ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings: Nov 21, Dec 19 – Details / Recordings

Emotional Support Group Meetings 2020 (Phone only)

California

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

Join the discussion

  1. Q

    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 me for; I’ve been off of probation for well over ten years and I have discovered I am not obligated to participate. Beware! These failures at honoring the oath they took will act as though participation is a legal requirement; IT’S NOT, and they will lie to you and say it is.

    All you have to do to send them packing is stand up for yourself. I’m aware there are allot of people posting on this site that don’t think participating is a big deal. Obviously they have had a very different experience that I have. If they are to willing to participate in and give legitimacy to this unsanctioned act that’s their business. I’m not built that way and I will stand up for myself once I feel enough is enough. I’ll admit it was a bit unsettling because I was doing something I had never done before. But I did it and I will do it again.

    I posted two of my experiences on this site in the “living with 290 – your story” in the story section. Only one of the two is still there; the one I wrote before I actually refused to participate is still there. It’s titled “Compliance Checks” and I encourage anyone who doesn’t like these intrusions to read it.

    The other one, where I actually refused to participate to a cops face when the cop was trying to talk his way onto the property and into the house is not there. It’s too bad because it’s a good, useful and insightful story and there are allot of good comments. That one is titled “Compliance checks II.” It is very relevant to anyone living under the boot of this punitive society that is so willing to walk all over you.

    If anyone wishes to read “Compliance Checks II” and learn from my experience and the experience of others just ask and I will gladly re-post it. Perhaps the site moderator could put it back up?

  2. cool rso

    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?

    • Q

      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 by some mentally marginal cop in trying to walk all over me and attempting to get me to fore fit my rights by way of lies, intimidation and coercion I too might be one of the ones that willingly accept these unsanctioned by law or mandate intrusions into my life.

      Each year when I go to the local cop shop and renew my lifetime probation by way of the registry I’ve met ALL legal requirements and am well within my rights to refuse to participate in any compliance checks, like that ridiculous operation boo. I think most people fear these cops and feel it’s easier to just submit. I personally can not and will not submit because I’m offended by this whole lie that is the “sex offender.” It’s illegal, unconstitutional and the men on the supreme court that allowed this violation of basic human rights need to get honest and right this crime against humanity before the numbers of dead people and destroyed lives of little innocent children and other family members climbs any higher than it already is.

      • FRegistryTerrorists

        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 LE flyers of upside-down American flags that say “Sex Offender Registries” in big letters across them. Told them to hang them at their desks. They loved them.

        And just as kind of an aside, the legislators in my state are sick of hearing from me. Some have seemed about to attempt to murder me. A lot of them are serious crybabies who can’t take much. They get so angry. But I told them that as long as the SORs exist, they can expect as much trouble as I’m able to deliver.

        Every Registered person should enclose their properties with a wall or fencing, if they are able. They should never allow LE onto their properties. Show them that there is still part of America left and that they just can’t do anything they want.

        • Q

          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 it very much when this doesn’t happen. I think registrants not accepting these compliance checks could turn into a double edged sword, encouraging some sort of law making compliance mandatory; and on the other side of the coin it could make it OK only if the registrant is on probation or parole. So I guess I’m a bit torn that allot of registrants don’t resist as I do. I also think this is the only way LE can make it look like these laws actually do something and that they are actively protecting the public from registrants. But we know the truth.

    • C

      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.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEt-7d5w3Bg

      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 cops after posting the suggestion that CHP cop be executed for pummeling citizen.

      While there are caveats, I still think it is a great idea. It just needs to used sensibly and kept above board, like this forum.

  3. USA

    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!

  4. Tired of hiding

    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 would see them at my annual registration BUT that they did NOT have any need to check up on me!

    Don’t let them intimidate you at all. Remember that this is a joke and they work for us…remember that whole “public servant” BS. Well, apply it!

    • Q

      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.

  5. It is what it is

    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 looking at it? It was an obvious ploy just to enter my home and snoop around in a vain attempt to nail me with something – anything – to give him probable cause.

    Needless to say I told him he could not come in and he looked at me and then walked away without sayibg a word. I was very stressed out for a month after that expecting him or others to come back, but nobody has been back since and that was over a year ago.

    Since then I have received a certificate of rehabilitation and no longer have to register. I’m just waiting for them to come again because I’m sure they still have my “file” in their active “compliance check” harassment pile. I can’t wait to show them my paperwork from the court, DOJ, and my attorney, and then tell them any further visits to my home will be considered harassment for which I WILL take legal action.

    • Q

      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……..

  6. Anonymous Nobody

    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 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.

    I don’t see “compliance check” in the list of allowable things for PROOF of residence! And the proof is clearly LIMITED to that list only, is not subject to any local agency adding on whatever further requirements it might like to add on to “prove” residence, such as a compliance check. These local compliance checks are clearly preempted by state law.

    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.

    There should be a lawsuit to seek a restraining order against these checks, maybe even to seek damages and make money off of them having been done illegally. At least to bar them absent probable cause.

    According to 290, you PROVE your residence when you register — by providing your “proof of residence” by showing one of the list of items the law allows to show prove residence, normally your driver’s license but some other things acceptable too, as in the list above. The law specifically says that is “proof.” The law specifically says the authorities cannot demand anything more to show your residence, it “limits” what they may demand — and I don’t see how confronting you for a compliance check — demanding it — can possibly be allowed under that language. A compliance check is a demand for further proof of residency, a demand that 290 specifically bars.

    Registrants should not have to scurry around trying to figure out their best way to deal with compliance checks that are barred by law. Registrants should not be exposed to the scare and imposition such a check imposes. Registrants should not be outed to neighbors who see and hear the police going to their door, and announcing loudly that they are there for a sex offender compliance check. Registrants should not be subjected to the harassment of these checks — and harassment is the ONLY purpose of them, not to confirm compliance that ALREADY has been confirmed under the legal standard for such.

    I note, the one time a compliance check might be legal is if you are on probation or parole. You do not have the same rights when you are under that. But once off, a compliance check is barred by 290 — at least absent probable cause. There was a mention in this Ventura story about probation and parole, although it did not say those were the only people involved in this sweep

    • Q

      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!”

      • Anonymous Nobody

        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 they have something real to lose, as opposed to seeking an injunction, which would leave them feeling they had nothing to lose by continuing this until they are barred from doing so. It would be nice if the amount awarded in a class action would utterly crush that department, forcing it to make cutbacks — with lawyers pointing out that if they had so many officers that they had nothing better to do with them then send them out to harass all these people, then a crushing amount forcing cutbacks is not excessive nor would it put the public at harm.

        And wouldn’t it be so nice for registrants to make some money off a class action, for once to be compensated for the wrong done to them.

        • Q

          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!

        • j

          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.

    • wonderin

      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 they change their residence.

      Arguably, these compliance checks are just part of the regulatory process of assuring registrants haven’t moved within their annual registration or abiding at multiple residences and etc.

      You might say that these door knockers are regulatory agents and abiding within the parameters of the registry enforcement guidelines governing registered citizens.

      If this process was clearly constitutionally illegal (as your example of a personal search without probable cause or warrant) than it would be a horse of a different color.

      • Tim

        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 a drivers privacy and be consistent with the Constitution. The 290 laws have no such clarifiers, but they should. It is our (and our loved ones) privacy that is being violated; and the penalties for not being compliant are severe, creating a threatening situation that is not in the same genera as a salesman coming to your door selling herbal remedies. I’ve copied this link to an editorial about the Escondido ordinance:
        http://m.utsandiego.com/news/2010/jan/04/illegal-checkpoints-escondidos-traffic-stops-may-v/
        If you substitute RSO for immigrant it doesn’t alter the main points of the editorial, especially about the ordinance existing to force a disfavored group to move out. I would ague the purpose of these types of ordinances is to keep the disfavored group afraid and politicalky impotant. Escondido is decidedly Latino in the center lowlands where the license checks occured, surrounded by white middle and upper classs ranchettes on the surrounding hills where nearly all the representation on the city council lives. Probably most of the RSO’s reside in the poor center also. Can’t check that out without violating the law myself.

        • Anonymous Nobody

          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 the law, you have complied — there is no chasing you down without probable cause to see if you are complying — -the law requires you to show that only once a year (generally speaking, it depends on your offense and situation, of course). Your compliance — including proving residence — is already done.

          You are not under probation or parole conditions in which you can be physically checked at any time. So, you are no more subject to a compliance check than anyone in the population. Should they go to everyone’s door and check them out to see if they are supposed to be registering or not? No, they can’t do that, not anymore than they can do a compliance check on someone who already has fully complied with the law and proven where they reside. In either case, they would need probable cause for that check.

          If they want to check, and you used your driver’s license to prove residence, all they have to do is check the DMV record from the police station, not harass and confront you at the door, which is illegal to do. If they find a new address on your DMV record, then they have probable cause. If it remains the same, they better not go knocking at your door.

          If that language I have cite din 290 were not there, this would be a much more difficult matter to fight. But the language IS there.

        • Anonymous Nobody

          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 registered owner of the vehicle at the time of
          impoundment and has a previous misdemeanor conviction for a violation
          of subdivision (a) of Section 12500 or Section 14601, 14601.1,
          14601.2, 14601.3, 14601.4, or 14601.5.
          (b) A peace officer shall not stop a vehicle for the sole reason
          of determining whether the driver is properly licensed.

        • Tim

          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.

        • Anonymous Nobody

          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.

      • Anonymous Nobody

        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 of opinion as the law has overridden any such opinion. That’s the point.

  7. Anonymous Nobody

    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.

  8. Paul

    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, law enforcement.

    Right now, many registrants live in areas which rarely, if ever, conduct in-person compliance checks. Examples include the City of Los Angeles and, from my own experience, Chino Hills.

    If a lawsuit is filed, the likely result is some lawmaker(s) becoming artificially outraged and feeling the need to change the law to REQUIRE in-person compliance checks. Since the constitutionality of such checks are likely to pass muster, areas where in-person checks were rarely if ever conducted, will now become mandatory as state law will require them.

    In other words, a lawsuit is actually more likely to hurt us, rather than help us.

    Just my two cents.

    • Rob

      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 begin getting the message that we refuse to participate in their invasions, they will give up.

      • Q

        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.

      • Anonymous Nobody

        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.

    • Anonymous Nobody

      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 California law specifically bars compliance checks, unlike law in other states. Oh, the police can go to your door, but not for a compliance check.

      • cool rso guy

        “California law bars compliance checks.”

        your source on this?

      • C

        Please cite the law that specifically bars them.

        • Q

          “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 this thread and be sure you read the comments too 🙂

        • Anonymous Nobody

          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 my guess is correct, than even the intent of that clause in 290 is to block harassment of the registrant about proving residency. And that would only lend even more support to it barring compliance checks. That clause is clearly written in a manner to limit what police can do.

      • Paul

        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.

        • Anonymous Nobody

          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.

  9. Anonymous Nobody

    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 ever — because the Legislature could always respond simply by changing the law to do it anyway.

    For one, you presume the law would be changed not to simply allow but to mandate. While there could be room to challenge even that, nonetheless, the Legislature is just as likely or more likely to change to law to simply allow compliance check, not require them. Hey, if LAPD wants to do compliance checks, they could proceed the same as all the places that do do them. They don’t want to do them, they would rather do other things with their budget. And in the state Legislature, LA has the most votes of anywhere. It is quite possible that LA lawmakers would allow a law change, but not to a mandate, only to an option. Municipalities around the state are already exercising it as an option.

    Its also just plain wrong to leave all the registrants in most places around the state suffering under these compliance checks just because some registrants do not. You simply cannot say to sacrifice all the others because you don’t want to be bothered. Hey, they don’t want to be bothered either — nor do they want to be outed to neighbors hearing and seeing the police at their door when otherwise no one had bothered to check the registration list and know they were registered. Your driver’s license already proves your residence, as you can’t get it any way other than by mail to your residence. So do your utility bills. All the things on the list of acceptable proof really do prove your residence.

    • Paul

      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 to us. When that happens, cities WILL have the authority to come down hard, and we’ll find ourselves right back in court.

      • Anonymous Nobody

        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 from them, so to hell with everyone else around the state? In reality, you have no protection against them — and they could show up at your door at any time. And in fact, LAPD has been known to do them (as posted by some others in other threads), just not as widespread as some other cities.

    • Paul

      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!

      • FRegistryTerrorists

        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 government’s law enforcement “outside the wall” one day, just simply tell them that it’s nothing personal (unless you support the SOR stupidity, and then it is very personal) but that you are not able to support LE for any reason and will never have anything to say to them. It is completely effective.

        If a person is not able to put up a wall or fence, then I would expect a “no trespassing” sign should be effective. How about a sign that says, “No trespassing. If you have not been explicitly invited onto this property then you are requested to leave immediately. Do not knock on this door or remain near this residence.”?

        As far as a person who was worried about neighbors seeing big government LE there, I would get over that. You need to stand up and accept what you did but know that it does not define who or what you are. People have done bad things. You can accept responsibility for that but it does not mean that you have to pay for it forever. It does not make you less of a person if you are a good person today.

        Lastly, we definitely should not call these big government visits “compliance checks”. That is far too nice of a term for them and they do not deserve it. Anyone have any good ideas? “Gestapo visit”? “Harassment visit”? “Government waste”? “Government grandstanding”? “Nanny Big Government Registry Grandstanding?”

  10. Tim

    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 the whims of any legislative body, labeling me a lifetime sex offender without a new specific charge being made against me, without proof, that wants to make rules restricting my life. Yes, this “probation light” is not as bad as being in jail or on court ordered probation, but it is like holding a feather, light for the first five minutes, then it becomes heavier the longer you hold onto it. Better to not dwell on it all the time, unless you want these legislative torturers to break your sanity.

    • Q

      Tim:

      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!

      • Tim

        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.

        • FRegistryTerrorists

          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).

          2) They need to cover their butts. If a crime occurs or the media snoops around and finds out that they are not doing “compliance checks”, then they could have problems.

          3) They use it as a PR stunt to “show” everyone just how much they are needed and why they need more tax money. Are there any LE agencies in the U.S. that do not want to grow larger and get more money? Not many.

        • Tim

          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.

      • FRegistryTerrorists

        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 print up some flyers for them and pass them out when they come around. I like one of an upside-down American flag with anti-SOR facts on it. It really pisses some people off and that makes me very happy.

        The other thing about “dwelling” on the SORs is that Registered people should not do that to any extent that it makes them unhappy. However, I do think it is good to keep the SORs in mind every day just as a reminder that you should be identifying people who support them and taking any actions possible to lower the quality of their lives. For me, it is just a normal way of life, almost like a game at this point, and not only does it not bother me, but I get satisfaction when I know I have harmed people who support the SORs. They are people who harass and steal from my family and they get what they deserve.

  11. Anonymous Nobody

    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 is held to be punishment and a form of custody. 290 et all is held to be no punishment of any sort. When the courts are this dishonest, the Dark Ages are upon us once again.

Leave a Reply

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 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.  
 

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

.