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
-
CA: California restricts parole for sex offenders
Source: calmatters.org 9/30/26 People convicted of serious sex offenses must serve at least 25 years in... -
Ireland: Paedophile hunters: Do vigilante groups help convict child sex offenders?
Source: irishexaminer.com 9/29/26 Alex Cunningham speaks to paedophile hunters, experts and gardaí about their methods and... -
AL: Federal appeals court strikes down Alabama sex offender law banning Tuscaloosa father from living with his child
Source: wbrc.com 9/29/26 MONTGOMERY, Ala. (WBRC) – A federal appeals court on Tuesday ruled that a...

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.