ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (11/20 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings



California Supreme Court reversal forces counties to examine sex offender registration

After a conviction for oral sex with a 17-year-old foster child under his care, ____ ____ served as an assistant to the Miss Rio Linda Pageant, where he was photographed with teenage girls.

If pageant officials and parents had checked the state’s sex offender registry, ____’s name would not have appeared. A judge granted ____ a reprieve from registration under a 2006 state Supreme Court decision that allowed judges to exempt offenders who committed certain child sex crimes.

In April, the state’s highest court reversed itself, requiring registration for those offenses, including some cases that had already been adjudicated, including ____’s. Local law enforcement officials are now discussing whether to require hundreds of past offenders granted a judicial reprieve to register under the new ruling. While registration increases community awareness, it also can limit where offenders live and their ability to find employment.

The state Department of Justice this month sent a letter to law enforcement agencies advising them to consult with district attorneys before making past offenders register if they had been given a judicial exemption. The Sacramento County District Attorney’s Office plans to examine this week how to handle the cases, said Rob Gold, assistant chief deputy district attorney. Full Article


Janice’s Journal: A Reflection on Hofsheier
CA Supreme Court Decision Harms Registered Citizens

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.  
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

This is why my wife describes our life as “waiting for it to strike midnight on a clock with no hands.” If I ever do get some kind of relief, I’ll feel half compelled to move just so they can’t notify me the next time they change their minds…

More like Groundhog Day, but more sinister.

I’ll give you three guesses which way the Orange County DA is going to jump on this…and the first two don’t count.

Now I am even more confused..
Did the state say that they can change the plea bargain at ANY TIME?

This is for us that plea bargain BEFORE the internet came alone.
I think we shouldn’t have our name on the internet. Period.

There is no constitution, either state or federal, for registered citizens. Election time is coming up so the politicians are thinking about their own butts, and now it is good to be a tough on sex crime person. The Supreme Court justices are nothing more than pandering politicians who can legislate from the protection of their position. Referring to them as “justices” is a joke, their interests are not justice for all, but favor from a few.
How I wish that Sacramento was on a major fault line and the big one swallowed it up…

And registration is not punishment? Yeah right, tell that to anyone who must register again because of this new ruling. On the plus side this will make the state spend more on registration resources which is great because it clearly has nothing better to spend money on….oh wait how about anything else not connected with law enforcement or security like education, infrastructure, community improvement and collaboration, and long term crime prevention (the kind the law enforcement has no business being involved with).

It doesn’t seem right that they give some registrants a measure of relief and then take it away. It seems like some sort of twisted psychological torture.

Seriously??? The California Supreme Court just continues heaping more confusion on top of more confusion! And then they default to allowing the many District Attorneys to make these decisions at their own random discretion. It’s ridiculous!

“…served as an assistant to the Miss Rio Linda Pageant, where he was photographed with teenage girls.” I was thinking, how stupid, this guy was on parole. On the other hand…
OK, so now being photographed with teenagers is a registrable offense? I don’t get it, the guy violated his parole by associating with the teens, not violated a law. How is this an example that others exempt from the registry should be put on the registry after the fact?

I am curious now that the Supreme Court is re-writing laws how this ruling will affect all of us who had hope in receiving a COR. That may well be dust in the wind, and no hope what so ever.

This question seems like a new angle on the Doe v. Harris case. That case was largely dealing with people who entered plea bargains that would let them stop registering after they completed probation – which used to be the standard to stop registering for lesser offenses.

If we are now talking about not applying registration retroactively to offenders who were given a “judicial reprieve,” I would think that automatically has to extend to those who were relived of their registration requirement after getting 1203.4 relief, only to years later be told they have to start registering again, despite their affirmative actions to meet the previous standard to stop registering and having been able to stop.

Of course, I have to think the state high court will rule the same way on this question as it did in Doe v. Harris.

This gives me the feeling that anytime a registered citizen (or an un-registered one) does something stupid, all of us are going to have to suffer some revised ruling, enhanced requirement, or new law. (Just don’t call it punishment!)
So if Mr. X gets a speeding ticket, we will all soon lose our driving privileges?

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x