Pending State Legislation

Below is a summary of bills pending in the California Legislature and CA RSOL’s position on each proposed bill. Get involved!

CA RSOL OPPOSES

AB 201This bill would state that a local agency is not preempted by state law from enacting and enforcing an ordinance that restricts a registered sex offender from residing or being present at certain locations within the local agency’s jurisdiction. The bill would authorize a local agency to adopt ordinances, rules, or regulations that are more restrictive than state law relating to a registered sex offender’s ability to reside or be present at certain locations within the local agency’s jurisdiction. AB 201 ***withdrawn 5/2015*** more details

Also see SB 267 ***withdrawn 5/2015*** more details

Additional / Contact Info

Let Your Voice Be Heard! Send Letters and E-mails – Call Offices

 

Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of
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.  
 

29 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Thank you for keeping us posted, and for all your hard work. Looks like it’s time to write letters once again! Let’s get busy,

Regarding AB 702: Include provisions in the tiered registry that would honor court judgments from California and other states which specified registry inclusion lengths. For instance, if a registrant has been judged by another state and required to register for ten years following incarceration, then the judgment should be honored providing no registry violations have been recorded in California. Many registrants in California would be affected by this appropriate change.

It seem like the southern calfornia wants to create hardship for RSO while the northern California want to help the RSO
Luke 11:46 Jesus replied, “And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them.

SB 386 is truly frightening. Unfortunately Corea is from OC and feels his only way to re-election is to go along with republican circus and the DA. For people who committed their offense years ago and have been enjoying these public places, and private, it is nothing but punishment. This guy should be re-called for even suggesting this absolutely unconstitutional bill. Banning someone from a movie theatre for the rest of their life, unbelievable.

But nothing will ever, ever, happen if you go to the movies and refrain from molesting the child sitting next to you.
Being as how it is impossible to prove a negative, no cinema in the universe will ask you to provide documentation to prove you are _not_ a Registered Sex Offender before they sell you a ticket.
If you simply behave yourself and keep your raging lust under control, you can walk among the holy citizens and not fear for your safety. If you cannot suspend your cravings then perhaps you need therapy or prison…
Really…

What does some not all mean when you say they will be allowed off registration for life requirements. Exactly who do they want to keep registering for Life?

It would seem that after the proposed so many years of registry
every person is off list…equal opportunity …equal protections…
if there are some who were judged svp or convicted again sometime
after the first…then possibly propose another so many years in
addition on registry……there are alot of people NOT judged by score or
sentenced by score…due process undermined…attaching labels ..scores..
categories are conditions of parole……there are alot of people NOT on parole
who deserve equal application of the Constitution and off list as anyone else.

According to this:

http://leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/bill/asm/ab_0701-0750/ab_702_bill_20130221_introduced.htm
This bill would make a technical, nonsubstantive change to these provisions.

Am i missing something? Where is the tiered registry?

Looking at AB 702 I see something significant missing. They changed the law on 1203.4 dismissals but for those of us who already had the charges dismissed shouldn’t we be automatically taken off the list instead of put on a tier? The whole purpose of that section is to clean up your life and start over. The requirement to register even if the charges were dismissed is grossly unjust. I’ve had a copy in my personnel file at work for 20 years because of new employees discovering I’m registered and trying to get me fired. If a system for getting off the registry is setup those whose charges have been dismissed should go first!

Let’s all hope everyone gets re-evaluted and this is not based on convictions from 20 years ago. I know in my case when I originally went to court the da said misdemeanor. Then it became political and I was forced to plea to all which would put me in the high category which is not even close.

The two senate bills are a flagrant display of how out of touch these senators are with the reality of prison/jail overcrowding. CDCR is still in the process of shifting low-level inmates back to counties and counties are turning parole violators away because they can’t stack the inmates any higher. Sheriffs are concerned about how they will meet their budgets without cutbacks in staffing due to the overwhelming influx. Yet senators, who apparently have no basic math skills based on their last few budgets, are creating more crimes to fill already overflowing prisons and jails.
One inmate asks the other “What’re ya in for?”
The other replies “Taking my family bowling.”

I’ve been dealing with my situation over 24 years I’ve raised three kids just trying to get my life back together . Can you let me know when is your next meeting in LA

Has anyone read this part of 702:

“SEC. 2. Section 290.006 of the Penal Code is amended to read:
290.006. 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. The person
shall register as a tier one offender pursuant to Section 290, unless
the court states on the record the reasons for requiring the person
to register as a tier two or tier three offender pursuant to Section
290.”

I think this gives too much discretion to the judges. They can look at you, say you are a lifetime registrant and state on the record they feel this is appropriate. This sort of goes against the idea of determinate sentencing.

I think Tom is on the right track, but this section should be eliminated IMHO.

Met with my assembly member this morning at a coffee klatsch and explained my resons for supporting AB 702. He said he would support the bill when it reaches the Assembly floor. He knew someone who’s son killed himself over the lifetime registration because of a statutory conviction when he was 19 and she was 16. He says it’s wrong to have blanket treatment for all violations.

702 has a few good lines, I got to read it all before I can offer my 3 cents. I plead guilty to forcible rape 1985 for an 1982 crime, if I knew that I would be re imprisoned over 4 times 20 years later I would of found the gumption to go to trial. the public needs to explore the entire bill before,letting it in…what a mess. Thank You. greg

AB 702 appears to be DEAD in the Assembly Appropriations Committee! It has to be OUT of committee, and VOTED OUT OF THE ASSEMBLY BY NEXT FRIDAY (01/31/14)! I truly doubt that that is gonna happen!

Does anyone have an update on the status of this Bill? Thank you.

On sending letters or Emails to our reps, what is better ? Should we contract the sponsors of the bills or only our local reps (Vta County)? What would be a good format to use ? . I am ready to do as much as I can to help us .

Some time ago, I read on this website about someone was sueing the state of California about not putting the dates of conviction and release on the Megans website…. I have never heard another word about it… does anyone
know what happened about that??
thanks

Decisions to exclude an individual are based upon state laws. A short description of those laws is available on the home page of the CA Megan’s Law website and provided below: If the offense is a felony sexual battery (Pen. Code § 243.4(a)), or a misdemeanor annoy/molest children (Pen. Code § 647.6.), exclusion must be granted if there is no other registrable offense, or a felony child pornography (Pen. Code §§ 311.1, 311.2 subd. (b), (c), or (d), or Pen. Code §§ 311.3, 311.4, 311.10, or 311.11), where the victim was at least 16 years or older. Offenders who successfully complete probation for an offense in which the victim was their child, stepchild, sibling, or grandchild, and which did not involve either oral copulation or penetration of the victim, may also be granted exclusion. Beginning January 1, 2012, exclusion cannot be granted unless the person’s risk level is low or moderate-low. Offenders in this category must also register as a sex offender with a local law enforcement agency.