A 2004 state law requires the names and addresses of all registered sex offenders to be made public. On Monday, the state Supreme Court ruled that the law could apply to a Bay Area man who admitted molesting a child in 1991, when sex offender registrations were confidential. Full Article
Related posts
-
NM: Meta faces New Mexico trial over child-exploitation claims
Source: reuters.com 1/30/26 New Mexico AG alleges Meta enabled child exploitation on platforms Meta claims First... -
MO: #TheyLied Defamation Plaintiff, Suing Over Rape Allegations, Can Prove Reputational Harm with His Own Testimony
Source: reason.com 1/28/26 In Apperson v. Kaminsky, decided Friday by the Missouri Supreme Court (opinion by Justice... -
CA: Steven Tyler Accuser Can Proceed With California Sex Abuse Claims Only, Judge Says
Source: rollingstone.com 1/28/26 The Aerosmith musician asked the court to dismiss the entire lawsuit, saying he...

It seems to me those practicing law should now advise their clients that taking a plea agreement in any criminal case can have future unforeseeable repercussions.
Going along the thought of Justice Kennard’s dissent, if they can change the rules and you will be subject to them, you should have the right to withdraw your plea if you don’t agree with those changes. Apparently the courts don’t see it that way. If you take a plea, you are throwing yourself at the mercy of the court and zealous lawmakers to do what they will.
Guess we’re back to needing to focus on showing aspects of registration to be punitive but even that might be moot under this absurd ruling.