopes up that it could spell R E L I E F from the registry.

Do I read it correctly that a Tier 2 registrant would “only” have to register for 20 years if he/she does not re-offend?
Is it automatic? What if in my original plea I agreed to registering for life?

Was this discussed much at the meeting last weekend?

I wish we could have an online Q&A session with someone knowledgeable – maybe a Google Hang Out, GoToMeeting or Skype?

A private forum online for those can’t travel?

“What if in my original plea I agreed to registering for life?”

That’s a VERY interesting question, and seems it would be related to a pending question before the California Supreme Court which is scheduled to be answered in early April…

(paraphrased) under contract law in California, are the parties in plea bargains bound by the agreement or can they be affected by changes in the law?

I’m in the same boat as you and I have no problem honoring the original agreement if the state were to do the same, even if AB702 were to pass, because it would simply mean I would only have to register with law enforcement within 10 days of moving to another residence. Not every year. Not within 5 days. Not with my name published on the internet. Not with being restricted from any parks, libraries or Halloween, etc. etc. etc.

For my own edification, I would be very interested to see how these requirements have evolved over time. I am aware of recent modifications (i.e. entering school property) but I did not even know that the annual in-person registration visit was not always part of the obligations!

Perhaps some of the ‘oldtimers’ could compile a list? @http404 – care to get the ball rolling? Or is there someplace to look this up?

Similar bills like this in the past year or two failed which is VERY unfortunate. I really hope this passes. I’m wondering what we can do? Janice or someone with knowledge and experience – please advise us. Do we start writing letters and emails? Do we make phone calls. This simply cannot fail again. There are so many of us and our families affected by this, and I think if we ALL sound off then it will help. Janice, et al, please advise….and thank you!!!

It’s too early to make phone calls or to send letters and/or E-mails. We will let you know on this website when the new language is inserted in AB 702. We expect that to happen in April. In May, we will need to lobby our elected officials in Sacramento. Hope you will join us there! Last year we had 12 people who met in 45 offices in three teams. Each team consisted of a registrant, a family member and an “expert” such as an attorney or a psychologist.

Janice, I’ve written my letters and emails to as many people as I can find – will you be able to bring to light the issue that as AB702 is now proposed, misdemeanor PC 647.6 offenses are being erroneously included in the tier 2 category? It would seem to me that the intent of the legislation would be to place the less serious offenses (misdemeanors) in the tier 1 category. I was convicted of a misdemeanor PC 647.6 offense for sending an “inappropriate” email to someone under the age of 18 (the remark in question was in reference to the attractiveness of the young lady’s bathing suit – her mother felt ‘uncomfortable’ with that as I was over the age of 18). I’m afraid that the offense description (Annoying or Molesting a Minor) is connoting to lawmakers the false impression that one convicted of a violation of this statute necessarily has committed a physical, lewd act with a child. This just isn’t so. I hope the Assemblymen/Legislature will be made aware that it would be unfair to place me in the tier 2 category for stupidly and absentmindedly typing a few questionable words on the computer to someone I had never met in my life: words that included no intent to seduce, no transmission of any obscene material, and no intent to entice or actually meet anyone in person. Nonetheless, the court determined that the remark I emailed to the young lady was “more than likely” sexually motivated. Guilty. End of story. Register as a sex offender for life. Please help. Thank you Janice.

When it was mandatory for ALL ex offenders to register…
so should ALL have opportunity to be free from listing…
they need to re-write…when a person is NOT svp or pled
guilty again…they should be allowed equal opportunity to be
free from listing .

For those who think they were never evaluated here is a link to do it yourself.

Here is something VERY important when grading yourself and what confused they heck out of me until I researched it. For PRIOR Offenses see note below:

DO NOT COUNT the Index Sexual Offence (index offence is what you were charged with)
The Index sexual offence charge(s) and conviction
(s) are not counted, even when there are multiple
offences and/or victims involved, and the offences occurred over a long period of time.

I am sort of lost over all this.. I a not originally a Californian, but I was sentenced here by a federal court and then released on probation and stayed here … All my money was gone and just started new here in this state.. Does this effect me in a good way? or is this just for “California State Courts”?

Just want clarification about if I’m rooting for it, or it just doesn’t even apply to me…. But either way it would be a positive step in the right direction for all..

Janice, what if the registry shows me as having been assessed by taking the Static 99 in 2010 and that simply isn’t true. The ONLY time I took the Static 99 assessment was preparing for my case years earlier.

This “tier” proposed bill is grossly un-constitutional and unfair…
which probably places it to pass…….sure seems that way to method
of operation to become law….no checks and balance …… Constitutional
filter……..this “tier” reads like conditions for freedom on prisoners of
war…..made a deal with the state…you get your freedom…….choose
to exercise right of fair trial …you won’t get your freedom……….
this proposed bill is offensive to the freedom of man and history.

Yes even registering is grossly unfair however it appears that the registry is here to stay and with this “unfair” tier system at least there is a way OFF it. I am happy for that.

What about the grossly un-constitutional aspects of “tiers” …?……
the way off the registry must be assured equally without “tiers”….
without methods or conditions of parole….when they are NOT on
parole ………everyone who has been crime free should not be
restricted from their freedom off registry…..the “tiers” restrict that

@A FRIEND – Right you are! Please publish your action plan to accomplish those goals and I will be the first in line to support it.

Until then I will stick with the people and actions that are actually achieving change, albeit at snails pace. AND be very grateful for their efforts.

Agreed. While it would be nice, these laws aren’t going to change overnight. Slow and steady.

Every person on list must be equally allowed their freedom
from list as a fair proposal after say ten years without a new
sex crime…..NO “tiers”.

I agree with AnonymousNobody about assessments. What a way for mental health professionals to milk the “cash cow” for a while. But then, everybody has to get their cut, don’t they?

They cannot…cannot put people back ….put people back to
conditions of control/conditions of parole when they are NO
longer within probation/parole.
Proposed bill of “tier’s” are conditions of parole/conditions
of control……control is within probation/parole ……….punishment
is within probation/parole ……………..”tiers” cannot apply to people
No longer within probation/parole .

Was that a rap?
I sang it to the tune of Gilligan’s Island and it was awesome!

According to the Static 99 link (thank you Steve), our son would rate a “1”, but on the website, he is rated a “3”. ???????

I am extremely confused.

The static 99 is only useful to, and appropriately completed by, a trained psychologist. More than likely who ever completed your son’s test was inappropriately trained, counting his current charges into the mix. If it is in your financial means I would test with your own psychologist who is appropriately trained. Get those scores on record.

I would agree that it is easy to mis-use this test if a person is not trained properly. Most likely error would be including the index offense. After looking over the test I fail to see, however, how a psychology degree is helpful or necessary. A trained monkey with access to the complete court record should be able to check off the boxes.

This raises an interesting question, though: can the current results of this assessment be challenged? If so, what is the procedure? A motion to the court? The DOJ? If there are differing results, who decides which one is to be used? What is the process for that?

I wonder if this is yet another one of those great ideas that was not thought quite through….

Doesn’t the “Static 99” apply only to men? How are female SO’s assessed since no test is really universal? A growing number of disorders from the DSM are being pooh-poohed by real professionals, not the money grubbing charlatans that do psycho assessments for the state. If you’ve ever been assessed and have your results you’ll notice that the psychologist uses general terms and says such things as may have, could be, might be just before the diagnosis. My state ordered evaluation was stellar, but in order to get paid the princely sum of $2,500, he had to come up with something. Ever heard of “hebephilia/hepephilia? Well that’s since been discounted and removed from the DSM.
Remember this: They’re like a blind man in a dark basement looking for a black cat that was never there!

The “tiers” proposed is the wrong turn onto elm street…Don’t
make that turn ..Don’t make that turn ..its a setup to violate Constitutional
rights under color of law…placing people in “tier” / level is method of
of control/punishment/prison/parole…….assign risk score/assessment
is method of control/punishment/prison/parolwle……….restricted denied
freedom from registry is further punishment….Its against the Constitution
its against human rights.

They don’t need “tiers”…they don’t need score/assessment for
people to be free from registry………they already have proof people
have been crime free for the past ten years …the past fifteen years…
the past twenty years…….that’s the crime free proof to be off registry.

People on that run the website Megan, don’t care about corrections or being correct.. its la de da type type, child molester… who cares.. Its simple.. They are lazy and just type whatever random crap they want.. It took them 2 years to finally get my last current address… and it still shows my last address, and I moved a year ago.. No wonder why they are having problems tracking people..
while I’m doing my “Duty” in reporting my current address every year in that office in the police station..

Well, lets face it! California is probably one of the last States who havent enacted a Tiered System! In summary, with the impending budget cuts, change in laws, its really for the best that the people in Sacramento take action and pay attention to whats happening throughout the United States. In essence, California resources are limited and lets focus upon the big fish rather than focusing upon the Grandfather who has been on the registry for more than 30 years or the guy who married his high school sweetheart! Truly. If you look at the data, its really makes sense. I truly have a great deal of faith that this bill will pass!

Well for that to happen is going to require bipartisan support. When the time comes to reach out to your legislator, be sure and pay them a visit — with your whole family if possible. They need to understand what it does to all of you, not just the offender. And they need to hear from those of us who are reformed citizens, because their only source for information is sensationalist news articles and “victims’ rights advocates” whose agenda is more about further retroactive punishment under the color of law rather than prevention.

@uas …..c’mon ma’am …..what data makes sense..????…..what..?????….your
so called “big fish” are majority in your supported tier 1 and 2 ..
……they pled guilty to lesser charges from original charges that
were more probable tier 3……just the facts ma’am …..around 96-97
percent of crimes are pled guilty to lesser crimes……there will be
some people who did not plead guilty to lesser crimes and exercised
their Constitutional right of fair trial….well…there’s no such thing
as a fair trial ……with your supported tiers…they will have 100percenr
plea guilty to tier 1 or 2…..they get freedom from registry…….the
real criteria of freedom from registry was you pled guilty to lesser
from original “big fish” charges.

California RSOL testified in support of AB 702 at the hearing of the Public Safety Committee on April 16. Chairman Tom Ammiano led the effort. President Janice Bellucci then made introductory remarks which were followed by testimony from two parents of registrants. That testimony was followed by supporting remarks from 12 people including representatives from the ACLU, California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, registrants and more family members. During the hearing, Assembly members Skinner and Mitchell expressed their support for the bill as well as their confusion regarding the current system which lumps together all sex offenders. After all testimony was given, the Committee voted 4 to 2 in favor of its passage. The bill, AB 702, is expected to be heard by the Assembly Appropriations Committee in May before it is voted upon on the floor this summer.

DOES THIS BELOW MEAN IT’S OVER FOR AB702? I have a friend that will be affected by this.

Beginning around mid-session, the Bill Status Report (Purple Sheet) lists bills in the following order: (1) Active Bills; (2) Enrolled Acts; and (3) Inactive Bills. “Inactive Bills” are those that have failed, missed a cut-off deadline for consideration, or will otherwise not move forward in the legislative process absent some extraordinary action.

AB702 will not happen this year. Next year is possible, but unlikely. The following year is our best shot. This is a long term project.

Can anyone give insight on when and if this will pass ? Is there any deadline ? If it does pass how much time until it goes in affect ?

AB702 will not pass this year. It was held in suspension until next year in the Assembly Appropriations Committee and will come out of committee if we can demonstrate a decent chance of getting the thing passed into law. Perez doesn’t want to expose his members to this kind of controversy in an election year if there isn’t a chance it will do some good. Generally, I think the Speaker supports it.

The only realistic chance of getting it passed next year is if we find some Republicans to support it. If the bill becomes bipartisan, many more Democrats will feel comfortable.

If no Republican steps up, I think we have a realistic chance of getting it passed into law by October 2015. This means that it would take effect in January of 2016. The details of implementation are rather hazy right now.

So the bad news is that we are looking at 2016 as best case scenario. The good news is that we have a best case scenario. It’s been a while since we’ve had that.

Let’s see it’s been 4 years since Garrido was arrested and almost 4 years since Gardner killed Chelsea. If law enforcement could spend more time focusing on the high risk individuals maybe these cases could have been prevented. AB 702 is needed legislation.

I was 16 when my girlfriends parents had my girlfriend say I raped her. The charge was PC 261. Never hit her, held her down etc. now I’m 36. That was 20 years ago. Never been in trouble again. Home owner, good job. Would really like my fresh start. I’m mean , I was in juvenile.

Janice could this bill help me if passed?

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x