ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings: Nov 21, Dec 19 – Details / Recordings

Emotional Support Group Meetings 2020 (Phone only)

ACSOLCalifornia

Public Safety Committee to Hear SB 448 Today (Friday, September 11 – 11:30 am)

The Assembly Public Safety Committee will conduct a hearing today, at 11:30 am, regarding SB 448 which would require some registered citizens to disclose their internet identifiers. The hearing is the result of a decision by the Rules Committee.

At this time, the Committee is not accepting verbal comments regarding the bill but written comments may be sent by E-mail to committee staffer Martin Vindiola at martin.vindiola@asm.ca.gov.

“The legislative process is railroaded in its consideration of SB 448,” stated CA RSOL president Janice Bellucci. “The requirement to disclose internet identifiers is a complex issue and needs more time.”

As amended, the bill would require those convicted of a felony sex offense on or after January 1, 2016, that used “an electronic communication device” and other similar offenses to disclose their internet identifiers. Internet identifiers are now defined as “an electronic mail address or user name used for instant messaging or social networking that is actually used for direct communication between users on the Internet in a manner that makes the communication not accessible to the general public.”

The amended bill would also prohibit law enforcement from providing those identifiers to the public unless there is a court order demanding it.

If the bill is passed by the Public Safety Committee, it must also be heard by the Appropriations Committee and the full Assembly today.

Also see other news about SB 448

Join the discussion

  1. Janice Bellucci

    The hearing has been scheduled at 11:30 a.m. today. Representatives from CA RSOL and ACLU are on their way.

    • John

      Thanks for getting this message out quickly, Janice! It’s amazing how it seems like they tried to sneak it in for a hearing at the last minute to minimize the effect of opposition.

  2. curiouser

    Is there a newer version of this? The most recent I read was dated 8/18 and I couldn’t find anything in there that said this would apply only to felony convictions on or after 1/1/2016.

  3. Anonymous Nobody

    This bill is VERY wrong, even in its now watered down state. Its also just plain stupid, as the internet is simply a place to talk like any other place to talk, such as a bar or nightclub, you know, the old fashioned way of meeting and talking with people. There is zero more danger in connecting via the Internet than connecting in a drunken state in a bar, in fact the internet makes it easier to exchange some info. Will they next make registrants list every bar they ever go to?

    I notice it is now not retroactive, would apply only to registrants convicted after next Jan. 1. At least its not retroactive for once, but it is still just as unacceptable. But also, once on the books, it can be made retroactive at a later date, just as they did with 290 — so no one should feel safe from this just because at the moment it is not retroactive.

    I note, Janice et al, the state Constitution has very strong privacy protection in it, stronger than the US Constitution. That cannot be overridden by a statute. That is another line of attack against this statute. Frankly, it also could be a line of attack against 290, since the courts now insist 290 is not punishment, is simply an administrative measure — and the Alaska high court a few years back ruled in favor of such an attack under its Constitution.

    Even if you believe this idea is acceptable, it still has some real issues. On Facebook, for example, you can connect publicly OR privately, and you might never actually use the function to connect privately, but you could. So, do you have to register that moniker? That is, these things are not so clear cut as this bill as now written seems to think.

  4. mike r

    They are trying to silence our voices by thinking if they don’t make it retroactive then all the opposition will stop fighting since it won’t apply to any of US currently. We have to stand up speak up and show up even if it doesn’t affect us personally.

    • Timmr

      Yes, I told that to myself this morning. I’m against this bill even though I probably would not have been affected by this bill even without it being retroactive. This time it is against former internet offenders, next time it will be against former contact offenders. We have to be unified against unjust laws and not parse our energies, because we need everyone to be involved if we want to make a difference for all.

  5. Janice Bellucci

    The Public Safety Committee did not conduct a hearing today at 11:30 a.m. and it is reported that Chairman Bill Quirk has refused to conduct the hearing. Please stay tuned.

    • steve

      Could it be the day has come where sex offender laws will not be passed based on an individual legislators agenda? It sure seems that way.

    • Q

      Hmm…Perhaps Chairman Bill Quirk has a problem with stifling free speech. I’m hoping!

      • Q

        And then, maybe Chairman Bill Quirk has a problem with opposition being there to tell them that this is illegal/unconstitutional.

    • Forsaken

      So is that a good refusal or a bad refusal? What does that imply? :-/

  6. me

    so basically is this over and out or are they gunna try to shut us out and pass it anyways

    • Janice Bellucci

      We won’t have a final answer until the legislature recesses. That could be midnight or later.

  7. B

    I love the official State Legislature website on the status of legislation.

    Look up SB 448 and you will find the following:

    LAST HIST. ACTION : Referred to Com. on PUB. S. Joint Rule 61(a)
    suspended. Art. IV. Sec. 8(b) of the Constitution dispensed with.

    They dispensed with the Constitution. My apologies for always saying that they continually dispense with the Constitution when it comes to RSOs, but are too dishonest to admit it. I just never read the fine print.

  8. Janice Bellucci

    According to committee staff and staff in the office of the committee chairman, the Public Safety Committee will not conduct a hearing on SB 448 before the legislature goes into recess. I will check the record on Saturday morning just to be sure, but it looks like we have stopped SB 448. Thank you everyone for helping us cross this finish line!

Leave a Reply

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.  
 

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

.