There have been some long, thoughtful comments regarding Compliance Checks in the General Comments section recently. To make sure they do not get buried they are moved to this post.
Compliance Checks II
- ·March 22, 2014
- ·86 Comments
Related Posts...
My Son is No Sex Offender
October 14, 2020
ACSOL Declares Virtual Conference a Success
October 12, 2020
General Comments October 2020
October 1, 2020
Jill Levenson Issues New Report Regarding Life on the List
September 7, 2020
General Comments September 2020
September 2, 2020
3/19/2014 – 8:40pm
The compliance cop just came over and I spoke with him.
The compliance cop came by and I spoke with him for the first time in several years. I did this because everyone is tired of them coming over unexpectedly throughout the year.
Everyone needs to be aware that some of these people are wolves in sheep’s clothing, and this one was/is definitely a wolf. He was acting polite and respectful as he tried to dupe me out of my rights. He didn’t expect me to know my rights. “I know my rights.”
The first thing he did after a bit of small talk was to try to get me to let him in the house.
He said – “all I need to do is see your room and we’ll be done”.
I said in a matter of fact way – “I’m not going to give you permission to do that or to come into the house.”
I could tell he was taken aback because his cool, calm and collected facade faltered for an instant, but he recovered quickly and continued to try to dupe me out of my rights.
Next; he asked me about my vehicle. I told him I sold my truck and the only vehicle I have is my motorcycle.
He says – “What’s the license number?”
I told him I didn’t know.
Next he say’s – “OK, I just need to see it so I can verify the license plate number.”
He was thinking he could at least snoop around the property since he knew he couldn’t get into the house. The sliminess of these guys knows no bounds!!
I said – “I’m not giving you permission to go on to the property; I’ll get the information for you.”
I got the information for him and he pretended to compare it to his information. I could tell he was putting on an act.
Next; he says – “you just need to sign this and we’ll be done.”
I asked what it is he wanted me to sign and
He said – “it’s a compliance verification form”.
I have never heard of, nor have I ever seen a “compliance verification form.” I suspect it’s just another attempt to dupe me out of my rights, so –
I said – “I cant sign this.”
He says – “why not?”
I said – “because I don’t know what this is and I don’t agree with this whole sex offender thing.”
He say’s – “what don’t you agree with about it?”
I said – “this whole sex offender thing is a violation of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, ex post facto, basic human rights and it harms children.”
Next he says – “how do these laws harm children?”
I proceeded to say – “every child whose parent wears the scarlet label is subject to harassment, banishment at school and in their neighborhoods, and are picked on and treated badly by their peers, as well as being subject to many other things ; none of them good, because of their parent’s status.”
After my last statement his entire facade crumbled and the real man showed his face; and it wasn’t pretty!!! He said “we’re done” , and abruptly turned around, and as he started walking away he said in a menacing tone “for now.” I said nothing and walked into the house and immediately called my – yours – our – Guardian Angel – Janice.
I called her because I have to admit I was a little scared. This is the first time I WAS IN CONTROL OF THE SITUATION and I wanted to know if I did everything right. Plus I needed some reassurance. Janice let me know I had nothing to worry about. I kind of think she got a kick out of the whole thing.
After I spoke with Janice the cop came back! I thought WTF?!?!? and I answered the door.
He said in a sheepish kind of way – “My boss wanted me to verify the color of the bike.”
I said – “It’s black.”
And he left.
The reason I am sharing this is because way too many people get walked on by the system and usually end up in jail because they didn’t know their rights. Can you imagine what could have happened if I let him in and I had a National Geographic laying around?!?!?
My point is “KNOWELEDGE IS POWER!!!” I strongly encourage everyone that suffers under these unjust laws to stand up for your self and to take a little time to LEARN YOUR RIGHTS. If you don’t know your rights you can be sure the police will take full advantage of you, and it will probably be your fault for not knowing your rights.
I hope I have been a good example. Never forget “ignorance is a choice!”
https://www.aclu.org/national-security/know-your-rights-when-encountering-law-enforcement
http://www.flexyourrights.org/faqs/police-at-my-door-what-should-i-do/
http://www.kirkpiccione.com/10-reasons-not-talk-police/
This is a must watch.
http://www.resist.com/donttalktothecops.htm
Nice job Q! I’ve always wondered though, when you get a new car are you supposed to immediately report the vehicle info to them? I have never done that so I’m curious did you have that bike when you registered last? If so why didn’t they have that license plate?
Hi Steve:
Whenever you get a new vehicle or get rid of an old one you have five day’s to report it of you face being charged with a felony and going to prison.
(but it’s not punishment; it’s civil and doesn’t violate cruel and unusual punishment, ex-post-facto or anything else)
If anything has changed I hope someone in this thread will let us know.
Hi Steve:
I’ve had the bike for several years now, and they DID HAVE THE LICENSE PLATE NUMBER. I suspected it was just another ruse to get onto the property so they could escalate things to their favor and put me at a disadvantage. As it turns out; thanks to Joe & Rob, I believe I did not have to agree to give them the license plate information they already had.
@Q – where are you getting this from “Whenever you get a new vehicle or get rid of an old one you have five day’s to report it of you face being charged with a felony and going to prison.”? Please provide the pertinent language / link in the Penal Code.
I am not a lawyer but I see nothing in PC 290 that specifies a time frame for reporting a new / different plate outside of reporting the current one at the routine annual registration. Unless you change / add / delete residences or return from incarceration longer than 30 days, at which point you have to go in and complete the registration process as if it were your birthday.
This here sounds like a lot of trouble, but there is no reason one could not visit the DMV or AAA the day after registering on one’s birthday and getting a new license plate, i.e. a vanity or special interest plate. They cost like 50 bucks, but whatever. Then, 364 days later on your birthday, put down that plate on the registration form, next day go back to the DMV, get a new vanity / special interest plate, etc. Rinse and repeat. There is probably little value in all of this, but you could.
I am sure some razorsharp legislator would jump all over this and introduce legislation to close this “loophole”. But in the meantime, know your rights. If it is not in the Penal Code, it isn’t so.
Again, I am not a lawyer. Please correct me if this is incorrect.
PC 290
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=290-294
290 Requirements (Sacramento County Sheriff)
http://www.sacsheriff.com/organization/field_&_investigative_services/centralized_investigations/290_requirements.pdf
Hi Joe:
The cop’s told me that. The registration cop also told me that. It’s interesting there’s nothing in the PC290 code about that. I do believe I may have been lied to; imagine that! I’m more inclined to believe you than a cop. And thank you for the link’s. If this is true the next time I am asked for that information I will refuse to give it to them, just like I refused to let them in the house, on the property or sign the piece of paper. Perhaps Janice would be so kind as to chime in on this????? I’ve believed this for at least the last 3 or 4 years. And now that I’m thinking about I don’t recall hearing of anyone being arrested for not reporting their vehicle license plate number; ever!!!!!
From here on out I’m not going to report any vehicle license number other than at the annual registration process. Unless I find something in the penal code. If I’m pressed for it I’ll just ask for proof. Thanks for catching that Joe. I looked at the initialed paper I got from the last time I registered and there is nothing about updating vehicles. In fact there’s nothing about vehicles at all!?!?!
keep up the good work and thanks again for bringing this to my attention Joe.
At first glance PC 290 is completely overwhelming and seemingly unmanageable, especially on-line. I would strongly recommend everyone copy and paste the entire thing into Word or OpenOffice, and then format it, by sections, sub-sections, proper indents, bolding, etc. It quickly loses much of its intimidating nature. I just pretended to be back in college or high school.
Read it, know it, don’t let anyone bs you. Have a copy handy at the next check up. If something is not in there it is not law (unless something is a local ordinance – print those too).
Hmmm. I bought a vehicle and thought I had read that 5 day notification requirement, just like Q thought, but no cop told me about it. I don’t trust anything anyone says without looking it up, So I wonder where I got it from?
Hi Tim, whats up?
I was wondering if you are subject to compliance checks where you live and what’s your experience been like?
Hi Joe:
And thanks again for bringing vehicle thing to my attention. The input from Rob was really helpful too and much appreciated as well. Now I’m pissed at the cops for almost getting over on me with the license plate thing. Now I know I could have told him – “it’s not law, it’s not required so you’ll just have to go with the information you already have.” –
I can’t tell you how good it felt calling him on his BS instead of not knowing and basically being manipulated at the will of LE because of ignorance of the law. Learning is going to be a priority for me this year and I think it should be for everyone! I felt in control of the situation for once and it felt good!
PC 290 does look overwhelming, but I do like your idea of breaking it down into pertinent sections. I already do that with empirical studies and really long op-ed’s; I just need to motivate myself tonight or tomorrow to get started because it sure won’t get done in one setting, that’s for sure. I have so much information now that I’m going to have to do the database thing instead of the folder mess I have going right now.
This is one of my BIG problems with enforcement of 290. It can’t be enforced if you did not have knowledge of whatever the point is, such as you had no idea you were supposed to register for your offense, you were never told.
Yet, this “knowledge” can be determined simply because some idiot cop with a high school education said you have to do this or that — even though, as you point out, they are too uneducated to know what they hell they are talking about, will tell you all kinds of things that are wrong, are just plain unreliable.
How can what the moron at registration say constitute the “knowledge” required to enforce registration. They don’t know what they are talking about! At best, they are telling you their presumptions. They are not lawyers, yet they stand there and interpret the law and tell you you have to follow their interpretations.
Hi Anonymous Nobody:
I think they are counting on the registrant to be ignorant of their rights, as well as what the police can and can not do. It’s legal for them to lie, too. It’s been my experience that the police will do everything they can to get you to give up your rights. I know it’s wrong. I know it’s screwed up. But our society seems to be wrong and screwed up!
I stand corrected!
I just did my yearly update, have purchased 2 new vehicles this year, and have a new work address. I did not report ANY of that before I went in for annual update. No questions at all when I did. KNOW THE LAW! There is NO REQUIREMENT to update ANY information EXCEPT a change of residence until your annual. Those conditions you initial are the law. READ THEM and follow THEM, NOT what you are told by anyone, on here or LE.
Hi Rob:
What I’ve been finding out here by you and Joe today confirm my suspicions that the cop was using the “I just need to verify your license plate” statement as a different angle to get me to give up my rights so he could look for things to arrest me for. He would not have found anything; but I refuse to co-sign their BS anyway. I’ve also been skimming the PC-290 site Joe posted and I will be studying it closely to further educate myself. Thanks for the info!
If he wants to do that, he needs a search warrant — unless he can get-trick you into giving permission.
Great job, it was very strong of you to maintain your composure and ground.
I personally don’t talk to them at all. People who are Registered should enclose their properties with fencing or walls and never all them in. If you happen to run into one at your wall just tell them that it’s nothing personal but the Registries are a pile BS and you won’t do anything unless it is forced by law.
Hi FRegistryTerrorists:
I had a poker face; but I was scared because I had never stood up in this way and it was new to me. I’ve heard it gets easier the more often you do it. Meanwhile; I’ve been studying the 290 code to give more ammo to defend myself with.
They always seem to know when I leave the gate open and the dogs are inside. I am fastidious about keeping the gate closed, both because I have lost a couple of dogs to the highway, and I don’t like unwelcome visitors. Yet, the very few times I left the gate open, they come down the driveway to do the compliance check. It is more than a coincidence.
Last week, when I was in my office (more like a walk in closet) my daughter opened the door, and there they were, one wearing a bullet proof vest and the other looking a little nervous. It lasted about 30 seconds and they were gone after they verified the vehicles in my driveway.
There was another car in the driveway. We left the gate open so that an insurance agent could come sign up my daughter for health care. Both my daughter and the insurance lady were concerned when thy saw the unmarked patrol car in the driveway, and the policemen walk up. They always come when someone else is in the house, I guess assuming I wouldn’t answer the door for them, which they have right.
After fifteen years of no illegal activity on my part, the surveillance continues. They must spend a lot of resources to monitor whether my gate is open and if there is someone to answer the door. At near $50 and hour pay and benefits, they must have a huge budget. I assume they do this for all the registrants in the area. I was given probation, so I assume I was considered a low risk. What do they do for those the judge considered more dangerous?
One note: about half the compliance officers look like this compliance stuff is beneath them, the other half are enthusiastic. A couple have even been apologetic. They never send the same two to do the checks. Sounds like the plan is to have us remain strangers, so we remain on edge during these checks. I am sure if we got to know each other, we might begin to see each other as real people, not actors in a bad play.
So after fifteen years after I made the idiotic mistake that compromised the lives of many, they treat me as a threat. I live a legal life, probably more so than others, because I have seen the inside of a jail, and I know nothing we do is done in isolation. Memory burns like being surrounded by flames. I have done the time, reintegrated and atoned with family and victim.
So why didn’t they just give me the maximum sentence and be done with it? Why try to look lenient and then treat me like I am a wanted felon after the time is served? The answer is my own speculation, but seems plausible in light of my own situation and what I have heard of others. Putting people under suspicion when they have not done anything suspicious is a form of harassment. Being harassed despite doing the right thing is a form of societal violence. Being a victim of violence, especially when it is sanctioned by a large number of people, leads to lack of self esteem. Having a lack of self esteem, leads to having a lack of empathy for others, the two are in synergy. Having a lack of empathy and having a lack of self esteem, puts you in danger of committing another crime. Committing another crime raises the re-offense rate, which justifies the whole surveillance scheme; which feeds on itself, brings in money to cash strapped departments and gains points on the higher moral political platform. It is sanctioned by a population wanting to hate and blame someone.
So I am resisting this scheme. It is clearly there to harass me, and possibly there to get me to re-offend and/or get me out of my present neighborhood. I have seen what my offense has done to those connected to me and don’t wish to shove that on anyone else again, whatever “they” do. I thought I was free after the tether was cut that held me to probation and my mind did fly for a time. It flew back to a time and realm of freedom before my offense, a time of self determination. Then, when I actually tried to use my wings, I discovered they had broken them. I look around and see pieces of my life littered here and there. Registration is picking your way through the shards of shattered dreams.
Hi Broken Wings:
Not answering the door has been my strategy for not participating in this campaign against human rights and for oppression. But after my latest experience and the satisfaction I felt afterward, I just might start answering the door. Perhaps I can find something to use against them in a court of law that will benefit all registrants and bring attention to the true nature of these unnecessary intrusions that make everyone in the home feel unsafe. If I ever get any work I might install cameras in plain sight and see how they like that!
I have to say that every time I’ve spoken to the compliance cops I always have a really strong feeling that compliance checks are nothing more than a thinly veiled pretense to get around my rights, supposedly guaranteed by the constitution and the bill of rights so they can look around to see if there is anything they can arrest me for; this has been my experience each and every time. Each time I’ve been asked, maybe, if at all, one question related to compliance. It’s always been a battle of wits with the stakes being my freedom and quite possibly my life at the hands of a criminal in some jail. They’re always trying to get around the very principals they have sworn to uphold, and me battling to keep my rights from being violated anymore than they already have been violated. I think the most offensive part of the ordeal I am invariably subject to is that they wear an American flag as they are doing everything in their power to deceive me out of my rights. This nightmare I’ve been living since 1999 has to stop.
I too was given probation and wasn’t sent to prison. I also think this whole sex offender thing is a monumental wast of time and money that destroys the lives of so many. If one person has the misfortune to be sentenced to the scarlet label and their family decides to stand by them, they too are subject to most of the same things as the registrant. I wish the lame stream media was the way it was in the 50s when they put the brakes on that blight on American history, Joseph Mc Carthy. The press hasn’t been stepping up nearly enough in reporting the truth. I fear this country has the misfortune of having scores of people with the same warped sense of right and wrong that Senator Mc Carthy had; and they are exporting it across the globe! The four horn’s are rising.
In my case, I think the compliance cops see me as a way to get positive attention among their kind if they can arrest me, which would lead to a ticket away from the rural area and a assignment to a large city, where they can further their career, get promoted more quickly, thus making more money, by leaving a trail of destroyed lives and fatherless, friendless children with families disenfranchised from society. They also seem to delight in doing everything they can to humiliate and take advantage of the scumbag sex offender (this is disturbing, as my case did not involve sex, or another human being, for that matter). I know others on this site have had entirely different experiences, and good for them. But my experiences are what I write about. I’ve always sensed a threat and at times felt in danger when these experienced and well practiced liars come to my residence. My experiences have given me a resolve to do everything I can to not participate in this nationwide miscarriage of justice, and to stand up for my self when I must. I think they are wasting their time, because I don’t break any laws. I have no reason or desire to live like that.
You are so right, broken wing, when you call this a form of harassment, because it is. It also put’s my well being under threat from any vigilante that believes he is a judge, jury and executioner. This fear is borne out by this site and some of the other sites out there, like this one;
http://on-murders.blogspot.com/
My dreams are shattered too, and I’m an exile in my own land.
Hi Q. This is aka Tim. Thought I would change my screen name to reflect how I feel. Maybe I’ll change it every week. Especially if, heaven forbid, Prop 35 is validated. Could use your painting skills on a deck staining job, but I guess it is too far to drive to San Diego for one, maybe two small jobs. I once did a job in LA. Working out of a trailer, but I kept it to 5 business days. It was complicated enough planning it, finding materials and temporary workers, without wondering if I needed to re-register.
I also need someone who is skilled in landscape construction. Had almost no work for two months, now I have too much to handle.
Oh; OK: Hi Tim:
San Diego is indeed too far. I haven’t worked since December and it sucks!!!! I can’t afford the gas for my white pervert E-350 diesel van anyway. I can’t even afford to troll my area looking for new victims to victimize(sarcastic statement). I’m stuck in a cheesy Motel because the house is being tented for termites, I’m stuck here till Friday and I’m bored silly because the wind is blowing like a typhoon and I’ll get sand blasted If I ride my bike anywhere. On the upside, I have a deck and some wrought iron to paint on Monday! This is a far cry from the large jobs I used to do, but it beats a blank!
Love your analysis of Registration and I think it is very valid.
It is great that you have gates for your property. I would strive to keep them closed always. But I also wonder if you couldn’t post signs that basically say that law enforcement is never welcome. How about “If you have not been explicitly invited to this property, you are requested to leave immediately. If you do not, you are illegally trespassing.”?
Hi FRegistryTerrorists:
I’m putting up no trespassing signs; I believe that’s all I need. If anyone has some input on this I’m listening.
Several months ago, I purchased a home with my girlfriend. I was quite careful to be certain no K-12 schools were nearby (There is a private university about 4000 feet away). I made certain to register within the allotted time, taking time off work to do so.
Yesterday, for only the second time in nearly 20 years my home was visited by officers come to assure that I in fact live at the address I gave when I registered.
My girlfriend was home and assured them I did live here. They made vague comments about “that school over there”… I suspect looking for an bad response. They got none.
I’ve advised my girlfriend, that should they return, under no circumstances allow them in without a warrant. Answer only and exactly what they ask and offer no additional information. They do NOT have the right to enter even if they ask nicely and allowing them in, opens the door to press for more.
I am law abiding, have nothing to hide and am not willing to give more than I already have for the heinous crime that I committed.
Hi Bruce Ferrell:
That was good advise you gave to your girlfriend. Be sure to tell her she must act confident, even if she doesn’t feel confident. If they sense any weakness they will pounce and do all they can to exploit it to their advantage. I say this because if compliance checks are a regular thing in your new area I’m pretty sure eventually one of the cops that show up will be a overly ambitious type that will do everything in his power to get her to give up your search and seizure rights.
I’m a law abiding man too, yet I’m treated like a criminal waiting for an opportunity to commit a crime. But still; I don’t want them searching my residence.
If I may suggest; you should check out the links in my post towards the top of this page and share them with your girlfriend. They are very informative and must know information for people like us and those associated with us.
I would advise you and your girlfriend not to speak to them at all. You have no obligation to do so. Tell them that you don’t support Registration or nanny big government so stop wasting resources and leave.
Of course, thank god you aren’t in THIS jurisdiction. It’s out of state, but this sheriff is definitely up on the harassment food chain.
http://www.daily-times.com/four_corners-news/ci_25400971/san-juan-county-sheriffs-office-deputies-ramp-up
They send TWO vehicles for compliance checks: One with “SEX OFFENDER COMPLIANCE” written in big letters on the first vehicle, and followed by a cop car WITH ITS LIGHTS FLASHING. This goes completely against the intent of Smith v. Doe, as well as any vestiges of “reintegration” into the community following “punishment.”
Not punitive? Right-o, dufus.
Hi Eric Knight:
WOW! This is F__ked up BIG TIME! This sheriff’s office obviously get’s way too much money from the state!!! Two vehicles, three deputies, sign’s!!! This seems like a pretty extreme way to make sure someone lives where they say they live. I think this proves my belief/statement that compliance checks are just a pretense for harassment and looking for any reason to arrest the registrant that already done his/her time and paid their debt to society. A clear violation of ex-post-facto.
It’;s pretty obvious the sheriff doesn’t know what he’s talking about. He claims registrants have a high recidivism rate (wonder where he get’s this information) and he thinks if a child goes missing he can just jump into the car and drive to the nearest registrant’s residence and save the child, thus proving his methods are a good thing and a necessary expenditure of of taxpayer dollars. He somehow thinks that this fantasy is made possible by putting on a public display that further humiliates registrants; not letting them move on with their lives. I think it’s pretty clear he get’s his information from sensationalistic and completely off base news articles. As well as what his mind conjures up. It’s a sad thing that this caliber of man would have any kind of authority or power, and demonstrates how low our society has sunk.
I wonder why these kind of people don’t listen to knowledgeable people with experience in the area of “sex offenders.” It’s already a well known fact that the vast majority of these kind of “crimes” he is crusading against are not committed by strangers, but by someone close to the child. And why is the focus always on the “child” when many actions between adults can land someone on the list? This “sex offender” witch hunt has to stop. It serves no useful purpose in it’s present form.
Each time I read something like this article I have no choice but to conclude that the real criminals and threats to public safety must be having a field day because it’s obvious that sheriff Christesen is putting a large amount of resources in an area that has never proven to be any kind of a problem instead of addressing crimes like murder, robbery, gangs, fraud, etc.
I wonder why these kind of people don’t listen to knowledgeable people with experience in the area of “sex offenders.”
Long ago I realized that only responsible, intelligent and mentally healthy people examine their beliefs and behaviors.
Clearly, this task force is headed by someone devoid of one or more of these innate qualities.
Could this poor excuse for a sheriff be self promoting at the expense of people who made a mistake, paid their debt to society, and now are rigorously denied the human right to get on with their life because of lesser men like Sheriff Ken Christesen?
It’s called JOB SECURITY. They need to make this LOOK like they need more police which means more money. That is it. That’s the only reason for this crap.
Also the whole “I am a big man with a big gun” show usually means…”I am a little man in the trouser department” with something prove. Everyone knows what the something is dude.
Pick on someone your own “size”…HAHA
After reading the previous responses, I am wondering if Janice could weigh in on this briefly. My thought concerns the recent victories in forcing various cities to stop passing and enforcing restrictions on visiting parks, beaches, etc. Could a similar campaign be initiated where each county is sued to prevent the sheriffs from conducting illegal compliance checks. If they are not in the penal code, they are clearly a civil rights violation. Rather than sue individual departments, I should think that suing individual counties would force them to make certain that all departments within a county refrain from this type of harassment. Janice, is there any merit to this idea?
The only reason I talk to them is because I am still on probation. If I was not I would not talk except to tell them that if they continue to harass me I will see them in court using PC290 aganist them.
Hi noname:
Check out the links in my post at the top of the page. I wouldn’t do things the way you are saying. They’ll only get hostile with you, and you don’t want that. There are ways to deal with them covered in the links at the top of this page. Besides it’s much more fun to tell them “no, I don’t consent” and watching their reaction.
Moving over from General Comments:
There has been a lot said at this site about compliance checks. No, there is no mandate for police to do compliance checks. In fact, as I read the ordinance, it seems to ban them! The ordinance specifically says that you must provide PROOF of you residence at registration, and it specifically says that will be done by showing your driver’s license or the other things it lists, such as utility bill with your name on it. It specifically says that police cannot require anything else to prove your residence — and I take that to include that it bans a compliance check. That is, with that line, it is not even optional for the police to do, as I read it — perhaps as a specific thing in the law to bar harassment of registrants, to keep police in check.
I think Calif RSOL, or somebody, could bring a lawsuit over compliance checks arguing that they are specifically banned by 290.
Regardless of my reading, you do not have to comply with the check. Up to you. You do not have to answer the door, you do not have to speak with them (and if you do, simply say “no thanks” and close the door). You do not have to identify yourself at the door, you do not have to talk with them in any way. You also can block them from coming to your door as trespassing by doing something like posting a sign at the gate (or other entry) barring anyone from going to the door as trespassing (I’m not sure about legality, but perhaps such a sign could specifically bar police from approaching, thus still allowing mail carriers or whomever).
But its up to you. You might decide to just say yes, it is you, this is your home — so they won’t come back at least for a while. But certainly if you do speak with them, do not say any word at all other than your name and that this is your home — say NOTHING more, and close the door. Answer no questions. Do not let them see or confirm anything else, whether license plate or anything.
They may not enter the home without your permission — say nothing and do nothing that could be interpreted as permission.
Hi Anonymous Nobody:
Could you post the part of the ordnance that “seems to ban them.”? I’m very curious, and very interested in anything I can do to legally make their day unpleasant.
Thanks in advance.
Actually, Q, I have pointed that out in previous threads, but seemed to get little traction I can’t even find those posts now, so I will be happy to give it here (although I wish I could find/link to my previous, explained post).
This thing is so voluminous it takes a ton of time to find the same clauses again. That language is in the 290 section at the link below and is what 290 says must be provided at registration in those circumstances (I want to find the more generalized requirements of what must be provided at time of registration, but 290 is so voluminous, I just don’t have an entire day or two or three right now to try to find that, but surely the language would have to be in sync with this language):
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/PEN/3/1/9/5.5/s290.014
Note sec 8 in there, saying (bold italic emphasis added by me):
That language specifically says that is “proof” and that that proof shall be “limited” to those items on the list only, and it does not list a compliance check as one of the ways to “prove” residence. There is nothing in this law that provides for a registrant having an ongoing requirement throughout the year to continually again and maybe again “prove” their residence, as with a subsequent compliance check or multiple compliance checks — and this law specifically “limits” what can be demanded to prove residence. That is, it specifically says nothing other than that list can be required to prove residence, and that prohibition should include a compliance check.
290 is IMPOSSIBLY voluminous, and another challenge I think is worth considering is that it is so voluminous that it becomes unconstitutionally vague. I don’t think ANYONE, even the lawyers, really knows and completely understands everything in 290, yet a registrant can go to prison for even the most minor violation that even the lawyers couldn’t find or understand.)
That clause is setting the legal standard for proof of residence, and it is not including compliance checks in the standard.
If you find a lawyer to file suit in this regard, I want to join in. I’m sick of these checks. Law says I’m supposed to register ONCE per year. Essentially, this is random stop and frisk for former offenders, without probable cause.
count me in too.
I’m in also. Been looking for a civil rights lawyer with no luck. Let us know. The more the merrier.
Hi Anonymous Nobody:
Thank you for posting this. I didn’t see anything about compliance checks either. Now I’ll be cooperating even less when they come over since someone needs to make sure they uphold the laws they have sworn to uphold, yet make every attempt to skirt around; that’s how I’ll view and present my dissent. Now that you, Joe and others have started posting this type of valuable information I’m starting to feel safe in believing that the cops don’t have a mandate, let alone a law that says they are to do compliance checks. I haven’t seen anything that say’s they must do this. I believe the police nationwide have taken this upon themselves. I think this is harassment.
If it does ban the compliance checks, then they should get a warrant, if there is suspicion. Trouble is the system acts as if we are always guilty, always trying to get away with something. It does need a lawsuit and a judge to weigh in. We are not on probation anymore if we completed the terms, and should be be treated with dignity that follows obeying the rules. A lawsuit against this form of harassment is needed.
Dignity?
Try going to Mexico for a vacation. We may have done the time and paid the price but we don’t have full rights by any means.
Do I look forward to heading to the police station with my walker on my 85th birthday (should I make it that long) for the year indignity of being photographed and fingerprinted?
No I do not.
Hi Tim:
If the ordnance does ban compliance checks that might explain why the cops are so quick to stand down if the think you know even a few of your rights.
I am up for my driver’s license renewal in less than a month and have an appointment with the DMV on Thursday. It has my wife’s address that I spend two nights a week at (which is a secondary registered residence in another city but same county). My driver’s license from years ago still has this address. I currently live at a hotel for 3 weeks and then check out and check back in the same room number after a weekend as they don’t allow people to stay there for more than 28 days straight. Should I put this address as my primary or do I use my wife’s address (where I hope to move back into after some motions are filed) as the primary and put in a change of address with DMV of my hotel? I don’t want to violate because my wife’s address is on my driver’s license even though it is not my primary address for registration. I want to make sure I get an accurate response as the few lawyers I talked to were a bit bewildered.
Personally, I think you’re making things too way too complicated. Use either of your registered addresses.
You can always change it anytime you have a new permanent address online at: http://dmv.ca.gov/dl/dl.htm.
If you’re still concerned, call the office where you register and ask their advise.
Make note of the person you talked to, their title and the time and date.
Good luck on the motions you file.
Maybe you can get a PO Box and use that on your license? I seem to recall I had a California ID card (not a license) that I had used a PO box on. This was early 90’s and I was subject to registration at the time. You don’t want to make it look like you are willfully trying to deceive, and a PO box would clarify your wife’s residence is not necessarily your residence.
Also, beware of some very tricky wording in the law that says “where you regularly stay regardless of the number of nights” or something to that effect. This opens the door for them to be able to come after you if they wanted, even if you stayed at a relative’s house for as seldom as one night a month.
Hi 290 inNocal
I think you have to report both addresses. Don’t quote me on that, but I’m pretty sure that’s the way it is. Take a look at this. I’m sure you’ll find your answer in here; somewhere!
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=290-294
Ever wonder why things are the way they are? The registry, public loathing, etc? This is an interview with Chris Hedges, he explains things rather well. VIDEO
go to time
3.37-obamacare
7.06-manufacturing consent, manipulated by emotion; We are victims of this by
way of the registry, compliance checks, etc.
I didn’t watch the entire video and some may not agree with his views; but this is a thought provoking interview none the less.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6N0fzISZ7io#t=601
I don’t know if this is the right place to mention this, but it’s the closest I come to getting a compliance check. I was forced to be homeless during my time on parole, as many now are. I completed parole with no violations or added time. Since then, I have chosen to remain homeless rather than get a place because living out of my van does have a few advantages, such as not putting me or my family on the map to be targeted by vigilantes. Another advantage is that, in 5 years of registering as homeless, I have never once had police come to me to do a compliance check.
Something I’m finding disturbing is that the police are constantly trying to pigeonhole where I am at night with a street address. Being homeless means I have no home and am “transient.” Instead of allowing me to be truly “transient,” they are telling me I should be where they can find me at night by telling me I have to be in the exact same place every night. Parole did that as a way to inflict their curfew on me, but now the police are basically trying to do the same thing when I’m not on parole!
The point of this is to warn everyone to be cautious when registering, they will try to get more information than necessary according to the law. And anything on the registration that is inaccurate can be used as a “failure to register” charge against us.
I note, a comment about what you were saying, and what some other registrants say they have been told. There seems to be some idea that a registrant must be in their registered address after dark. No, they do not have to be there — even if they are a transient. That location simply has to be their actual residence, but there is no specific time of day or night that they are required to be there, nor do they even have to be there every day (how could daily presence even be possible if they are registered at multiple addresses, as 290 can require). That simply has to be their residence, but they can be anywhere at any time no different than anyone else (other than any location a law says a registrant may not go).
There is some real lack of definition about what “residence” means, despite some court rulings trying to nail it down. Yes, they do tend to work on the basis of someplace where you stay overnight. But hey, if you work the graveyard shift, you don’t stay anywhere overnight but your job, and you sleep in the day, and that location is still your residence.
Even sleeping is a questionable determiner of residence, although one would tend to sleep regularly at their residence. But just because I was so tired today that when I was visiting a friend I took a nap surely cannot mean I must now register that friend’s home as my address — at least not unless I “stay” there “regularly,” whatever that means. That is to say, sleeping in and of itself doesn’t make a place a residence.
So, you can be anywhere you want any time of day or night, you never have to be at your residence at any specific time or even every day. If you want to stay up all night and watch the sun rise from the beach, go for it. If you want to go to a night club, do so. If you want to go out for a late dinner, go ahead. And if you figure the police like to come by between 7 p.m. and 10 p.m. for what I think are illegal compliance checks, then you might want to make a point of never being home between 7 p.m. and 10 p.m. — you have no requirement to be there at that time, or any other specific time.
Hi td777:
It really sucks that people are put in your situation because of what is essentially a lie. If I was in your situation I would just say “I sleep over at such and such location every night”. Then when the cops start their whining that you weren’t there when they wanted to harass you I’d say something like I must have been at the store, a friends, in transit, whatever. There is no law that says you have to spend your life waiting in one place in case the cops want to stop by to see if your there.
I disagree, Q. NEVER elaborate, never expound. Always say the least possible. You never have to explain, and it is only going to be to your detriment to do so. Every syllable you utter gives them ammunition. Don’t explain, just say goodbye and close the door, or walkaway if you don’t have a door to close. It is illegal for the to grab you and make you stop — unless they have probably cause, which they don’t in this situation.
Hi Anonymous Nobody:
I know you are right. But sometimes situations don’t lend themselves to what you are saying. Believe me; When the situation to just shut them down comes along you can be sure I’ll do that. I’ve been considering ways to instigate this situation. I’ll probably just say “yes, I live here and I don’t want to talk to you because I’m in compliance.”
Could we file a RTO on ALL law enforcement from doing a compliance check?
Next time I register, He is going to tell me ” I m coming over tomorrow to make sure you live where you are”
I m going to tell him.” Im not going to be home tomorrow.”
Rather than tell him you are not going to be home, tell him you are giving formal notice that no one from the police department is to enter your property, including the walkway to your door, under penalty of trespassing. You might want to also tell them that you ALREADY have proven your residence to them under the legal status established under 290 (you must provide PROOF of residence when you register), and no further proof is required, and that 290 even prohibits them from requiring more (meaning a compliance check).
Hi nk:
You could tell him you have plans and if he want’s you there when he goes to check up on you he will have to make an appointment so you can fit him into your calendar. See how he likes it. LOL!
I was reading this article and found it pretty disturbing… http://www.connecttristates.com/news/story.aspx?id=1024358#.UzXUpmRdUhO
In it the police found many sex offenders not home but gained entry anyhow to conduct a compliance check..
It seems that many law enforcement treat the “Compliance Check” as some form of “extended” parole or probation… I hope and wish that there was some sort of lawsuit or act of God that destroys that idea in California before it becomes rampant.. It should be simple, send a form by mail to the address and have the resident fill it out and mail it back to confirm or something similar without SWAT teams and neighborhood attention..
“During the check, they found several offenders not home.
But went inside anyways to determine if they were in compliance.”
What do you do when you have no abilities as a journalist? Go find a sex offender story.
Most of your readers won’t realize that you’re uneducated and too dumb to care.
It should have read, something like: However, they were allowed inside by relatives to make sure the registrants do reside there, by seeing their bedroom, looking for mail addressed to them, prescription bottles with their name and address on them and etc.
And what kind of grammar is: But went inside anyways?
I could hear banjos playing as I read that article…but I digress. 🙂
? Just a personal note: I’m originally from Appalachia and I do love bluegrass music, friends. So ease up on the banjo criticism, please. Thanks. ?
As with any musical instrument it requires talent. I was told the banjo is among the hardest to play.
I was just visited (for the 2nd time this year) by an officer doing a compliance check. He asked me to step outside, read if my information was correct and sign it. Standing inside of the door, I questioned why I needed to sign the piece of paper. He said I was required to do it or a warrant could be issued. I signed the paper but asked for his business card. I’m in San Bernardino County (high desert area). I had knowledge, but verified later, that signing is voluntary. The few calls I made after, not one person could verify by any means that I needed to sign it or a warrant would be issued. I spoke with the sergeant on duty at the station I visit annually. He said he would follow up with the officer that visited me. I will be there in about two weeks for my annual visit. I will follow up on this situation.
As many of us have discovered, the law enforcement community can pretty much make us juggle chainsaws while we’re on probation or parole. If you aren’t on paper, the only thing they can force upon you is what’s required under PC 290.
Interesting to see if this is some sort of agency policy on the part of whatever department this jabroni works for, or if he’s just on some power trip of his own. However the threat that a warrant could be issued is flat out an abuse of power. At the very least a citizen’s complaint should be filed against the officer. What is his basis for telling you he can seek a warrant to arrest you? Clearly not under the authority of PC 290, as nothing under that section authorizes compliance checks.
This makes me mad because it is another example of how law enforcement seeks to expand the reach of 290 requirements to suit their needs. We’ve heard the stories of what Santa Ana PD did to registrants, forcing them into prison clothing, and LAPD Van Nuys mandating everyone submit to a pat down. In those cases, they feel they can threaten you with a “failure to register” because, if you don’t comply with their tactics, they WON’T register you. Thus, you have failed to register.
Refusing to sign some verification is fully within our rights, as is declining to leave your own doorway if you don’t want to. Threatening us with an arrest warrant for refusing to do so is misuse of power, and threats under color of authority. Like I said, citizen’s complaint at the LEAST. Possible civil suit, or even criminal charges? “Hello, Mr. Oberstein and Ms. Bellucci…?”
Thank you! I tried to be fair and understand he was just doing his job. I’m sure he didn’t want to be there as much as I didn’t want him to be there. I have not been under parole or probation for a few years now. My anger comes from what you said, the abuse of power. I knew I didn’t have to sign it and I stood up, he clearly had a problem with that. Through my whole mess, I’ve tried to take a higher ground but it’s difficult when an officer already has you pegged and they HAVE to let you know, which he did. I am contemplating my next move. I have already spoken with the person in charge of registration as well as a sergeant on duty. Both told me the signature is voluntary but they are required to conduct the checks. I don’t wish to have this officer in trouble (which I doubt would happen anyway)and I don’t want to stir up trouble but I do not want what little rights I have to be trampled on by fear and intimidation. The officer was out of line and it was unnecessary.
An update to the compliance check from Dec. 17. I went in for my annual on Jan 4. The person in charge of registration informed me that she notified the sergeant of my complaint & said that it was addressed in a staff briefing. I asked her to have the sergeant call me. He did. He reiterated what she told me, with a little more detail. He was professional & polite and I hope the issue was really addressed. But truth be told, I just don’t trust cops..and I have enough reasons to. Probably just won’t open a door again to an officer to avoid all this nonsense. Sidebar: Received OffenderWatch paperwork to fill out as if it’s mandatory. I wrote N/A all over it, then signed it. Never was addressed during my annual.
Cops lie to make it easier for them to do their jobs.
I’m sure many Gestapos had no personal pleasure in deceiving Jews to peaceably get onto the trains either.
This compliance check thing is not lawful, it needs to be challenge.
This is clearly a serious issue that affects the quality of life for RCs and their families. My husband has just a few months left on his probation, and after the last search of our home, I am so traumatized that I can’t imagine having officers knock on our door whenever they feel like it for the rest of our lives.
Janice, is there any way you would be willing to take this on?
Jd, in your situation where he is on probation doing what I am about to say may be a bit dicey, but once he is off ALWAYS film every interaction you have with law enforcement. Carry a camera of some kind with you at all times. Also, once he is off paper you are in no way obligated to speak to the police. You don’t have to answer the door and never let them in your home unless they have a warrant. There are tons of videos on youtube about this.
I know this doesn’t help you much in the present, but you said that your husband only has a few months left on probation. Make sure he does what he is supposed to be doing and hang in there. Study your rights and know them, and once heis off probation don’t be afraid to exercise them. I would recommend looking up Adam Kokesh on Youtube. I don’t agree with everything he says, but he is passionate about what he believes in and shows the courage to stand up for himself.
There has been some great comments of late on compliance visits of late that I cannot seem to find, but nonetheless, I did find this one thread and wanted to add this article for review and comment.
One of the recent commenters on this topic laid out a two-prong way to not answer questions by LE when they are stopped in public on a compliance check. Maybe that can be used when they arrive at your house and your are not on paper, maybe not. Point being, looking at what the gentleman in the article below went through, I post it here for folks to know what the courts are saying if you choose to not answer questions and the possibility of using it during compliance checks. The two-prong way seems to be the most professional way to handle it, but may not be appreciated by LE.
Can the police retaliate against a citizen for refusing to answer police questions?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/04/19/can-the-police-retaliate-against-a-citizen-for-refusing-to-answer-police-questions/
RE: The Washington Post article
Very clever article. Mostly because it completely glosses over the ultimate outcome of NOT talking to the police and focuses solely on the unsuccessful lawsuit that was subsequently brought against the police. What was Alexander suing the police dept for ? Violating his 5th Amendment or assault and battery by police? We don’t know. But that is not the issue- the issue is , despite being handled rudely by the police because he refused to talk to them, was he ever convicted of anything? Probably not ( or the article would have stated that)
Yes, your 5th Amendment rights really come into play when you are under ” custodial interrogation” , but every time a police officer comes to your home to ask you about yourself, your whereabouts etc- you are under interrogation ( you just aren’t in custody yet) . They get more useful information out of people who aren’t yet arrested than afterwards which is when most people decide to keep their mouths shut.
No police officer can compel you to speak EVER. ( with exception of identifying yourself if asked while in public) And you have more protections in your home than in public spaces., anyways.
Whether you are innocent as a lamb or guilty as sin- don’t answer police inquires. It will never help you.
@Nondescript: +1 and well stated.
I was always anxious about Compliance Checks because the LEOs typically come banging on my front door first thing in the morning as I am just getting into or out of the shower, in the midst of shaving, etc. Then I had one of those lightbulb-overhead moments and it occurred to me to simply place locks on my fence gates each night! (Duh, right?)
Result: A detective doing a routine Compliance Check (because apparently my City’s police detectives have nothing better to do) recently called me to verify registration information, stating “I stopped by a couple of times this week, but could not gain access to your property.”
Oh, how wonderful that was to hear!! No more anxiously waiting and wondering when they will next bang on my door! 🤗😁
@David:
Yes! You successfully “moved” the edge of your curtilage to the fence. At least the LEO is wise enough to know it’s a 4th Amdt violation to cross the fence.
Well done, sir.
Well, here we are again, a year later, I receive a phone call from a detective who is conducting “compliance checks” and asks if I will send him a copy of a recent utility bill or similar document to confirm my residency. (Leave aside that my paying the utilities for any residence in no way confirms that I reside there.) He became irritated when I asked if he also confirms the residency of those previously convicted of bank robbery, assault, etc. He shifted to his “voice of authority” to ask if I really wanted to “do this the hard way” noting that our conversation “heading south.” Such foolishness! 🙄
Well, he never did send me his email address. An earlier FOIA request indicated that they have documented my past Compliance Checks as “Confirmed without contact” when I send a utility bill.
If this is acceptable as a completed Compliance Check – as apparently it is – why aren’t they simply doing ALL compliance checks by mail in lieu of in-person home visits??
David ~ What State are you in? I know these compliance checks are not really legal or mandated in the first place, but if these people think they are above the law and conduct them anyways, it would definitely be better by mail than in person.
I am in southern California.
It seems as if “compliance checks” aren’t too much of an issue for most people. But I feel like no one should ever allow them. Simply because. The Registries are not acceptable and that’s the end of the story. Therefore, people who are forced to be listed on them should do what they are FORCED to do (by “law”, at the point of a gun) and allow nothing further than that.
If you allow them to do “compliance checks” then you are giving them permission to operate outside of the law. You are telling them that it is acceptable to try “extra” things and that they will get away with some of it. Maybe all of it. I just think it is a bad message.
Personally, I don’t allow them to talk to me. There is literally no good that is going to come of it. They are not going to give people any “slack” just because they talk nicely to them. In fact, I think they harass even more the people who allow it.
If they try to talk to me I just tell them that I’ve done what is legally required and I’ve got no reason to be talking to them. I do think that is easier for everyone even.
If they want “compliance checks”, they should pass a “law” that forces it. They should be forced to put the legal procedure in writing and follow it. Stop operating outside of the law.
On second thought, if Det. “Hardaway” wants to do this “the hard way”, that’s okay. It means him getting off his butt, driving to my house, finding all gates locked and no entry or way to knock on my door….. I think it will be the “hard way” for him, not me. (But I do hate that they receive even one extra penny of taxpayer funds to support their harassment efforts.)
David ~ We are in Southern CA, too, and we never had a mail in compliance check. We have gotten 2 in person visits over a time span of maybe 9 years. What is strange is that you are not obligated to answer any questions once off paper, and that should apply to mail in inquiries as well.
@ S_ W_ C_:. Thank you for that reminder. 👍