A tiered registry bill, which would end the state’s lifetime registry, has been introduced in the state Assembly. The Public Safety Committee will conduct a public hearing on the bill (AB 702) on April 16 in Sacramento.
If passed, the bill would create three tiers in which some registrants would be removed from the registry after 10 or 20 years. The language in the bill is similar to AB 625 which was defeated in 2012.
“Passage of a tiered registry bill is the highest priority of California RSOL and the 100,000 families it represents,” stated Janice Bellucci, President of CA RSOL. “A tiered registry bill will make more efficient use of law enforcement resources by focusing solely upon those who pose a current danger to society.”
California is 1 of only 4 states in the nation that has a lifetime requirement for all sex offenders to register regardless of the severity of the offense. The remaining 46 states have tiered registries which allow some registrants to be removed from the registry in 10 to 25 years.
“In order to get this bill passed, every registrant and his/her family members need to be heard in Sacramento,” stated Frank Lindsay, Treasurer of CA RSOL.
CA RSOL recommends that letters be written, calls be made and E-mails be sent to the elected officials who represent registrants. A list of Assembly members and their contact information can be found online at www.assembly.ca.gov. A sample letter and talking points are below.
Reasons to Support AB 702
- In a time of declining budgets (state, county and city), a tiered registry would increase public safety and make more efficient use of available additional law enforcement and prison resources to protect the public from those who pose a current threat to society
- The registry includes many individuals who pose little threat to society such as those convicted of the non-violent crimes of “sexting” on a cell phone, urinating in public, and engaging in consensual teen sex.
- The registry also includes individuals who pose significant threat to society such as those convicted of multiple sexual assaults against children and adults.
- Most registered citizens will not re-offend. The recidivism rate for registrants is extremely low, only 1.9 percent for those on parole, according to the CA Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
- Tiered registries exist in 46 of the nation’s 50 states and successfully protect the citizens of those states
- California is only 1 of 4 states with lifetime registries along with Alabama, South Carolina and Florida.
- AB 702 is a moderate example of a tiered registry now existing in the 46 states.
- A tiered registry would end a life-time sentence for registrants who do not currently pose harm to society
- Registrants often lose their jobs solely because they are registrants and remain unemployed for the same reason.
- Some registrants lose housing opportunities and become homeless solely because they are registered. For example, Section 8 housing is not available to individuals listed on a lifetime registry.
- Some registrants are physically harmed, even murdered, by vigilantes.
- All individuals required to register under Penal Code Section 290 would remain on the registry for at least 10 years
- Those convicted of lowest level of offenses could leave registry in 10 years
- Those convicted of moderate offenses could leave registry in 20 years
- A tiered registry would continue life-time registration for those who pose a significant harm to society
Sample Letter
Dear Assembly Member:
The purpose of this letter is to request your support for Assembly Bill 702 (AB 702), which would increase public safety and improve the effectiveness of law enforcement by eliminating individuals from the sex offender registry who no longer pose a public risk. Those individuals include people who had consensual sex while a teenager, sent a “sext message” to a loved one and/or urinated in public.
The current sex offender registry law in California is outdated and ineffective because it treats all persons convicted of a sexual offenses exactly the same. In addition, California is 1 of only 4 states in the country which requires lifetime sex offender registration regardless of the nature of the offense or the offender’s risk of re-offending.
The current sex offender registry law is an ineffective method of combating sexual re-offending. Further, itignores the fact that paroled sex offenders carry 1.9 percent rate of re-offense, according to a California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation report issued in October 2012. A tiered registry, similar to that proposed in AB 702, is recommended by the California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB), which is comprised of state experts on this topic.
California’s current budget challenges demand a fiscally responsible change to our social policy designed to prevent sexual assault. It has simply become illogical, irrational, and cost-prohibitive to expend our limited critical resources by treating all sex offenders the same.
By supporting AB 702, you will increase public safety and improve the effectiveness of law enforcement thereby protecting Californians from repeated sexual assault. Thank you.
Letter in text format for customization: Letter-AB702-April2013 (should open in MS Word)
My question would be: My husband was convicted back in 1985 for one count of 288(a), we tried to have him removed from the internet in 2006 but they would not do it because they didn’t have his papers that he completed probation because they had been destroyed by Kern County. Because it is a 288(a), it was his step-daughter and there was touching and no sex. Is it likely that he will have to stay on the registry. It is now going on 28 years and there has been nothing since other
than he failed to register when he moved in 1999. Can anyone shed any light on this? Thank you
@ JAH, it’s my understanding that certain 288 charges have no remedy, no removal, no hope. My charge was also a 288 (a), but I continue to pursue any remedy for removal.
What about a 289(a) charge? I pray … If after 25 years it’s good news …. Anyone have any ideas?
The 288(a) and 289(a) convictions…Maybe they can be reduced to a misdemeanor assault or a removal qualifying other charge? Janice might know but perhaps check with your local public defender’s office or the attorney that represented you in court.
I hope soon to have more funds available to help support California RSOL. They’re doing so much to help us! Thanks guys!
I have some serious reservations about this bill. I will speak to it in the context of Tier 1.
I think it is not clear whether your requirement to register as Tier 1 simply ends 10 years after the date of your conviction. Isn’t there some kind of application needed to obtain the end of registration, as in they will decide whether you had any other convictions that nix that 10-year mark — I saw some mention of an application previously. It is not acceptable to have to file an application — I guarantee you that will come back to bite you in the ass, that will become an enormous loophole.
Or, is it simply that anyone who is beyond the 10-year mark is not subject to registration. But if they do stop, and they did have another offense that would have blocked that stoppage, they can be prosecuted for failure to register? I think this is the only sensible way to end registration; frankly, everyone knows whether they have had a subsequent conviction, do not need to be told by some board after filing an application. And the state already knows, so doesn’t need an application for you to inform them. If a police agency notices you did not register this time, they simply look at your record — which is right at their fingertips — and see you are beyond the 10-year mark, no problem. Why do they instead have to look at some report from a board after you file an application — they gain zero by that?
I also have a big problem with the assessment under SARATSO, at least for Tier 1 offenses. No misdemeanor should ever be more than Tier 1 –and no board or probation officer should be able to say otherwise. Something like indecent exposure should automatically be Tier 1 without any assessment required! And this bill should state that. If the conviction was a mere misdemeanor, no argument for a Tier 2 or higher assessment should be allowed. This assessment bit is another major loophole that is going to evolve into serious problems for people. This should be handled by directly setting the tier on the basis of the specific offense for which one is convicted. Any assessment board should only get to lower that upon your appeal, never to raise it.
Also, this assessment. So, what if someone convicted of a misdemeanor in another state 30 years ago should move to California. Do they have to apply for a SARATSO assessment, and have to start registering in the meantime, until they get an assessment in a tier that allows them to stop?! I think they do have to do that under this bill. This bill requires an assessment before you can be in a tier that can get you out from under SOR. This is another reason why this assessment is bullsh–, rather than directly tie the offense to the tier automatically. If it were automatic based on the offense, then no misdemeanant from another state moving here would have to apply for assessment if their conviction was more than 10 years ago. And, other circumstances.
In previous threads, I saw some suggesting that any offense prior to such and such a date did not need any assessment — although I don’t know what tier that put them in. Nonetheless, I see nothing of that in this bill or in 290.06 concerning SARATSO and assessments.
I also find the language used in his bill less than clear – and that will open a window for twisting this all out or shape. The way this bill jumps back and forth with language, I’m not sure if it is saying that you must register for 10 years, or if it is instead saying that you are subject to the registration law only for 10 years after your conviction, after which it does not apply to you no matter what. The latter is the goal, the need, as the former is a sentence of time physically spent registering. For instance, if you are convicted here, and a year later move out of state, and six years after that move back, well, you have only registered for 10 years here, so could find you have nine more years of registration to do. And various other circumstances and situations.
Make this language clear — and make it more like a statute of limitations, not as a sentence to be served. That is a VERY important point. As it is, it is written as a sentence to be served — and that puts much more onus on the SOR than it should. It must clearly say they can only go after you for 10 years from the date of your conviction, and after that you are simply beyond them.
This is it. If this gets done, this will NOT be revisited in our lifetime, at least not to make anything better for any SORs — that just is not going to be politically feasible. What gets done wrong now will haunt us for the duration.
For readers, you can see the bill at:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/bill/asm/ab_0701-0750/ab_702_bill_20130319_amended_asm_v98.pdf
And you can see 290.06, about SARATSO and the assessments, at:
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/PEN/3/1/9/5.5/s290.06
My offence was not with a minor, But being on the web people think that. A neighbor has been telling others in the area and handing out copies from the web about me. This offence happened over 35 years ago. I served no prison time, sentenced to 5 years probation only served 2.5 years, was granted early release for good behavior. My conviction 261 by force.
What rights do I have to stop this invasion of my family and mine privacy. I own my home and lived here for 28 years. Some neighbors know about my past, and overlook it.
OK, My conviction is on a single count of 314.1 and I served no prison time with three years informal probation, was released from probation early at a year and a half. Was granted a 1203.4 expungment at 3 years and have now been a registrant for 13 plus years. How do I find out what my official STATIC 99 score is? I am not on any website… And once I do find out my score how do I question who scored me? Did they even have a clue about the correct use of the tool?
Does anyone know what Sexual Battery (243.4) would be considered? I plead to a wobbler in 1997, year in county and informal probation. Charged reduced to a misdemeanor pursuant to 17(b) and eventually expunged pursuant to pc1203.4? Any ideas? It’s been 16 years since my initial registration?
It is important for everyone to remember that the tiered registry bill being introduced may not be the tiered registry bill that gets passed. Therefore, I will not answer any questions regarding on which tier an individual is currently located for now. It is even more important for everyone to understand that any tiered registry bill is better than no tiered registry bill. Without one, everyone will be required to register for the rest of his/her life.
This is where I have a problem with the tiered registry bill.
1) A person was charged in 2004, on one count. Offered a plea, and would have served 6 months in county jail, with 3 years probation.
2) Refused to plea, and instead went to trial. The DA then stacked the charges to five counts.
3) It took two years to go to trial (the court kept continuing the case)
(The attorney took his money and ran)
4) The attorney was removed from the case by the judge for abandoning his client.
5) The person was then forced to trial with a attorney who claimed “not ready”
6) The person was then convicted, sentenced and was released from parole in 2012.
Because of these circumstances, he will be on a registry (if this passes) until 2032, instead of 2014. All because he chose to try to defend himself, which we all know now is impossible. Yes, the person should have accepted the plea, but was too naïve to know any better.
I have an attepmted 288(a) in 2001 that was the result of a sting and I served my time and was released in 2003. I have NO other convections on my record and I am wondering if the attempted will be treat under this new law, if passed, as a 288(a) and will I be able to get relief since it has been over 10 years already?
I can’t support this, because while on probation, my probation officer was not happy about me not doing any time on my initial offense, so she collaborated with an investigator and my counselor to set me up on a second charge. I had an attorney who tanked the case at the last minute, replaced by a public defender who also tanked forcing me into a plea rather than continue to sit in jail for who knows how long fighting a bogus charge against manipulated and manufactured evidence. As a result, I find myself fitting into that 1.9% convicted on multiple cases, all the while with 5 felonies I still only served 14 months, most of it county time(prison would have been even less time) and 3 years of parole(which I did without any added time for violations). This bill would place me on tier 2, though NONE of the felonies were violent, none included a victim(all based on stings). My risk assessment is low-moderate in spite of the fact that I have multiple convictions and have never taken a risk assessment with the state. I do not belong on tier 2, yet this bill as it is now would place me there.
No offense guys, but no one wants to be on the registry. The only reason I plead was because my attorney (wobbler) told me I would no longer have to register after the charge was reduced to a misdemeanor? You guys can’t blame it on your probation officer or court? I’m presently conviction free and not happy about still registering? A tiered system that will eventually allow you to fall off the registry is better than nothing? Don’t get arrested? I’m presently conviction free and even afraid to getting a parking ticket? Support Janice! She is doing more for you than anyone else?
Well, my support letters are off to my elected officials in support of AB 702. Anyone else? Let’s go people!
There is a danger here. Please understand what I’m about to say.
As I read it,I see NOTHING in the bill that retains certain levels of current Internet exposure severity. To specify, all registrants have three different levels of public exposure with regard to the Internet.
The most severe level of exposure results in RSO’s being included with their complete address listed. The next severe level of exposure results in RSO’s being included with only their zip codes listed with no address information. Finally the least severe level of exposure results in RSO’s completely omitted from the Internet registry. It must be noted that no matter the severity or exposure level, any resident can visit his law enforcement facility and obtain anyone’s address information relative to his (the person searching) address of interest, but this information has to be sought out, not shown on the Internet.
My concern is that, even with tier levels that would specify an exit time of 10 or 20 years, if someone is currently completely off the Internet registry right now, would he have to be put on the Internet registry? And if someone is on the registry who is currently required to show ONLY his zip code, would he now be required to show his full address?
If I had to choose between being on the registry for 25 years with full address showing, or lifetime with just my zip code showing, then I would choose lifetime. Please understand the difference and communicate it to the legislators as such.
MY RECOMMENDATION: Include a clause on the bill that anyone who currently has no requirement to show up on the Internet registry REMAIN off the registry, while those who are only shown by zip code REMAIN shown only by zip code.
If this was not clear, I’ll try to write a more expansive explanation, but hope this is good enough to express my concern.
Oh, I forgot: Ensure that the new law is retroactively applied so that the clock starts when they were convicted (or, at best, released from the court system). In short, if they are at a level that has a registration period of 10 years, and they were released from the court jurisdiction 8 years ago, they would only have 2 more years. If they were released farther back than their level shows, then they should immediately be removed (or at least go through some reasonable removal procedure that doesn’t involve a lawyer and several court dates).
I can honestly say that I am truly disgusted with what I am reading in these comments here. A forum such as this should be bringing people together for the common good, and for the most part, all I see is, “how can this law help me, me, me, me?”
In an attempt to make yourselves look better than the 288a registrant, some of you are trying to convince others that you’re not so bad because your crimes didn’t involve a minor, there was no touching, or you’re attorney hung you out to dry. Well, I say bullshit! I don’t care what you did, or didn’t do, you people still share the label of a REGISTERED SEX OFFENDER!
Infighting in any organization is always the result of selfishness of a few individuals trying to take more for themselves, while trampling on the common good. We are all in the same boat together, and the rising tide raises us all up, or lowers us all back down.
I for one WILL NOT support a tired system, and I WILL NOT leave anyone behind to save myself! I want to see more people placed on the registry, and none taken off. Only then will people have the power of the masses to abolish it altogether.
It is troubling me to read comments that don’t support a tiered registry. What don’t you understand? The state has had a lifetime registry for virtually all sex offenders for more than 50 years. We are trying to break that dam. This is an incremental process. Think evolution not revolution. We shall overcome…eventually. Help your fellow registrants get off the registry and before you know it, you will be off the registry, too. How? Write to your elected officials and let them know you support AB 702.
I’ve tried to live this one principle in my life. If we’re all on a ladder climbing upwards, the person below must push the one above while the one above must lift the one below. The task, whatever it is, becomes much easier for all involved. Let’s keep encouraging each other on the way up.
I wish that stupid registry had never been created. I would like everyone to be off this darn registry. I just wish it was clear that after 20 years you are off, or 10 years you are off. I think that if you haven’t done anything else, it is justified that one should be able to get on with their lives and not be punished for the rest of it. I am just concerned about my children. They are the ones that are being hurt by this. No friends being able to stay, they have been bullied and shunned. And it has had nothing at all to do with them. For a conviction in 1985 and they didn’t come along until 1999 and 2001. I in no way was saying a ME,ME,ME…
I wish the best for all of us and if it were not for Janice we would all be in a world of hurt here. She has taken it upon herself to fight for ALL of us. I didn’t know that my question would have started a firestorm. For this I am so sorry. We all need to work as one.
I have lost count of the number of jobs I have lost or opportunities lost or applications rejected or …. because I am registered. Of course, Megan’s Law made everything much worse, but this is a terribly debilitating thing. This organization, particularly with the potential of a tiered system is the only thing (aside from my family) that gives me hope.
I remember reading about the German treatment of Jews during WWII. One of their “games” was to line up a number of Jews and fire a bullet into the chest of the first one to see how many Jews could be killed with one bullet. I often wondered why the Jews cooperated in any way with that. The answer is fear. And fear has paralyzed us. But that seems to be ending. Collectively, we can make progress. I think the tiered system is the beginning. If it can bring us together, we can make more progress than we can imagine right now.
The Registry should be abolished.
These complicating modifications will serve the prosecuting authorities.
Remember: The Local Policewoman charged with the RSO detail will make hell of your life regardless of whatever tier you occupy.
Jackie Speir will intro a bill defining pedophilia as a sexual orientation, and the prosecutors will have your head on a stake anyway…forever.
Any modification to the current system will devolve to the benefit of the prosecution. It always does.
A tiered system will become a point of argument at trial and will cost you money to no avail. They will beat you senseless for the rest of your life regardless.
Let them flail you with a chain for five years, or if you are really some predating pervert, go to jail for fifty year..BUT!
These registries are a Bill of Attainder and provide for double, if not multiple jeopardy.
We need to abolish the entire system, not just tweak it, damn-it.
I’d like to say thank you to Janice, the RSOL board members, and all the volunteers helping in this fight. You are doing an outstanding job, and although we won’t always agree on everything, all of us beneficiaries sincerely appreciate your dedication and efforts.
Janice, I can understand your frustration with some of the holdouts, I myself am on the fence on this issue. On one hand I know this fight will be a long term endeavor and winning the little battles will lead to winning the war. But on the other hand, the little battles that are won to free a few, I also fear will diminish our ranks.
My question is, and perhaps on the minds of others as well, could our time and resources be better spent in pursuit of loftier goals that would benefit all registrants equally?
I was convicted of a misdemeanor count of PC 647.6 (annoying a minor)for sending an inappropriate email to someone under the age of 18 (over the internet, someone I’d never met in my life). As the law is written now, since my crime was a misdemeanor I would be eligible to petition the court for removal from the list after ten years. This current bill (AB 702) places violations of 647.6 in the tier 2 category (20 years of registration) without making any distinction between felony and misdemeanor offenses. Is this an over-site by the authors of the bill? I would think that it would still be the intention of the legislature to place misdemeanor convictions in the less serious category. Can anyone clear this up for me?
Delete my last post… and use this format instead for fast emailing.
Assemblymember.Achadjian@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.Alejo@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.Allen@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.Ammiano@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.Atkins@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.Beall@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.Berryhill@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.Block@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.Blumenfield@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.Bonilla@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.Bradford@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.Brownley@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.Buchanan@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.Butler@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.Calderon@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.Campos@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.Carter@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.Cedillo@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.Chesbro@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.Conway@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.Cook@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.Davis@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.Dickinson@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.Donnelly@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.Eng@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.Feuer@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.Fletcher@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.Fong@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.Fuentes@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.Furutani@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.Gaines@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.Galgiani@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.Garrick@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.Gatto@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.Gordon@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.Gorell@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.Grove@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.Hagman@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.Halderman@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.Hall@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.Harkey@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.Hayashi@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.Hernandez@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.Hill@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.Huber@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.Hueso@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.Huffman@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.Jeffries@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.Jones@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.Knight@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.Lara@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.Logue@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.Lowenthal@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.Ma@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.Mansoor@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.Mendoza@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.Miller@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.Mitchell@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.Monning@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.Morrell@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.Nestande@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.Nielsen@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.Norby@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.Olsen@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.Pan@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.Perea@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.Perez@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.Perez@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.Portantino@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.Silva@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.Skinner@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.Smyth@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.Solorio@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.Swanson@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.Torres@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.Valadao@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.Wagner@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.Wieckowski@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.Williams@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.Yamada@assembly.ca.gov
you should be able to copy and paste that in your “TO:” field