State high court passes up chance to go easier on sex offenders

A divided state Supreme Court voted Wednesday to leave intact a ruling requiring lifetime registration for certain non-forcible sex offenders, an issue that split Gov. Jerry Brown’s two most recent appointees.

The court had voted 5-2 on Jan. 29 to reinstate a 1947 California law requiring anyone convicted of non-forcible oral copulation with a minor to register with police as a sex offender. Registration, which is also mandatory for violent sex offenders, enters their names and addresses on a publicly available database and prohibits them from living near a school or a park. Full Article

Related

Janice’s Journal: A Reflection on Hofsheier
Janice’s Journal: Buckle your Seatbelts
CA Supreme Court Decision Harms Registered Citizens
He’s Not a Sex Offender, Married Man Says

Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of
We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. 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.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. 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.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email 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.  
 

13 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

i was gearing up for a hofsheier hearing… now i’m SOL.

i still think that “possibility” of pregnancy idea is stupid. now some genius lawmaker will try to say, only if it resulted in a pregnancy, they won’t make you register

Well, this is certainly bad news for those who will now go onto the registry. My argument might be: what about those of us who are on the registry for misdemeanor battery/expunged or misdemeanor indicent exposure? Is it worst to have oral copulation with a minor or be convicted of touching someone without their consent, who isn’t underage? Or, to expose yourself? Maybe the courts should take a look at this instead!

If they didn’t have to register before and now will be required, then the registry is going to swell and push the numbers far beyond 100k.

This is the very reason why I have to register and the irony is, this NEVER happened in my case. The OCDA tacked it on there to guarantee a new SO registrant. Like the naive fool that I was, I pled to it because I was too scared to face a biased jury trial.

I have a clean record thanks to a 17B and 1203.4, but I still must register because of it. I never had so much disdain for one person like T-Rack.

This is one giant step back into the Victorian Age… it truly boggles the mind.

What will now happen to people who

– were never required to register after a 288a(b)(1) or 289(h) conviction?
– who were required to register pre 2006 but were relieved after Hofsheier?

Will they be actively sought out and made to come in and register? Will the next arrest / contact with the courts trigger the registration requirement? Will a traffic ticket accomplish this?

How many might there be? People like Mr. Hofsheier himself. Would love to hear what he has to say.

Or this person

http://patch.com/california/marinadelrey/marina-del-rey-officer-sentenced-in-teen-sex-case
who probably got the deal of the century (hey, 15 is under 18 – right?) More on this case here
http://mynewsla.com/government/2015/01/20/child-sexual-abuse-lawsuit-involving-sheriffs-deputy-settled/

NPS: Very sorry to hear this. Just thank God you received a 17 B and expungement. I did the same, had/or have had a clean record for the past 20 years with summary probation and still required to register. I’ll be filing a cert of rehab shortly in LA. Good luck. Maybe you should shoot for this as well and use your reasoning to get it passed. State, you could lose your job and ect as a result. ITs a good time to do it

“But Baxter, in his majority opinion reinstating the law, said legislators had legitimate reasons for treating consensual intercourse with a minor less harshly than consensual oral copulation. Since illicit intercourse may lead to childbirth, he said, lawmakers could have been concerned about the impact on children of requiring one of their parents to register as a sex offender.” WHAT A BUNCH OF IGNORANT A-HOLES… This is beyond comprehension. When it comes to sex offense laws, the truth is bent to fit the needs of the lawmakers…regardless if it contradicts common sense or previous law.

Thanks NPS. I concur with your comment! OC is out of control. My plea took place in LA and like yourself, I filed my own 17(B) and PC 1203.4! I has received Summary Probation! After my plea (I’m trying to be a little discrete), I was allowed to voluntarily surrender myself weeks after and I asked for directions via the police and 2 over zealous cops stated I had a warrant/we delayed one court date prior. They get me down to the station and they are wrong!/after towing my car! They come up with some dumb charge!

I do my LA time, go back to LA, 17(B) granted and I literally mailed my expungement request in/granted/never went to court! Then, I go back to the city that detainment and I get a 858.1 granted (seal and destroy detainment records)!

Now, I go to OC/moved there and the DA is a monster, lied:investigator nuts ect. I file the Cert of Rehab and finally the judge is so angry with the DA, he can’t see straight! He states, he can’t see one reason to deny the motion, but it’s not enough?

I’m presently residing in LA and I’ll be filing it 6-7 years after the OC gang! Wish me luck! This is getting old! Best of luck to you!