New Legislation signed by Gov. Brown (“Ban-the-box” / Cert. of Rehabilitation) UPDATED

Several pieces of new legislation were signed into law by Governor Brown earlier this month that might of interest here. Among them are a prohibition of asking for information about criminal records on employment applications (“ban the box”), as well as a possible discretionary shortening of the waiting period for a Certificate of Rehabilitation if the “interest of justice is being served”. Full Article / More Info

NOTE: 290 Registrants are excluded from a discretionary shortening of the waiting period for a Certificate of Rehabilitation. (added by Admin 10/28)

4852.22.  Except in a case requiring registration pursuant to Section 290, a trial court hearing an application for a certificate of rehabilitation before the applicable period of rehabilitation has elapsed may grant the application if the court, in its discretion, believes relief serves the interests of justice.


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

Janice, I am unclear about this:

“Penal Code 4852.22 will now permit a trial court to grant an application for a Certificate before the seven-year waiting period has expired if the court, in its discretion, has determined that the interests of justice are served.”

Does this mean that one would have to go to court first to get the determination that justice has been served? I don’t even want to think of the cost for that seeing as I have yet to be employed for over three years.

Thanks in advance for your time Janice.

Please interpret this ruling for us in CA.

So let’s get this straight, this law says the court can do that “in the interest of justice.” However, even if it is IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, the law says justice does not matter for registrants, registrants are not due any justice?! How can a law that specifically says that justice does not matter stand?!

Surely, when they blundered into that language, they crossed a legal line, whether outright constitutional or just a legal doctrine. I just can’t see how it can be constitutional to have a law that specifically says certain offenders (actually, FORMER offenders) may not have justice.

This attitude that registrants are not due any justice is nothing new, we have all been suffering dearly under it for a long time now; but until now, they have always been very careful about their language they could deny justice without ever saying so or acknowledging it. This law blatantly says registrants are not due justice. This is a first.

That language can be challenged. And it can also be exploited to scream about and point to whenever alleging unfair treatment of registrants — to undermine any assertion to the contrary. It could even be used to bolster arguments that other laws against registrants have a similar foundation of denying justice.

Well, no offense, but I was convicted or plead to a wobbler (not child related) about 18 years ago and I received SUMMARY PROBATION! I walked into the OC Courts and was literally shocked. OC doesn’t (it took place in LA) play fair. LIterally after 5 different court dates, the judge went through everything and stated that he couldn’t find one reason to deny the motion, but it just wasn’t enough? I had a clean record, obtained a graduate degree, married/children and ect ect. Its very difficult to obtain a Certificate of Rehab. Had the Judge granted my motion, I would be free from the Registration.

It’s a show. See, we are providing a way out for some people. Looks like my conviction excludes me out completely from a COR. Even though you look at my crime compared to all sex crimes and factor in my age and education, looks like my chances of commuting a sex crime are near the general population. And they are shortening the waiting period for other crimes which have a much higher recidivism rate. Is the captain at the helm here or is the ship now run by a bunch of drunk yahoos from steerage.

I have post-morten question: Did CARSOL know about SB 530 in advance and try to lobby to have the PC 290 exception language removed? Or did this bill sneak up on everyone?