He’s Not a Sex Offender, Married Man Says

VISALIA, Calif. (CN) – A man required to register as a sex offender for life for having consensual relations with his now-wife 24 years ago – when he was 19 and she was 17 – asked a state court to remove that obligation so he can get on with his life.

In 1989, police busted ___ ___ ___, then 19, for having “consensual, voluntary relations” with his 17-year-old girlfriend. He pleaded guilty to a single count of oral copulation with a minor. That charge requires mandatory, lifetime registration as a sex offender in the state of California, according to Rivera’s lawsuit in Tulare County Court. ___ and his girlfriend remained together and are now married.

___  registered, but acknowledges that he failed to update his information annually from 1991 through 2011. In 2012, California Attorney General Kamala Harris filed a criminal complaint for failure to register as a sex offender. ___ was arraigned in October.

In his petition for writ of mandate, ___ claims that the state’s demand is unconstitutional. “___’s inclusion in the sex offender registry under the mandatory provisions of the California Sex Offender Registration Act violates his right to equal protection of the laws, as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 7 of the California Constitution,” ___  says in the petition, citing a 2006 ruling by the California Supreme Court in People v. HofsheierFull Article

Related: Man Fights to Get Off Sex Offender Registry for Consensual Teen Sex with Woman He Since Married  –  Reason.tv: How Sex Offender Registries Fail Us (with Video from 2012 – with Janice Bellucci)

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 and a**
  4. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Use person-first language.
  5. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  6. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  7. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  8. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  9. 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 that are not personally identifiable.
  10. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  11. Please do not post in all Caps.
  12. 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.
  13. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  14. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  15. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  16. Please do not solicit funds
  17. No discussions about weapons
  18. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  19. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  20. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  21. 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.
  22. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
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

OMG! What possible public safety interest or justice reason can the State base this on – prosecuting and keeping this guy on the registry?

But what do you expect from a society that lists a BJ under “Bigamy, Incest, AND THE CRIME AGAINST NATURE”? Now for a minor participant (child under 18!), not that long ago between consenting adults – home and hetero?

I do not think I had seen that older video. Thanks for re-posting it.

Assemblymember Ammiano – thank you for having the cajones to swim against the stream. Janice Bellucci – speaking for the downtrodden and voiceless – Jesus would be proud. Merry Christmas.

Mission Viejo Councilmember Shlickt – do you even hear what you are saying? On the record??? Prisoners in their own homes? A child was abducted from her own home and murdered – now you are banning hundreds of thousands of tax payers from public parks and areas? What sense does that make?

“The constitutional rights of a child are far more paramount than the constitutional rights of a sexual predator.” Like the guy in this story?? Predator? Come again????


Maybe the state does have a crystal ball and can predict that he’ll become a rampaging sex offender assaulting everyone… O_o sure…..

Lawmakers suffer from the illness of making irrational laws. Take the laws that punish crack cocaine possession many times more severely than powder cocaine. I am not expecting lawmakers to suddenly become less stupid, but we should expect these attorneys general to refrain from wasting money and wrecking lives.

Kamala Harris = corrupt misandrist with a patterned history of using her bar license and public office to maliciously and recklessly prosecute males.

What a big, gigantic, enormous CROCK OF CRAP!!!! ALL OF THIS over a guy who was 2 years older than his girlfriend with whom he is STILL WITH after all of these years. Funny: if they would have been together in Kansas or any number of states with age of consent laws below 18, then this wouldn’t be an issue. WHAT THE EFF?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

so How can we help this lawyer and guy?
should we write to both? if so what the best way to let them know that they can find help on CARSOL or other good RSOL website?


While I was in jail and while on parole, I encountered no less than 5 men who were in this very situation…arrested when 19 because their girlfriend at the time was 16 or 17, then they went on to marry the girlfriend and have families with them, only to have this lifetime stigma has mess up their lives. If nothing else, THIS shows how there should not be a blanket registration for everyone. These men should never be put into the same category as someone who forcibly rapes someone, molests a child, etc. Unfortunately, this also shows clearly that the registration laws are not in place to protect the public but to further the careers of politicians by exploiting others.

So, he did register after his 1989 conviction. But he stopped registering by 1991 — we don’t know when he stopped.

It doesn’t specify here the statute number of his offense, so I can’t tell if it is a misdemeanor or felony. But if a misdemeanor, then in 1991, if he were on probation and ended it successfully, he could have gotten 1203.4 relief and stopped registering — that was the law, 1203.4 was all that was needed then to stop registering for a misdemeanor.

Now, I know the court now says the state of the law at time of plea bargain (and certainly conviction under any other manner) is not binding, so he can be made to again start to register — as when the law was changed and did not provide for an end to registration by getting 1203.4 relief. However, regarding that, a very key point not mentioned anywhere in this story: Was he ever notified that he must resume registering? If not, they have no case against him for failing to register, as they must show he had knowledge of his registration duty. That point is already settled appellate law. Gee, I hope he didn’t simply admit that he knew.

Of course, even if the state could not win the failure to register case, he still would have to start registering — and so court action to try to get him out from under that would be necessary.

Here in San Bernardino County I’ve seen this happen at the Victorville Courthouse: 1) High School Coach had sexual relations with a female athlete under 18: Not a registered sex offender. 2) Teacher had sex with a minor in his classroom: Not required to register as a sex offender. 3) Sheriff had sex with a minor that he who was also in his care: Not a registered sex offender. 4) Police officer had sex with a minor: Not a registered sex offender. The pattern I see is obvious. The local da will work with some specific groups and now with those that fight the charges.

@Gregory Gaspar….I’ve been saying that….public funded personnel =preferential treatment ….scales of justice has
bias…discriminates on the basis of public personnel or not…
when two different people accused of similar crime, the person public employee will get the preferential treatment.

The fact that this man and his family are going through this because of these ridiculous laws is just so stupid!!!