Ventura County, Calif. – The Ventura County Sheriff’s Office conducted a sex offender compliance check Saturday, officials said Tuesday. Full Article
Related posts
-
New California Appellate Court Ruling Could Have Deadly Consequences
A San Francisco Appellate Court recently ruled that parole agents do not have to comply with the... -
TN: Multi-day sex offender compliance operation completed in Carroll Co.
Source: wbbjtv.com 2/23/23 HUNTINGDON, Tenn. — Multiple law enforcement agencies joined this week to conduct a... -
OH: Surprise survey finds compliance among registered sexual offenders
Source: dispatch.com 12/13/22 Several law-enforcement agencies Dec. 2 conducted unannounced checks of 40 registered sex offenders...
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?
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?
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!
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!
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.
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:
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
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, 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.
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.
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.
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.