Hofsheier, 311.11 and Equal Protection

From 2006: Hofsheier Decision (Equal Protection)

From 2012: Case that said 311.11a cases weren’t subject to the Hofsheier Motion because there is no violation of the Equal Protection doctrine

Related posts

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. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  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
  19. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
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.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

The California Penal Code seems to be rather random and arbitrary when it comes to 290’s.
Apparently, you can rape /have intercourse/whatever with a minor under certain conditions and not have to register, but, if you chat with, send certain images or attempt to meet ala “To Catch a Predator” then it’s lifetime registration. So the penal code says it’s “okay” to have sex with a minor under certain conditions and get a misdemeanor, but God forbid you chat online with one. I’m so confused!!!

Here is the complete decision on file at the Court:


The case is discussed is pretty damn similar to mine. I sat for two years in therapy listening to others that had sex with minors, one of which when the minor in question was engaged in the relationship for almost two years since 15, and they don’t have to register. But 1 file that was on my computer, and I’m labeled a monster for life? Almost three years with zero prospects for work, and nearly had a job until they blatantly told me in the interview that they won’t hire someone “like” me because its a risk.

Yep, no violation of equal protection there…..right. >.>

Not clear why this item from last year got posted now. Nonetheless, this ruling is not surprising. It goes right along with the original decision. The point here is that statutory rape and possession of child pornography are not so similar, they involve significantly different elements. As such, they are not comparable for purposes of equal protection. As the courts have ruled previously, the courts defer to the Legislature’s perogative to have someone convicted of possession of child pornography register while not applying the registration requirement to statutory rape.

That is, the court has ruled that the test of equal protection isn’t whether what most people would consider to be a lesser offense is subjected to different and maybe harsher treatment than a more serious offense.

The legislation is so screwed up. The problem is that politicians filter through so many bill proposals from special interest groups, searching for the “feel good” bills that will further their own political career.

I see it this way: we have a battle on at least three fronts, 1) legislative; 2) judicial; and 3) public opinion. Its hard to fight on the judicial front when the laws are so screwed up in the first place. Its difficult to fight on the legislative front because political decisions are based on public opinion. How can we win with public opinion when it is, in turn, affected by the former two? Not to mention the media, which loves to spoon-feed heaps of fear-laced drivel into the minds of the braindead public, who are more concerned with America’s Got Talent and the Price Is Right than they are with, I don’t know, THINGS THAT MATTER.

I would of used equal protection to campaign with out being thrown in prison for it.
Also if a town limits where you can live it also limits how many can vote at the polls to change the laws.