ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (3/20 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings

Action ItemsCalifornia

CA Sex Offender Management Board to Discuss Tiered Registry Bill

The California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) will discuss at its meeting on November 20 a tiered registry bill that would allow some registered citizens to leave the registry in either 10 or 20 years.  The meeting will be held at 660 Bercut Drive, Sacramento, from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. and is open to the public who may speak up to 3 minutes.

“Copies of the draft bill have not been made available to the public, however, the bill was discussed at the CASOMB meeting in September and that bill appears to be consistent with the CASOMB report issued in April 2014,” stated CA RSOL President Janice Bellucci.

During the CASOMB meeting in September, an option that was not in the CASOMB report was revealed — automatic termination of registration requirements after 30 years provided that the individual did not commit another sex offense.  There were many questions asked regarding this option during the September meeting and further discussion of the option is expected at the November meeting.

Note: Thursday November 20 is the correct date []

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.  
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

So who is going to decide who is staying and who is leaving?

The CA Sex Offender Management Board is not a decision making body, that is, it cannot pass new laws. Instead, it is a recommendation making body. If the Board recommends passage of a tiered registry bill, it is more likely although not a guarantee that the state legislature will approve it.

Janice, I’ve seen sometimes conflicting, or at least, confusing, explanations of three-tier delineations. Is it clear to you if California’s Sex Offender Management Board is recommending that those whose victims were under 14 (or more than one, in number) be accorded the most serious level as a matter of policy? There is also the distinction of offense-based vs. risk-based evaluation. If it were to move towards a risk-based system, would it be based substantially, or entirely, upon an absence of subsequent criminal convictions or would it be weighted along with offense characteristics? I would hope that it would not be… Read more »

David, It seems the only way you could be put into the lifetime registration is if you are a sexually violent predator, kidnapper, or offenders with repeat violent sexual offenses and high risk offenders**The high risk offender had an asteriks and below it says high risk offenders with a Static 99 over 6. Having multiple victims doesn’t mater on the Static 99 it even says so when it describes how to score it in their coding rules. You get into to trouble when you’ve had previous convicitions whether it’s a sexual offense or not it’s counted in their point scheme.… Read more »

Well after reading this morning you are correct. It seems the static 99 is out the door.

what are some way we can help pressure state legislature to approve it

If we go to the event will Janice or Chance be available counsel to brief us prior to speaking? Why I ask is we might need to know those attending the subject-line involvement and what should NOT be brought up for discussion..focus points best considered.

Yes, we are available for consultation prior to the meeting. Our general advice is to keep comments focused upon the need for a tiered registry. It is not a time to discuss why you are on the registry however it would be appropriate to discuss the impact of registration requirements on employment, housing, education, etc.

The Sex Offender Registries (SOR) need to go away. A “tiered” one just makes it less evil and heinous. I also feel like there are a number of people listed on an SOR that think SORs would be acceptable just as long as they were not listed (e.g. a Tier 1 that is not publicly listed). But that’s wrong. The SORs are not acceptable for anyone. Let parole really, really handle people who they think are actually dangerous and let them do it during parole periods. After that ends, it’s over. No new punishments over and over again, for life.… Read more »

I am intrigued by how you can defeat advocates for the registry. I’d like to defeat them every waking moment. I may die tomorrow, and never get off this hit list alive, bit I don’t want to die having supported even in a muddled down fashion something that has caused me and many others such pointless suffering.

Agreed! I personally think our efforts would be better served getting the SCOTUS to acknowledge that registration is unending punishment and therefore unconstitutional.

Timmr: Please excuse my rambling (and the length), but I’m short on time. My response to you is: Amen. Resolve that the Sex Offender Registries (SORs) are unacceptable and that you will never accept even a tiny sliver of them. I have said many times that the SORs could likely be acceptable if 1) they were only used so people could be “informed”, 2) a person listed on them had zero obligations/restrictions/punishment/harassment related to or caused by the SORs, and 3) all the other Registries (e.g. Gun Offender Registry, Drunk Driver Registry, Battery Registry) that should exist did exist. But… Read more »

Wow. That’s a lot to think about. I don’t know where to start. Anyway, I’ve been turning a lot of this angst into a destructive force against myself, itstead of directing it at the people who do me and mine harm. One thing I’ve learned we are invisible to them. They expect to find us alone, homeless, lurking around parks, unemployed, da da da, the boogey man, not the family man, the successful business person, the honest person. That possibility scares the willies out of them, that we are no different than they, or maybe on balance better than they.… Read more »

Timmr: Yes, exactly. Do not direct the anger and despair of the Registries inward. Direct it into productive action. Make it work for you and motivate you. I have found that I am quite a bit more moral than most people who support the SORs. I really don’t think good, decent people support the SORs in their current dysfunctional state. I feel that most people who *zealously* support the SORs have something wrong with them. Many of them are psychotic. I do think being very successful is the best retaliation. There so many Registered people who say they can’t find… Read more »

FRegistryTerrorists, thank you for responding so fully to my posts. I agree, I owe nothing to any except those I actually harmed and I am doing what I know how to make our lives happier. This system requires you to be a witness against yourself by going down to the local police office and declare that you are a threat to society. Essentially this public wants to expose you to harm to your life and limb, and in the case of residency restrictions, take your property, for some anonymous victim’s fear of you. It is un-American and un-civilized.

Well—-someone is putting a bill in the legislature to improve the sorry lot of registered citizens? I realize there are lots of registered citizens et cetera who know much more about all this than I do, but I say: let’s get behind something like this and move the ball forward. And may I add: when I was incarcerated at the CRC in Norco, I met a lot of sex offenders. To be perfectly blunt about it, they were wimpy guys who wouldn’t so much as steal a pencil from you, much less constitute any sort of menace to other people.… Read more »

A question and a point:

Question: Since past requirements to register were made retroactive, would this bill be retroactive?
So that people who would fall into one of the categories where registrations was, say, tiered for 10 years, could then automatically stop registering, if they had been registering for 10 years or more?

Point: The public can speak for 3 whole minutes? WOW. Better for a group of people to get to together and and each yield their 3 minutes to one person to be able to make a complete point. Can it work like that?

Yes, the bill would be retroactive. I doubt that the Board would allow one person to speak more than 3 minutes.

Conversely: If someone were registered for 10 years would be re-tiered for the longer registration periods, would that actually make their registration periods worse, including the potential to return a previously-expired registrant back to the registry?

Eric how would it be possible to be “re-tired” in their proposed registry? The only way I can think of that happening is if someone never took a static 99 and had previous convictions.

It could be possible if the new tiers that are created actually designate a longer registration period, or for those who were taken off the registry through a letter by the state DOJ. Again, I’m not trying to rationalize how this will be done. I’m simply airing out a possiblity, especially based upon the results of other states who had created tiered registries and subsequently retiered those who were in lower categories or, in fact, had expired off the registry. Obviously, the tiered registry overall is better than our current system. I stipulate that point. My point is to ensure… Read more »

As a resident of a state that recently implemented the SORNA tiered structure (Pennsylvania), let me add my two cents. Prior to Dec. 2012, PA had 10yr registration and lifetime registration. When SORNA was implemented it not only lengthened registration for everyone (15yrs, 25yrs, or life), but it’s retroactivity included those who had completed their registration. In addition, SORNA added more offenses to the registry and its retroactivity made previously convicted offenders required to now register. Now, I realize CA is not a SORNA state and has purposely chosen not to be, but please watch carefully as this bill is… Read more »

Well, I think this is a wonderful article. As everyone is aware, when a law goes into affect, it goes into affect. There are a number of individuals who are probably in their 80’s who have been on the registry for years! So, I would clearly imagine that if someone has been on the registry for 30 years and had no issues, they would fall off. IN addition, as many people are aware, most states have the 10 and 20 year rule where minor offenders fall off after 10 years, more serious offenders after 20 and the most serious are… Read more »

I think the ten year requirement is still too much for many people with lesser offenses including failure to register. 5 years should be sufficient for almost anyone who hasn’t done a completely heinous crime. Perhaps an additional low level tier. Any way to bring that up at the meeting?

Failure to register is not a sex offense. In the 46 states that have a tiered registry, 10 years is the lowest number of years on the first tier. In some states, the lowest tier is 15 years. I doubt that our state legislature will agree to less than 10 years.

Yes, 10 years is the minimum time on the registry across the USA, but Iowa allows Registry modification for Hofsheier type (“Statutory rape”) offenses if you completed treatment and are low risk of only 2 years on the registry and other offenses can be reduced to 5 years on the registry. (This does not apply to California “For Life” offenses on relocation.) According to Iowa Criminal Code 692A et al (Registration): In order to qualify for modification if you are currently on probation, parole, work release, special sentence, or some other conditional release all of the following must apply: •… Read more »

In addition, if I’m not mistaken, a registry violation, especially one that results in a felony conviction, may also allow the state to change the tier level of a registrant from lower to higher. (Actually, this applies to any felony or even some misdemeanors.)

As I read the proposal, it seems like that would be true if failure to to register is considered another violent felony, or the act puts you over the top with a score of 6 on the STATIC 99.
Right now, FTR is punished like a violent felony, which to me signifies the lawmakers (not the Board) may make not having a FTR a condition of staying on tier II. Who knows?

The website is ,
It says the meeting is TUESDAY, November 20, 2014.
But TUESDAY is November 18, 2014.
November 20 is THURSDAY.
Last month the meeting was Tuesday, October 28, 2014.

Would someone please post the correct information.
Is CA-RSOL going to hold a meeting prior to the CASOMB meeting so that we can coordinate and focus our three minute presentations?

Thanks for pointing out the discrepancy. Several sources have confirmed that the meeting is on Thursday, November 20 (not Tuesday, November 18). The website may be wrong due to the fact that the Board’s meeting in October was on a Tuesday. As for “training”, we will conduct “training” at the meeting site. The meeting starts at 9 a.m. and yet the tiered registry bill won’t be discussed until later. We will find a location nearby for the “training”.

I went to the Adam Walsh refunding act in DC, we weren’t allowed to speak, now you have the chance, I can only hope some of you have the gut’s to take off work and speak up. someone needs to post the Government address and room number on this website and across CA.

I am seriously considering going up there however if I can’t my main question would be about the Static 99. How are they going to administer that to people who have never had one and it’s been longer than 10 years since conviction? Also, there is a provision for 20 year folks who can get off the Megan’s site but still have to register. How would that work?

The state can’t make up its mind on what Stat 99 they should give people online… Mine was a Zero last year, now its a blank

I intend to write my three minute presentation. This source suggests that a three minute speech should have no more than 500 words. 80 to 150 written words per minute of speech, perhaps as high as 180.

Will it be appropriate to submit a document that includes and “extends” our oral testimony?

Yes, written comments can also be provided by those who attend.

In a perfect scenario … the Board makes the suggestion and the state legislature approves it. How long would it take for the tiered system to be ‘real’? This, in conjunction with the residency restrictions (hopefully decided to be unconstitutional) could prove to be a blessing for many folks. 12/2 public hearing, 90 days to decide … how long for the tiered? Could it all happen at about the same time??? Or, I’m guessing this is probably not something that can be pinpointed/answered. Just looking/hoping for a silver lining – somewhere.

I read somewhere to be implemented 2017, of course all depends on when the legislature puts it to vote.

At its meeting in September, the Board discussed passage of the bill in 2015 and taking effect two years later, in 2017. This could change especially if there is lobbying to change it. Bills usually go into effect the following January so if the bill were passed in September 2015, it would “usually” go into effect January 2016.

How did judge Buhl say it in the other topic…oh yeah….’its not risk based..its conviction based”.

Yes Clark, injustice loves efficiency. Too much trouble to bring back 100,000 to court to assess risk with body of evidence for each individual. Instead, much less time consuming to paste 1, 2 or 3 labels on by conviction to determine who is released from after the sentence punishment. For years they stood behind the laws which filled the registry, and then the economy tanked and they can get no more money and found they had too many hostages to take care of. They have to get rid of some to make things easier. And so by happy coincidence, some… Read more »

I do have a question regarding charges. Now, this is a topic that I’ve not read about. Now, its stating that the Board wants to make people register for either 10 years, 20 years or life, depending upon the crime ect. Now, does the time start after your plea? After being released from prison or county jail? Just curious. Also, I have another question. I plead non contest that was a wobbler, reduced to a misdemeanor and expunged with summary probation? Any thoughts? How long? In California, its a other conviction. Lastly, how do I know if I have to… Read more »

“depending upon the crime ect” – USA where does it say that in the CASOMB tier paper?
I thought I read it would start after your “release date”. The old Ammiano bill had it starting from the first date you registered.

USA never mind my question to you. You were talking about when you first would have to register.

It is confusing…

Tier Three Lifetime Sexually Violent Predators; kidnappers; offenders with repeat violent sex offenses; high-risk** sex offenders Tier Two 20 years “Serious” or “Violent” * felony sex offenders who are not high-risk* sex offenders Tier One 10 years Non “Serious” and non “Violent” sex offenders; all misdemeanor sex offenders * These are felony offenses described as serious or violent in PC 667.5 and 1192.7, plus 269 and 288.7. ** High risk is defined as scoring 6 or above on the Static-99 or Static-99R. *** Petition for removal from Megan’s Law public web site is permitted if the individual has not been… Read more »

No, in essence, I was asking when would the time frames start? For example, the new Tier system in California would require you to register for either 10 years, 20 years or for life. I would imagine the time frame would begin upon your release. Furthermore, I wonder what the duration would be based upon? Misdemeanor 10 years? Felony 20 years? Now, what if you are only required to register if your offense was a misdemeanor and your charge was a wobbler and reduced to a misdemeanor persuant to 17B? By law, you have never been convicted of a felony?


The California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) decided at its meeting on November 20 to support a draft tiered registry bill that includes the termination of registration requirements for some registered citizens after 10, 20 and 30 years of their conviction while continuing lifetime registration for others. The text of the draft bill has not yet been released to the public but its contents were discussed during the CASOMB meeting. According to discussions at the meeting, the bill would designate registered citizens as Tier 1 (10 year), Tier 2 (20 year) and Tier 3 (lifetime) based upon factors including original… Read more »

Misdemeanors are tier 1 and felony are tier 2, what about those set up in internet stings and had no victim but yet charged with a felony?

Any info in the bill about those who move to California who were convicted in other states? Will a lifetime registrant in another state also need to register for life in California?

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x