The Senate Public Safety Committee passed Senate Bill 448 in a vote of 7 to 0 after the bill’s author, Senator Ben Hueso (Democrat, San Diego), promised to amend it. According to Committee Chair Loni Hancock, the amendments are to include a narrowing of those to whom the bill would apply and a tiering so that the scope of the bill would be limited to high risk offenders.
“The Senate Public Safety Committee acted recklessly in approving a bill based upon mere promises,” stated CA RSOL President Janice Bellucci. “The author of the bill failed to provide the Committee with written amendments and now has a blank check.”
The next step for the bill is consideration by the Senate Appropriations Committee which is not scheduled to meet until after the legislature’s summer recess which ends August 17.
“California RSOL will make every effort to confer with the bill’s author to ensure that both amendments are included in the bill before it is considered by the full Senate,” stated Bellucci. “It is our position that the bill should only be applied to those convicted of sex trafficking and not to every one convicted of a sex offense involving the internet.”
During the hearing, ACLU attorney Michael Risher testified that ACLU would legally challenge SB 448 if the final bill is too broad. ACLU successfully challenged Proposition 35 after its passage in November 2013. One small part of that proposition required all registered citizens to disclose all internet identifiers to law enforcement within 24 hours.
The total number of people who spoke in opposition to SB 448 during the hearing was 22 which included representatives from the ACLU, California RSOL, California Public Defenders Association, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children and All of Us or None of Us. The total number of people who spoke in favor of the bill was 7 and included the Sacramento County District Attorney.
Related
Internet Identifier Bill to be Heard on July 14 (with active discussion)
Hearing Video [July 14, Senate Public Safety Committee, First Agenda Item]
So yet another huge setback. They passed something that is not even completely written so the author has carte blanche to do as they wish! This is really adding insult to injury!
As we all most certainly know…they do not use actual facts or data so clearly 90% will be included in their definition of “high risk offenders”. After all, we are ALL sex offenders and need to be monitored for life and that certainly sounds pretty high risk to the average joe.
Oh and all of you who say remain optimistic, open your eyes and stop living in denial for a change.
I recall one of the Senators asking if they would have an opportunity to read the amended Bill before voting on it. And she received the very clear answer, “No.”
(That certainly struck me as very odd…. voting on a Bill without having a chance to thoroughly read it. )
This might be a brilliant play to finally get a tiered system installed in this godforsaken state.
But this thought occurs to me:
1. At present, most law enforcement do not seem to know what all the laws are that currently exist regarding RSOs.
2. Many of those existing laws are in flux, are unenforced, or have received unclear rulings from the courts. And….
3. If each new law is being tailored to a specific subset of RSOs, all of this will end up being an unmanageable clusterflux for law enforcement.
Public Safety Committee members must be part of Hueso’s bar crowd.
And I am sure he Hueso promises not to drink and drive anymore too. What is this, passing a bill along without even knowing what the amended version will state? They should all be removed from office.
I thought we had a reasonable head in the game with leno after all he drilled em on the DNA testing for misdomeners and wobblers and voted that down. But apperantly someone or a group of someone’s pressured him enough to get him to cave on this issue. Sad day. Well I’m in the process of enrolling in college for next semester ill see how that works out since I can’t find a decent job. Just thought id throw that out there ill let everyone know how it goes with having to register with campus police and all.
I can’t escape the feeling that something is rotten in Denmark. When I called Senator Lori Hancock’s office I was hung up on as soon as I said I was calling to voice my opposition to SB-448. This was on the 13th. I had called the other offices earlier in the week, but was distracted by other things I was doing, and unable to make that last call until the 13th. I find the outcome especially strange, because I know there was once again overwhelming opposition to this bill.
c) As used in this section, “serious felony” means any of the following:
(1) Murder or voluntary manslaughter; (2) mayhem; (3) rape; (4) sodomy by force, violence, duress, menace, threat of great bodily injury, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the victim or another person; (5) oral copulation by force, violence, duress, menace, threat of great bodily injury, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the victim or another person; (6) lewd or lascivious act on a child under 14 years of age; (7) any felony punishable by death or imprisonment in the state prison for life; (8) any felony in which the defendant personally inflicts great bodily injury on any person, other than an accomplice, or any felony in which the defendant personally uses a firearm; (9) attempted murder; (10) assault with intent to commit rape or robbery; (11) assault with a deadly weapon or instrument on a peace officer; (12) assault by a life prisoner on a noninmate; (13) assault with a deadly weapon by an inmate; (14) arson; (15) exploding a destructive device or any explosive with intent to injure; (16) exploding a destructive device or any explosive causing bodily injury, great bodily injury, or mayhem; (17) exploding a destructive device or any explosive with intent to murder; (18) any burglary of the first degree; (19) robbery or bank robbery; (20) kidnapping; (21) holding of a hostage by a person confined in a state prison; (22) attempt to commit a felony punishable by death or imprisonment in the state prison for life; (23) any felony in which the defendant personally used a dangerous or deadly weapon; (24) selling, furnishing, administering, giving, or offering to sell, furnish, administer, or give to a minor any heroin, cocaine, phencyclidine (PCP), or any methamphetamine-related drug, as described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 11055 of the Health and Safety Code, or any of the precursors of methamphetamines, as described in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (f) of Section 11055 or subdivision (a) of Section 11100 of the Health and Safety Code; (25) any violation of subdivision (a) of Section 289 where the act is accomplished against the victim’s will by force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the victim or another person; (26) grand theft involving a firearm; (27) carjacking; (28) any felony offense, which would also constitute a felony violation of Section 186.22; (29) assault with the intent to commit mayhem, rape, sodomy, or oral copulation, in violation of Section 220; (30) throwing acid or flammable substances, in violation of Section 244; (31) assault with a deadly weapon, firearm, machinegun, assault weapon, or semiautomatic firearm or assault on a peace officer or firefighter, in violation of Section 245; (32) assault with a deadly weapon against a public transit employee, custodial officer, or school employee, in violation of Sections 245.2, 245.3, or 245.5; (33) discharge of a firearm at an inhabited dwelling, vehicle, or aircraft, in violation of Section 246; (34) commission of rape or sexual penetration in concert with another person, in violation of Section 264.1; (35) continuous sexual abuse of a child, in violation of Section 288.5; (36) shooting from a vehicle, in violation of subdivision (c) or (d) of Section 12034; (37) intimidation of victims or witnesses, in violation of Section 136.1; (38) criminal threats, in violation of Section 422; (39) any attempt to commit a crime listed in this subdivision other than an assault; (40) any violation of Section 12022.53; (41) a violation of subdivision (b) or (c) of Section 11418; and (42) any conspiracy to commit an offense described in this subdivision.
This isn’t exactly accurate since was convicted of attempted lewd act 664/288.(a) which although was considered a serious felony it is not considered a violent felony. The da and the judge both stated on the record at my resentencing hearing that fact because I had to challenge CDC in order to get half time for non violent offender compared to doing 85% of my time for a violent felony. So 664/288.(a) is a nonviolent offense do not let anyone tell anyone different I had to fight CDC like hell for a year and a half or more to make them comply.
Based on what I read, all they need to do is define “high risk” to include everyone except 18/16 and urinators.
I would recommend creating your spreadsheets now. Also if you plan to minimize your online footprint, start deleting emails and accounts, if you plan to over-comply, you have time to create a lot of accounts and emails.
Please write to the good senator’s office at:
Senator Ben Hueso
State Capitol
Room 4035
Sacramento, CA 95814-4900
But do please be respectful and let them know you’re a registered voter and that this law will adversely affect you and your loved ones. (And on that note, if you’re not on parole, then go register to vote at http://registertovote.ca.gov/)
The Senate Public Safety Committee should be ashamed of themselves!
I am sorry, but did I just read that they passed and moved along a bill (a law!!!! to be) without knowing what is going to be in it? Because the author “promised” he would tidy it all up (good luck with that). And 7-0???? Not one of the whole bunch thought that was odd – approving something they do not know what it is? Something that may never be compliant with, say, the Constitution??? How is that even possible??? 7-0???
Should this actually become a law, I invite everyone to register the username “CA Voter”.
Thanks to all who could be bothered to fight the good fight…
Thanks pr. I’m 47 years old and don’t know how well Il do in college or what to expect because of my registration status but I am a true American and I will overcome whatever challenge is thrown at me. I survived prison loss of everything I owned thrown into destitution after prison and was still able to procure a menial job while complying with all conditions of parole without no violations and have actually saved enough cash before being laidoff from my job to survive for awhile. It’s been a long road full of extreem challenges but I’m proof that a ex offender and an ex life long drug abuser who has been clean ever since my conviction and will never use drugs again never can change and become a successful member of society. This site and the people like Janice and chance and all the other supporters really has helped me from spiraling into a deep depression and they all give me hope and confidence that my life can be better and can once again have meaning. Once again thank you pr for your reply and thank you Janice and all our supporters.
Clearly, if this SB 448 became law and was enforced and had every sex offenders’ internet identifier in the system, it would have prevented this from happening: (Note this was published today, the same day as SB 448 moving forward…)
A highly decorated Maypearl, Texas Police Chief accused of using Facebook and Snapchat to message sexually explicit comments and photos to 16-year-old girl for two years.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3160921/Decorated-police-chief-49-used-Facebook-Snapchat-message-sexually-explicit-comments-photos-16-year-old-girl-two-years.html
If I recall the law correctly
You can’t have a meeting outside a meeting and make deal to get this passed.
Is that true? If yes then we might have something here.
correct me if i am wrong but, if he doesn’t amend it like they said they won’t pass it in the senate? they said he has to amend it to people whose convictions are internet related right?? and tiered right?? if he does not amend sb 448 to that then they won’t pass it in the senate. Am i correct Janice????
BS448 was unanimously allowed to pass the senate safety committee, So… ‘IF’ Hueso fails to amend this bill as it is written, and ‘If’ it is found to cost millions to implement by the appropriations committee and they pass this, and finally ‘IF’ the governor signs this P.O.S. into law.
My question is: Doesn’t the court who granted the legislature an opportunity to address the constitutional concerns with Prop.35 still have the power to nullify BS448 when they see that virtually no amends have been made?
My personal feeling is that the senate safety committee had nothing to lose by allowing this to slide through and all the pressure to get BS448 to pass constitutional muster has been shouldered by Hueso. ‘IF’ no significant changes are made, it will die back in the courtroom.
My gut still tells me that there isn’t anything to worry about, and my feelings about this still haven’t changed. I’m unfazed by this vote.
In its present form, SB 448 is still unconstitutional and if it remains unchanged, voted through, and ultimately signed by the governor, guaranteed there will be a stay and eventual nullification by the courts.
However, if Senator Bonehead (Hueso means “bone” in Spanish) does deliver on his promises and amends the bill to tailor it to those whose convictions involved the internet, it’ll be plenty burdensome for law enforcement to go through each case to determine who is eligible for internet disclosure. Regardless, I see this as a bit of a silver lining. All this talk of having it aligned to a tiered system, which California does not have, may actually increase the likelihood of California going in this direction.
Sounds like the CASOMB should tell Hueso to pound sand when he tries to get them to go along with specific restrictions related to any registrant’s status, since the legislature declined to move forward with their tired registry recommendations. In addition, if the law is somehow passed WITH the restrictions, it should immediately be swatted down as an ex post facto violation, in accordance with the registry being “civil.”
(Outlier question: how can ANY violation of a “regulatory” scheme be subject to “criminal felony charges” in the first place?)
Hueso has “ promised to amend it”. There is a lot of eyes on him and he knows it.
To NPS: I like what you say and do ! Now, can I bribe you to seek out Mark Leno ? We can talk money later…he is the best friend we could have. Others who may not fully agree should tread carefully…
Is it true that if 448 gets to the Assembly and they amend it at all, then it comes back to Mark’s committee ?
This seems kinda useless to me. How is it suppose to WORK?
What is to prevent the RC from NOT disclosing ALL his (or her) IDs?
If I was up to no good, I’d say, “Yeah I go by JoeCool on this site (if it requires you to list the specific sites) and TheBomb68 over here” and so forth.
But what I would not say, IF I was up to no good, is, “And on this chat site, where I am trying to meet 13 year old girls for sex, I go by such-n-such”.
Or, if not required to give specific sites, I would not say, “And, when I try to pick up young girls online, I go by StudMuffin”.
@ mike r
Thank you for your comment. I could not have said it better myself. Survivor indeed! You came out on the other side and made it! I am so happy for you and proud of you! I get off parole in 56 days!! No violations. I am actually more scared than excited to feel freedom again, but I trying to remind myself it’s anxiety and my disease ganging up on me. But I am grateful to live a life that is worth living! I will finally get to live with the man I love. Sobriety looks good on us!!!
You will be in my prayers my friend. Keep fighting the good fight and so will I, one day at a time. God bless!
1) It doesn’t matter that the bill was popular.
Slavery was very popular in the south. Was it right?
2) No. 81% of the people voted for 35 not just because they want to protect themselves from internet predators, but because they were
A. Give false information as to the scope of the problem.
B. Wanted no responsibility themselves to monitor their children’s internet use.
C. Were sold a bill of goods of how effective these “protections” would really be.
3) Sorry for your granddaughter lady. HOWEVER, how would this law, have helped her, specifically?
And if a person is NOT currently an RSO, how would it protect people from them?
I could go on, but that is enough.