ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (4/17 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings
ACSOL’s Online EPIC Conference: Empowered People Inspiring Change Sept 17-18, 2021


Sheriff’s officials conduct sex offender compliance check

Ventura County, Calif. – The Ventura County Sheriff’s Office conducted a sex offender compliance check Saturday, officials said Tuesday. Full Article

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  • We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  • 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.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • 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.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please do not solicit funds
  • Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
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

I hope these parolees and probationers eventually discover CA-RSOL for education and support/hope; otherwise they run the risk of being walked all over by LE after they have finished their probation/parole and may experience despair. LE will try to continue “compliance checks” for as long as they can; as things are right now every registrant not on probation or parole is not legally required to submit to this harassment. Whenever I have been approached by LE saying “it’s just a compliance check” their statement have always been a thinly veiled exercise in manufacturing of consent to find something to arrest… Read more »

Thanks moderator.

Im wondering if we can set up a system that if the LE do the “compliance check” the 1st person that get the knock can text/email a website and in return that website will contact ALL rso that signed up warning them that the “red coat’ is coming…

would this be legal?

cool rso: I Think that would be a great idea! Although I’m not sure if it could be accomplished; considering the nature of the general public’s biased attitude towards registrants. I’m pretty sure companies like Google would never allow an app that would help registrants in any way, shape or form in their play store. Another angle to the whole idea is I’ve learned from responses on this site that some registrants willingly accept these compliance checks because they have not had any bad experiences associated with these checks. Who knows; if I had any experiences that weren’t an exercise… Read more »

Excellent, Q. I agree with you completely. It doesn’t matter if LE visiting a person at home, work, or wherever is not a “big deal” to that person or not. No person who is listed on the immoral, un-American Sex Offender Registries should EVER give ANY type of signal that the Registries are acceptable. A Registered person should never allow LE to interact or question them for any reason. Instead, every time a Registered person gets close to LE, he/she should use that opportunity to go off on the SORs and every piece of trash who supports them. I’ve handed… Read more »

Allot of people think they have to submit to these compliance checks and they do. My minds eye paints a picture of a over remorseful registrant whose whole deportment shouts he/she is contrite and subservient. I’m sure that’s an inaccurate representation of the majority of registrants, and equally sure the cops would love to see this in every registrant. But then again………..I sometimes wonder when I have read how different registrants cope with this situation. The fact of the matter is the cops I’ve encountered actively try to place me in this state of mind and don’t seem to like… Read more »

This is a great idea. Use the same modern phenomenon that has allowed businesses to grow their businesses, lead to flash mobs, flash robs and the over throw of dictatorships: social media, specifically: Twitter. Post your alert with the hashtag SOComplianceCheck or some semblance thereof. Here’s a nice tutorial on how to follow a hashtag. There could be repercussions, of course. Imagine the headline: Sex Offenders Evade Compliance Checks through Twitter, etc. Recently a man and his family were kicked off a plane after posting a message critical of the TSA, and another guy earned a visit from the… Read more »

Guys, here is the deal. You don’t even have to answer the door! You don’t have to answer anything! If you do, your dumb! Hello, how can I help you/if you decide to answer the door? Then, they might start to ask questions? Is there a problem? They continue. Thanks again, have a great day/shut the door!

USA: So true, what you say. You don’t have to answer the door. However; there may come a time when you are coming or going and speaking to them will be unavoidable because you’ll be standing there face to face if they show up at this time. What I did was to tell the f-tard he couldn’t come int the house or property. Then I refused to sign the piece of paper. You should follow the links posted by the moderator and read the stories because these posts are a bit more in depth. Anyway; I going to go ahead… Read more »

Those useless a**holes are trying to make the news and give the illusion that they are actually doing something. Hence the harassment of these compliance checks! I had one in March of this year and another in April so I called the police station and told them that I felt like “I was being harassed” and that I was going to take action if it happened again…it has NOT happened again. I suggest that all of you do the same. I told them that I would let them know if I was moving as per the law and that I… Read more »

Tired of hiding

How long has it been since these useless murderers of American citizens have graced you with their presence and worn out lines of BS? What you did sounds like a really good idea.

Tired of hiding, I’m curious – what did the person you talke to on the phone say when you said you felt like you were being harassed?? Everyone that is off probation or parole needs to know it’s ILLEGAL for these people to try and enter your home without a warrant. I had one try to do that to me a year ago, and when I asked why he had to come in his lame answer was “I need to see your bed to show that you live here”. Wtf?? And how would he know it’s *my* bed just by… Read more »

It is what it is:

I had the same experience; several times, but the cops around here always try to regale me with their superior intellect and convince me that I have to submit to whatever they want. But I know different and will not shy away from letting them know this. As previously stated; every year when I renew my registration I have satisfied all legal requirements and I am not obliged to participate in these useless intrusions. And I won’t participate!

Congratulations on your COR. I can only dream……..

Why has no one filed a lawsuit to ban these “compliance checks.” (Quotes because they are not compliance checks, they are organized harassment.) As I have pointed out several times in several threads, if you read 290 closely, it clearly bars law enforcement from doing compliance checks — actually bars such by LIMITING what they can seek for proof of residence. A compliance check is not one the the things they may demand. Under 290 regarding PROOF of residence, the law says it is proven at time of registration by the registrant providing: Copies of adequate proof of residence, which… Read more »

Anonymous Nobody:

Great information which I intend to memorize and use. And I’ll end it by saying to the cop “and you are not the registering official.” “And your trespassing!”

Don’t say anything to him. Simply sue him and his department. In fact, I would venture to say a lawsuit over this could be filed as either seeking an injunction barring it as illegal, or it could be filed as a class action of all registrants subjected to compliance checks by that department. I I’m not sure which I would prefer, but maybe both should be filed separately. The class action could hit the agency with such a huge financial penalty that it would really send a message heard all around California, as all the other police agencies would know… Read more »

If a lawsuit did happen there is no way in hell they could win because of the way the law reads. I’ve read what you quoted; I have a copy and I totally agree with you; these jokers are just making up their own rules and laws with nothing to back them up, they have no law or mandate. Once again, just like these cities and their presence/residency restrictions trying to occupy the field claimed by the state; LE is adding to what we already endure in the states field. If a lawsuit ever does happen I’m all in!

They knowingly throw these abominations on the books knowing they will have to be sorted out in court. So much for upholding the laws of the land and the constitution they are supposedly based upon. With the current scotus on board, don’t hold your breath while they gloat in the punishment that is wreaked on unsuspecting victims of the registry from all sides.

The police can no more show up at your door demanding a compliance check than they can show up at the door of a non-sex-offender felon who completed parole 10 years ago just to see if that person is complying with the law that bars a felon from possessing a gun. They can’t do that — without probable cause and/or a warrant. Neither can they do a compliance check on a registrant without probable cause — your proof of residence has already been done and meets the state standard. Hmmm, none of these other parties are required to register anytime… Read more »

Maybe the following IS an example of regulatory “compliance checks” that can be applied to our situation. In 2009 the ACLU challenged the city of Escondido for its practice of establishing random license check points in the city. Although there is a specific code that prevents an officer from stopping someone solely for checking that he is complying with the license law, one has to wonder if that code was put there to clear up any ambiguity in the boundaries the officer has placed upon him enforcing the drivers license regulation. In particular, this would make it clear what violates… Read more »

I looked up the statute the ACLU is quoting in that Escondido matter. It is clear and unambiguous that stopping a driver simply to check their license is not allowed. See (b) below: The language there is singular and short and very specific. Like what I have said about 290, it bars that practice, and thus the locals cannot decide to do it anyway. The language I have pointed out in 290 is not quite so singularly to the point — but it nonetheless says proof of residence is LIMITED to those documents it lists. Once you have complied with… Read more »

Sorry again. Moderator, nix the last empty post. AND, please give the FULL html code for these things, not just half of it like you do. Where in heck does the backslash go?! Here is the dang section of the Vehicle Code the ACLU was quoting, without blockquote: 14607.6. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, and except as provided in this section, a motor vehicle is subject to forfeiture as a nuisance if it is driven on a highway in this state by a driver with a suspended or revoked license, or by an unlicensed driver, who is a… Read more »

I am wondering if any regulatory law needs to have some sort of guidelines in it stipulating how far law enforcement can go in enforcing the regulation? Or else, what? It can be challenged? Yes? No? I mean there has to be some sort of rules of engagement or we have the Stazi enforcing laws, which is bad, even if the laws aren’t bad enough. I don’t know. Anyone know? This crowd sourcing of ideas and research may help? It’s interesting and confusing. I’m learning anyway. That can’t be bad.

Well, that’s what I’ve been saying: the pertinent guideline for enforcing this is that they need probable cause. The statute doesn’t have to specifically state that, that is an overriding legal requirement.

What you see as obvious is actually BARRED by the 290 law — that is my point. Unless they have probable cause that a particular registrant has moved without notifying them, they can’t go in and check, as 290 bars it. 290 says the standard to determine is already met at time of registration. 290 says the registering agency cannot demand any further proof — and that is exactly what a compliance check is. If 290 specifically bars such compliance checks by barring any further demand to show residency, then they can’t do it. This isn’t open to a matter… Read more »

I note, too, under what I quoted, it is the REGISTRANT who gets to chose which of those things to use as proof of residence, and if in that list, the local agency has no choice but to accept it. Sure, under that last part, law enforcement can deem that a compliance check will serve as proof, but they do not get to impose that. And nonetheless, all the compliance checks are being done on registrants who by law ALREADY have proven their residence. The compliance has already been proven.

Before throwing around the idea of a lawsuit, you have to consider the long-term consequences of that action. As of right now, it’s simply a law which determines what proof is necessary, and many states actually do require some form of verification by law enforcement (written proof sent via the mail, or actual, in-person compliance checks). Most likely, these compliance checks are constitutional, as there is plenty of case law which supports the act of someone knocking on your door as not being trespassing. Examples include door-to-door retailers, religious groups, political groups, right down to the postal service and, yes,… Read more »

Paul – I could not agree with you more!! It’s very unfortunate that many of our fellow registrants have to put up with this invasion on a regular basis, but suing over this will DEFINITELY make some idiot up in Sacramento think this will help him/her get re-elected and make this their soapbox! I, like you , have never had this assault happen to me since I have been off parole. For those of us who have to endure this, STOP PARTICIPATING! JANICE has always said that if you are not on parole/probation DON’T ANSWER THE DOOR, EVER!! Once they… Read more »

Well said Rob. I always carry cards from a couple of attorney’s. If they ever catch me coming or going I’ll just tell them if they want to talk to someone so bad talk to my attorney and hand them a card. Otherwise I’ll let them know I’m not going to participate in their little exercise and tell them why.

No, actually, Janice has not said not to open the door. (But I have in several threads.) Janice has said to step outside to talk with them.

Paul, no matter what some other state is doing, California law bars compliance checks. Its not a question of whether they are unconstitutional on their face, it is a matter of we specifically have a law in California that bars them. Yes, if we did not have that law, there would be nothing barring police from going to your door and requesting information — just as anyone can go knock on your door, as the walkway to your door is considered to be implied public access unless otherwise noted. But that is not the point — the point is that… Read more »

“California law bars compliance checks.”

your source on this?

that link you just posted have
32 pages and 20,554 words in it
oh wait… 126.978 characters with spaces in them
can you narrow it down a bit?

Look above. I started this with quoting the part of 290 you are asking about.

Please cite the law that specifically bars them.

“Copies of adequate proof of residence, which shall be limited to a California driver’s license, California identification card, recent rent or utility receipt, printed personalized checks or other recent banking documents showing that person’s name and address, or any other information THAT THE REGISTERING OFFICIAL BELIEVES IS RELIABLE.” Notice it doesn’t say “that some cop showing up unannounced at your residence arbitrarily decides he/she is willing to accept.” Once you do your annual update you have met ALL LEGAL REQUIREMENTS and are not required to submit to compliance checks. Follow the links posted by the moderator towards the top of… Read more »

Q, actually, as I noted about that point above, that law is saying what the REGISTRANT must do and so telling what the REGISTRANT has a choice of providing to show residency. It is not giving the police the ability to make a demand of how you show residence, although it is letting them discretion to allow you to prove your residency in other ways if you seek to do that. My GUESS is that that was done to PREVENT police from creating trouble for the registrants, and maybe preventing them from registering so that they could be arrested. If… Read more »

Unfortunately, it does not specifically prohibit compliance checks. And that’s the point here: file a suit and, suddenly, it will. If you think, even for a nanosecond, that Sacramento will not resolve that, and quickly, then you are putting far too much trust and faith in this state’s lawmakers.

It prohibits ANY demand for proof of residence beyond the list provided in 290. Compliance checks are NOT in that list. That is very specific.

Also, I would not fail to challenge this, or other things that violate registrants, such as the location laws Janice has challenged around the state as being preempted, simply because registrants in a few places are not suffering from them. Gee, that logic says that Janice has been wrong in challenging all the locations laws by municipalities around the state. After all, under your logic, the state could simply change the law to require municipalities to establish location restrictions, or could simply put such restrictions in the state law. Under your logic, nothing in sex offender registration could be challenged… Read more »

Do you honestly think that local city council members are not plotting and planning with their state counterparts, for a way to resolve this and give themselves some leeway in passing their own restrictions? I think that what Janice is doing is absolutely wonderful! I really do! But I am not so naive as to believe that this is over. Someone in Sacramento is going to make it their point to “fix” this, and none of the other members will want to rock that boat, and so will go right along with it to avoid the appearance of being friendly… Read more »

If you say Janice challenging local location restrictions against registrants is wonderful then it makes no sense to oppose — and maybe Janice doing it — a challenge to local action to do compliance checks. Hey, LAPD wasn’t enforcing any location restrictions, but you applaud suing over them. How can you say that because LAPD isn’t using compliance checks that a suit should not be filed to challenge them? Can’t you see how illogical that is? What would you say if LAPD started doing compliance checks as of Aug. 1? You think this isn’t possible? You think you are immune… Read more »

And, lastly, I have no earthly idea how you concluded that I have not experienced compliance checks. Not in Los Angeles, and not in Chino Hills. But I have lived in Long Beach, and areas around the San Gabriel Valley, and I assure you that I have had my fair share of cops knocking on my door to ensure that I was compliant!

I’m not sure about a lawsuit either. I have no idea of its likelihood of success. But it is hard to imagine how legally required “compliance checks” at a person’s residence would/could work or if they could be legal. Would the law simply say that a Registered person must always speak to a LE officer who comes to his/her home? Would a Registered person have to make appointments for it in order to ensure it gets completed? Anyway, a wall or fence around a person’s property works very well. Then if you happen to run into one of a criminal… Read more »

What would solve this problem once and for all is to take us off of probation once and for all. That should be our end game, to bring punishment back in line with the Constitution. My probation ended in 2005. There are no other issues: I had offended, I was caught, I repented, did the service required of me, never re- offended, and now am a free citizen under the Constitution. Then it began again in 2005. The only difference is before 2005 I was under the jurisdictional oversight of a court and under the Constitution. Now I am under… Read more »


Agreed; the registry needs to go south- waaay south and be totally gone. I only dwell on it when I see an article post here, or when they come to my residence; which chaps me really bad, sometimes for weeks!

I dont know why they do these compliance checks. It appears to me they don’t know where the criminals are living, but get off on pretending. The system has turned them into buffoons, chasing shadows. I watch with utter disbelief at their antics. The bad guys are often under their noses, like those two in Orange County.

Tim: I can tell you a few reasons why they would do “compliance checks” and there are likely many more: 1) If I ran an SOR for a criminal regime and I thought that having accurate addresses of Registered people did actually prevent crime, then I would want to verify that the addresses were accurate. If I could and had time, I would like to observe the people actually being at those addresses as often as I could. LE may also think that their visits contribute to people not committing crimes (I personally think the opposite is true, but whatever).… Read more »

Those are some excuses for doing the checks. Another is that we are easy targets. If I had a choice between going to a drug dealer’s house or a registrant, I would pick the registrant. Its a much safer bet and you get more public brownie points for less effort.

Don’t let them attempting to visit you bother you. If you do, then I feel like they are winning. One thing that I will not let the criminal regimes and their harassing supporters do is make me feel bad. I don’t mind when LE attempts to visit people because I feel like it is good to waste their resources. The more time and money they waste doing that, the less they are able to harass people. And Registered people can and should use the visits as opportunities to show anyone watching just how unacceptable the SORs are. You ought to… Read more »

Yes, of course all registration should be eliminated (not even for a shorter time than life). I note, in many cases, registration is a LOT worse than probation was. I’m sure there are a lot of people subject to registration who got summary probation and never had to do anything other than maybe mail in a notice each month saying they are still living in the same place. And that was all. That is WAY less that this 290 et al crap. So, 290 et al is WORSE than the punishment they were subjected to for their offense. Summary probation… Read more »

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x