ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings [details]
9/15 – Berkeley, 10/13 – W. Sacramento (date change), 10/20 – Los Angeles

Emotional Support Group: (Los Angeles): 8/24, 9/22, 10/27, 11/24, 12/22 [details]

Conference Videos Online7/14 Meeting Audio

ACSOLCalifornia

REGISTRANTS SUE CA DEPT OF JUSTICE — DEMAND IMPROVEMENTS TO, OR END OF, MEGAN’S LAW WEBSITE [updated with media]

California Reform Sex Offender Laws (CA RSOL) and two registrants today will file a lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court requesting immediate changes to, or in the alternative, the ending of, the state’s Megan’s Law website. The request is based upon the failure of the California Department of Justice (CA DOJ) to comply with a state law that required the agency to add conviction and release dates to individuals’ profiles on that website by 2010.

“The California Department of Justice continues to act illegally and in violation of state law,” stated CA RSOL president and attorney Janice Bellucci. “The agency has failed to meet a legislative mandate to correct the Megan’s Law website and that failure has resulted in several deaths as well as homelessness and unemployment for thousands of California residents.”

Roy Matagora, a plaintiff in the case, is one person who has suffered and continues to suffer due to the agency’s failure to comply with state law. Matagora is a recent victim of vigilante violence who was shot twice on September 21 by a neighbor who told police that he shot Matagora because he is a “sex offender”. The Megan’s Law website profile of Matagora lacks both the date of his conviction and the date of his release.

“The combination of an individual’s current photo and home address as well a lack of information regarding when he was convicted can be lethal,” stated attorney Chance Oberstein. “Unfortunately, the public often jumps to the conclusion that the conviction took place recently even though it may have occurred decades ago.”

About 92 percent of the profiles on the Megan’s Law website lack the year of conviction and year of release, according to the lawsuit. In fact, the older the conviction is, the less likely it is that the date of conviction appears on an individual’s profile.

“California DOJ is acting unlawfully and irresponsibly,” stated Bellucci. “They have put, and continue to put, at risk of significant harm, the lives of more than 50,000 individuals. The lack of this information disguises the fact that these individuals are unlikely to commit a subsequent offense. According to the Outcome Evaluation Report released by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) in July 2015, the rate of re-offense is less than one percent.”[1]

And according to Dr. Karl Hanson, a renowned international expert regarding the re-offense rate of registrants, a registrant who has not committed a subsequent offense in 17 years is no more likely to commit an offense than an individual who has never done so.[2]

[1] See CDCR Outcome Evaluation Report, page 30.
[2] See California Sex Offender Management Board report, “A Better Path to Community Safety”, dated April 2014, page 16.

——————————–

Video from KRON4 TV (article & video)

National News articles (mostly from the AP)

http://www.sfgate.com/news/crime/article/Lawsuit-California-breaks-the-law-on-sex-6623370.php

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/10/lawsuit-california-breaks-the-law-on-sex-offender-/

http://www.mercedsunstar.com/news/state/article44194080.html

http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2015/11/10/lawsuit-california-breaking-law-on-sex-offender-website-leading-to-vigilante-violence/

http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article44263749.html

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/offender-691524-law-sex.html

http://www.krcrtv.com/news/local/registered-sex-offender-involved-in-lawsuit-with-the-state/36398306

http://fox40.com/2015/11/11/sex-offenders-file-suit-against-department-of-justice-for-failing-to-update-megans-law-website/

… and across the globe

http://24indianews.com/california-breaks-law-sex-offender-website/

 

Join the discussion

  1. steve

    Hay Janice what about the illegal use of the information on sites like Homefacts and others?

    • http404

      Thanks for bringing that up. There was another website like that one in the late 2000’s that was pulling info from the DOJ site. I wrote to the DOJ calling their attention that I believed they were using the information illegally. The response I received was if I feel my rights are being violated I should seek an attorney.

      More recently I’d seen a lot of promotion for a site called NextDoor that allows neighbors to watch out for each other via their “social” platform and which they claim is also tied into the local police department for crime alerts. I tried to register. You have to confirm with your street address. When I entered in my address, it said a “our records indicate a sex offender resides at this address and therefore an account cannot be created.” So without being able to participate in the site, I can only surmise all they want to offer is for people to talk about the sex offender down the street. Completely lame. And to be EXCLUDED access to information that could help keep me and my family safe? Discriminatory.

      • commenter1

        This was my inquiry to Nextdoor (email is help@nextdoor.com) back in 2013:

        I am a registered sex offender and I find it offensive that not only I cannot join your website as a means to communicate with neighbors in the neighborhood but anyone who lives in my home INCLUDING MY WIFE cannot be a member of your website. You are helping to spread paranoia about registered sex offenders by excluding RSOs AND THEIR FAMILIES from using your website. If you do some research on this topic you will find that RSOs have one of the lowest re-offense rates of all criminal offenders (<5%) and most offenses are committed against relatives. There is a common misconception that is spread by websites like your own and by the media that tends to sensationalize. I know you are just looking to protect your reputation but think about it — I really don't think you have children using your service. This service is for adults to communicate with adults. Why not exclude drug dealers, gun offenders, those convicted of wife abuse, those convicted of drunk driving, gays/lesbians and smokers from using your website? Get real people!

        This was the response from Nextdoor:

        We actually do block people from joining who are potential threats to their neighbors (whether it’s burglary, assault, arson, or drug dealing). We have blocked users from joining Nextdoor websites for all of these reasons. The only difference is that we do so reactively, versus pro-actively as we do with registered sex offenders, because there isn’t the same kind of database of offenders from which to draw.

        I do realize that there are individuals who are registered sex offenders who are great neighbors and would contribute in positive ways to the Nextdoor website for their neighborhood. Unfortunately, while I don’t doubt that the recidivism rate of registered sex offenders is low, the challenge we face is that there is no easy way for us to distinguish between offenders who are true dangers to their neighbors and those who are not. And even if we had a better way to do so, it would also be vital to us that the public was aware of these distinctions, since part of our challenge is to ensure that our members believe that we are doing everything we can to ensure that Nextdoor websites are safe environments for their families. Until there is a scalable and reliable way to do so, I’m afraid we will not be able to change our policies. Nextdoor operates and exists on the trust of our users, and we cannot afford to jeopardize that trust.

        I can reach out to your Nextdoor neighborhood’s Founding Member to ask if your wife can be allowed access to the site. This is our standard procedure in dealing with cases where the individual lives with an RSO.

        As more people seek to reform the system to make distinctions among offenders possible, we hope that we can also improve our own process and policies. I certainly have seen enough cases in my time at Nextdoor to make me a supporter of reform.

        Best,

        Bridget
        Nextdoor.com
        AUG 21, 2013 | 08:07AM PDT

    • steve

      I meant to add to that Homefacts post. Aren’t we in danger because of this? If you go to Megan’s Law Website they even STATE “information on 3rd party sites may not be correct”. They shouldn’t be allowed to do it? Aren’t they liable for wrong information on other sites since they are allowing it?

      • steve

        I just looked at my Homefacts price club membership and they now have a disclaimer saying they aren’t responsible for WRONG information including some listed on their site might not even be required to register anymore AND that all their information comes from somewhere else. It’s like the dumb leading the dumber.

        • Nicholas Maietta

          I am fairly certain that companies like Homefacts can be sued for posting inaccurate information on their websites.

          They deliberately built a system that copies data from the registry websites, which takes a certain amount of skill per registry as they are all different. In some cases, this information cannot be crawled or accessed in bulk.

          My point is that they MADE THE EFFORT to copy the data. They implied in that way they are COPYING the data… for re-publishing. It’s the act that counts, not the result.

          The fact that they now the data is out of date proves they are liable for it being there and out of date. Their disclaimer is much smaller and below the advertising spots. Which do you think it prominent on the page? The ads. This is the main way you deal with this issue. Sue them for making money on one’s name and likeness. They are profiting off mugshots and registry data that they know isn’t up to date, in the name of public safety that is clearly not the case.

    • Harry

      HomeFacts are using SOR information to harass RC in housing. They need to be sued on a class action at tune of $25,000 x 100,000 plus legal fees.

  2. Joe

    Hallelujah! It is about freaking time for this! Thank you to all involved.

    Actually, one can stop reading after the first paragraph. According to PC 290.46(a)(2):

    (2) (A) On or before July 1, 2010, the Department of Justice shall make available to the public, via an Internet Web site as specified in this section, as to any person described in subdivision (b), (c), or (d), the following information:
    (i) The year of conviction of his or her most recent offense requiring registration pursuant to Section 290.
    (ii) The year he or she was released from incarceration for that offense.
    (iii) Whether he or she was subsequently incarcerated for any other felony, if that fact is reported to the department.

    Sure seems like violating PC 290 is a strict liability crime, and that should be for all involved. I have never understood how the State is able to violate this law for a full 5 years without consequence whatsoever, a law that, when violated, by definition is directly endangering the public.

    Godspeed and thank you.

    • j

      The excuses why this information has not been made available turned out to be a pack of lies spewed by the spokesperson. In this age of information and with the aggregation of the data necessary back in 2004 to launch this travesty of a web site, the information is within reach – and has been for decades.

      This is willful denial of justice and the backlash onto the registrant and his or her children is egregious and unconstitutional when innocent family members are punished heavily by this crime of omission.

      The state sets the tone for Cyber Bullying which is followed by private enterprise and the civilian populace as they orchestrate ways to inflict punishment on the registrants and their family through various means such as disallowing participation in community organizations and outright bullying.

      In addition to the DOJ stepping up and fulfilling their obligations under the law, we need to lobby for changes to this law that would prohibit enterprise to profit from this information under the guise of safety (or panic). That would be a start.

      Significant milestones also need to be displayed such as conditions of rehabilitation despite the “law” that essentially states that no rehabilitation is possible simply because they are not issuing COR’s, and 1203.4 etc.

      They know the public feed on omissions and misinformation and most likely never have plans in the future to help anyone but themselves – be certain about it. It is too good of material not to have in their political war chests, not to mention the millions that is there for the taking. Too much temptation obviously for those who are sworn to uphold the law, and that doesn’t mean the subset they agree with.

      Federal intervention could be the only persuasion available.

  3. PM111

    Open letter to all registrants:

    Thank you Janice and Chance for litigating this important matter. I am so pleased to finally see the “less than one percent” recidivism statistic being used in a public forum. This got me to thinking about the relative risk to the public by two categories of citizens, registrants and police.

    I have been keenly observing the police brutality phenomenon for several years, the militarization of the police, protective nature of the police unions, favorable treatment of the police by grand juries, the seemingly rampant nature of deaths of unarmed citizens by the police, etc. Anyone not living under a rock can plainly see that police misconduct is a front-burner issue.

    I am gratified that the public at large is finally seeing and recognizing overt police misconduct post-Ferguson as the true menace that it is.

    I have performed a preliminary analysis of the statistics regarding police misconduct in this country and believe it is more likely that a member of the public will be the victim of police violence than a victim of a sex offense by anyone on the registry.

    More statistical analysis needs to be done to validate my preliminary findings, but this revelation could become the genesis for a new and effective marketing campaign, to wit: Cops Are More Dangerous Than Sex Offenders.

    I value your collective wisdom. Please respond with your thoughts on this topic.

    • steve

      The only mis-conduct I have experienced happened to me this year at registration LAPD Van Nuys. They are now patting you down before you register claiming “it’s for their safety”. I could give a rat’s ass about their safety as I’m more concerned for my dignity. i will refuse next time.

      • PM111

        Just to clarify, the police misconduct that I am referring to is NOT the misconduct that Registered Citizens experience at the hand of the police, but rather the general police misconduct we read and hear about every day in the newspaper, television, etc.

    • mch

      PM111,
      Check the Cato Institute’s report on police misconduct, run the numbers of sexual misconduct and you’ll see that police pose a far greater danger to the public than registered citizens do.

      • PM111

        Thank you very much for the information. I will visit the Cato Institute website now.

        Where is the best source for statistics on sexual misconduct of Registered Citizens?

        So you agree with that reported cases of Police sexual misconduct is greater than sexual misconduct of Registered Citizens?

  4. Jojo

    Would the DOJ employ RCs to perform all of the conviction & release data entry required ?

    • Joe

      Yes! Have them do the mind-numbing data entry (for minimum wage, probably) and afterwards have them arrested for accessing the web site illegally! Wouldn’t that be special? Two birds with one stone.

  5. KangaroOCourt

    Fantastic..!!… Outstanding..!!
    By omission of information they are liable in putting people’s lives and well being at risk even by listed name.
    People listed now for over fifteen years should be off this state registry now .
    The state is liable for any injury or harm and damages as well as the person who acted.

  6. steve

    Jeez the guy was SHOT because he was listed on the website. Isn’t that enough to bring this down as our LIVES are in jeopardy?

    • PM111

      Sounds like the basis for a lawsuit against the state. Why don’t the family members of the deceased RC sue the state and the Sex Offender Management Board?

      • David

        PM111, I believe he survived the attack, is not deceased.

        • td777

          This person may have survived the shooting, but we know for a fact that others have not, and family members have also lost their lives to such attacks. Maybe this should become a class action suit involving all of us and our families.

    • Anon

      When Megan’s Law passed, I remember that Kevin McCarthy (now House Majority Leader) responded to criticism that the new law might lead to violence against RSOs. He said that he was certain that there would be no such violence and if there was, then California did not deserve a Megan’s Law. I will look for a link–but it was long ago….

    • MS

      Perhaps compiling a list of documented (reported in the media, etc) of registrants being attacked and/or murdered, and submit this into evidence? Not to mention…the death threats, homes being riddled with bullets, family members (including children) harassed or otherwise put in harms way. Homelessness, lost jobs, no jobs, and the list goes on and on. Remind them we are humans. We are brothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, son’s, daughters, volunteers, bone marrow donors, model employees, etc. You don’t have to like us…but you don’t have the right to condemn us.

      • Nicholas Maietta

        There is a lot of documentation from eAdvocate. The site has another blog section devoted completely to listing stories of murdered registrants.

        I am in a public setting on a public unencrypted wifi connection at the moment, so i will not get the link to post here at the moment. Maybe someone else can?

  7. Dray

    I think they need to do away with our birth date to, no body needs my birth date as well as my address and my full name. If they want to know how old I am just put 35 or 50 what ever ,not the birth date makes no sense to me. Maybe Janice can see about this as well

  8. Stephen

    It’s great that RSOL is Fighting back, Now what will the rest of you do to help ?
    Or Are you Waiting for the Town to plant a sign in your front yard ?

  9. C J

    What about dismissed convictions per PC 1203.4? I suppose that glaring piece of profound due process would never be included on my web page listing, let alone dismissed over a decade ago.

    No convictions for ANYTHING on my background check yet DOJ has the dismissed charges published on the internet like no formal dismissal order ever happened…

    Stick it to ’em Janice and Chance!!!

  10. mch

    Once a registered citizen receives record clearance via PC1203.4, that should also be included on the website, and it is not.

  11. jo

    Just sent a chunk of money, everyone, please, do likewise now.

    • Janice Bellucci

      Thank you, Jo, for your generous donation which arrived a few minutes ago! Your donation will help us continue this lawsuit.

      • jo

        Sorry it wasn’t more, will send more next month

      • G4Change

        I just donated a small amount tonight too; I gave what I could. I’m not intending to brag. I’m only mentioning it out here as an encouragement for everyone who can to donate something – even if it’s just a few bucks. They all add up.
        I also like that there is now a way to set up automatic monthly donations as that takes less of a bite out of the budget at once. I may set that up after the first of the year.
        If 1% of the registered citizens in CA donate $5 per month to this organization, that would be roughly $5K per month. Imagine what Janice and Chance and the rest could do with that. Now, imagine if 2% or even 5% gave just $5 per month. It all adds up.
        No, I’m not being paid to say all of this. I don’t even live in CA. But, like many others, my offense is from CA, and I want to see CARSOL succeed in preserving and restoring civil liberties for everyone. California is known to be a leader when it comes to legislation, etc. Folks, let’s step up and let’s lead!!! Donate what you can and give Janice and the rest the fuel they need to move a mountain – because a mountain needs to be moved!!!

    • mike t

      Me too, this is an issue I feel strongly about. I fail to see the correlation between having a registry and public safety after reading so many tragic stories of random registrants being selected for murder by psychos whom misuse Megan’s Law website for a virtual hit list. It’s insane!
      Shortly after my release from prison, a member of my children’s congregation, and a registrant who’s conviction dated back to the 1980’s, was bludgeoned to death during a burglary of his home. The perpetrator’s confessed they found him, and tried to justify their action, after using the Megan’s Law website. It scared the heck out of me as this was a few miles from my home.
      The man who was murdered was a friend to the community and would drive around town on Thanksgiving to pick-up and bring homeless people back to his ranch for a feast. This is how society repaid him. Nuff said!

    • MS

      I just donated $100

      Thank you Janice/RSOL for everything you do.

  12. mike r

    This is a great first start but I really wish someone would go after the core issues of the registry such as the following.

    This court has jurisdiction because ________________________________________________________________

    I the plaintiff ______________________do hereby bring forth this motion for Declaratory and/or Injunction relief.

    Introduction.

    This motion is being brought forth as a as applied challenge to the constitutionality of the sex offender registration and notification laws or Megan’s law (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act) as applied to me.

    I am the plaintiff in this case. I am a United States citizen who resides in Sacramento, CA.
    I am a non-violent, non-contact first time ex-offender from a incident that occurred over a decade ago. There was never any physical contact between myself and any victim. I completed my prison sentence and parole supervision without any incidents or violations despite all the obstacles and conditions of parole that were placed on me because of the sex offender designation. I have been arrest free and a completely law abiding citizen since my release. I do not pose any cognizable risk to the public. I was already severely punished for my offense and have been subjected to intensive monitoring and supervision while on parole. I should not be subjected to these registration and notification laws that involve consequences that are severely detrimental to so many aspects of my life.

    Issues.

    (1) The sex offender registration and notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act) violate my constitutionally protected liberty interest in my reputation which is protected under the federal due process clause in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the California Constitution’s Article I, Section 7 on “due process, equal protection and the right to travel with an irrefutable presumption of future offending that is universally untrue and which provides no meaningful process to determine such facts.

    (2) The sex offender registration and notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act) violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth amendment of the United States Constitution and the California Constitution’s Article I, Section 7 on “due process, equal protection and the right to travel

    (3) Sex offender registration and notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act) violate my constitutionally protected liberty interests by infringing on my freedom of movement and my freedom of association which is protected under the Fifth and Fourteenth amendment of the United States Constitution and the California Constitution’s Article I, Section 7 on “due process, equal protection and the right to travel

    (4) Sex offender registration and notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act) violate my constitutionally protected right to liberty and to be free from unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive official actions, which is protected under the Fifth and Fourteenth amendment of the United States Constitution and the California Constitution’s Article I, Section 7 on “due process, equal protection and the right to travel

    Facts.

    (1) My constitutionally-protected right to reputation is encroached upon by an irrefutable presumption of future offending that is universally untrue.

    These laws effectively brand me a “sex offender”, i.e., a public danger, for life. See Doe v. Pataki, 3 F. Supp. 2d 456, 467 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) [here in after Pataki III]; Doe v. Attorney General, 686 N.E.2d 1007, 1013 (Mass. 1997) [hereinafter Doe II];see also Bohn v. County of Dakota, 772 F.2d 1433, 1436 n.4 (8th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1014 (1986).

    Specifically, the public notification provisions imply that I am potentially dangerous, thereby undermining my reputation and standing in the community. Doe v. Poritz, 662 A.2d 367, 419 (N.J. 1995); cf. Neal v. Shimoda, 131 F.3d 818, 829 (9th Cir. 1997) (noting that “[o]ne need only look to the increasingly popular ‘Megan’s laws’, whereby states require sex offenders to register with law enforcement officials, who are then authorized to release information about the sex offender to the public, to comprehend the stigmatizing consequences of being labeled a sex offender”). Indeed, public notification that I am a convicted sex offender implicitly announces that, in the eyes of the State, I present a risk of committing another sex offense. Doe II, 686 N.E.2d at 144.

    The sex offender registration and notification laws violate my liberty interest in my reputation by making public my current personal address and current photo which is not public information and which puts me in physical harm every time I enter or leave my home and even while I’m in my home I can not feel safe. This information is also being publicly distributed on the Internet from privately owned and operated websites such as homefacts.com. That information being made public puts not only myself but my families lives and property in danger of physical harm, harassment and vandalism. These claims are not hypothetical situations or exaggerations, these claims are facts and the possibilities of these incidents occurring are real and in fact some have already occurred in my case. The Megan’s law website also displays my criminal record which is only available to authorized individuals who meet certain criteria and have a need to know basis, not to the general public at a click of a computer mouse.
    These laws affect and limit employment as very few employers will hire me simply because I am on a sex offender website that is accessible to the general public. These laws also restrict or limit my ability to travel for work or to be employed by local, state or federal agencies and severely affects my ability to obtain a business licence or business loans. They also limit what professions and careers that I can pursue and affect my personal and professional relationships in a severely negative way because of my inclusion on the sex offender registry and the publicly accessible Megan’s law website. These issues are not minor inconveniences but are major obstacles to my financial stability and to my fundamental right to life and liberty for me and my family. It also affects housing because very few property owners or property management organizations will rent to me for fear of vandalism and or the loss of present or potential tenants because of the accessibility to the registry by the general public. I am reluctant to move or purchase property for fear that I may violate some local ordinance or be forced to move because of some new law or ordinance being enacted and applied retroactively. I am also reluctant to move or purchase property for fear that I will be subjected to even worse harassment and vandalism by the community in which I move then I have already endured in my present location. These laws create real fears of being the victim of vigilante attacks, harassment and vandalism which forces me limit my activities to avoid being outside of my residence for fear of being harmed or harassed. I have had to call the police twice due to my family and I being physically threatened in one instance and having threats and profanity written all over our porch on the second incident simply because my information is on the Megan’s law website. My family and I have had our vehicles vandalized and our life’s threatened because I am subject to these registration and public notification laws. These laws cause me severe psychosocial stresses that cause major mental disorders such as major depression and anxiety disorders which can and do affect my ability to perform job duties or perform normal daily activities and to reintegrate into society. Once again these are not hypothetical, exaggerated incidents that have happened to other people but personal experiences in my case. I cannot move forward or successively reintegrate back into society because of all the collateral consequences caused by the registration and public notification laws.These collateral consequences will continue to cause me irreparable damage to my liberty interest as long as I am subjected to these registration and notification laws.

    I have a liberty interest protected by the Constitution that entitles me to procedural due process because of: (1) the public disclosure of accumulated and synthesized personal information that would not otherwise be easily available; (2) the harm to my personal and professional life; (3) the foreseeable harm to my reputation; and (4) the statutory branding of me as a public danger, i.e., as a sex offender. I note that the “interest cannot be captured in a single word or phrase. It is an interest in knowing when the government is moving against you and why it has singled you out for special attention. It is an interest in avoiding the secret machinations of a Star Chamber.” Noble, 964 P.2d at 995.

    The Supreme Court has fed the fear of frightening high sex offender recidivism rates that has proven to be universally untrue. It’s become the “go to” source that courts and politicians rely upon for “facts” about sex offender recidivism rates that aren’t true. Its endorsement has transformed random opinions by self-interested non-experts into definitive studies offered to justify law and policy, while real studies by real scientists go unnoticed. The Court’s casual approach to the facts of sex offender re-offense rates is far more frightening than the rates themselves, and it’s high time for correction.

    The sources relied upon by the Supreme Court in Smith v. Doe, a heavily cited constitutional decision on sex offender registries, in fact provide no support at all for the facts about sex offender re-offense rates that the Court treats as central to its constitutional conclusions. This misreading of the social science was abetted in part by the Solicitor General’s misrepresentations in the amicus brief it filed in this case. The false “facts” stated in the opinion have since been relied upon repeatedly by other courts in their own constitutional decisions, thus infecting an entire field of law as well as policy making by legislative bodies. Recent decisions by the Pennsylvania and California supreme courts establish principles that would support major judicial reforms of sex offender registries, if they were applied to the actual facts.

    I am asking this court to apply the actual facts submitted in reports from the leading authorities and credible experts in the fields such as the following.

    California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB)

    Sex offender recidivism rate for a new sex offense is 0.8% (page 30)

    The full report is available online at

    http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Adult_Research_Branch/Research_Documents/2014_Outcome_Evaluation_Report_7-6-2015.pdf

    .
    Document title; A Model of Static and Dynamic Sex Offender Risk Assessment Author: Robert J. McGrath, Michael P. Lasher, Georgia F. Cumming Document No.: 236217 Date Received: October 2011 Award Number: 2008-DD-BX-0013

    Findings: Study of 759 adult male offenders under community supervision Re-arrest rate: 4.6% after 3-year follow-up
    The sexual re-offense rates for the 746 released in 2005 are much lower than what many in the public have been led to expect or believe. These low re-offense rates appear to contradict a conventional wisdom that sex offenders have very high sexual re-offense rates.

    The full report is available online at. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/236217.pdf

    Bureau of Justice Statistics
    5 PERCENT OF SEX OFFENDERS REARRESTED FOR ANOTHER SEX CRIME WITHIN 3 YEARS OF PRISON RELEASE
    WASHINGTON, D.C.

    Within 3 years following their 1994 state prison release, 5.3 percent of sex offenders (men who had committed rape or sexual assault) were rearrested for another sex crime, the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) announced today.

    The full report is available online at. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/rsorp94pr.cfm

    Document Title: SEX OFFENDER SENTENCING IN WASHINGTON STATE: RECIDIVISM RATES BY: Washington State Institute For Public Policy.

    A study of 4,091 sex offenders either released from prison or community supervision form 1994 to 1998 and examined for 5 years Findings: Sex Crime Recidivism Rate: 2.7%

    Link to Report: http://www.oncefallen.com/files/Washington_SO_Recid_2005.pdf

    Document Title: Indiana’s Recidivism Rates Decline for Third Consecutive Year BY: Indiana Department of Correction 2009.

    The recidivism rate for sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05%, one of the lowest in the nation. In a time when sex offenders continue to face additional post-release requirements that often result in their return to prison for violating technical rules such as registration and residency restrictions, the instances of sex offenders returning to prison due to the commitment of a new sex crime is extremely low. Findings: sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05%

    Link to Report: http://www.in.gov/idoc/files/RecidivismRelease.pdf

    These conclusions are virtually the same in the majority of reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community.

    (2) The sex offender registration and notification laws are discriminating irrationally among classes of ex-offenders which violates the equal protection clauses.

    All sex offenders fall into the classification of felons and felons are a group or classification. The question is, are sex offenders being treated the same as all other felons, do other felons have to register or have the community notified of their presence after they have completed their sentence, are they being denied state and government services, are other felons restricted where they can live, work and recreate, do other felons face criminal prosecution, a felony offense which is punishable by three or more years in state prison, not for engaging in any type of criminal conduct but simply for not providing personal information to the government within a certain time frame? The answer is, no they are not. The courts have found that a distinction among members of the class of offenders is irrational regardless of the importance of public safety consideration underlying the regulations or relevance of prior convictions simply discerning any regulatory reason, however plausible, will not serve to satisfy the rational basis requirement of equal protection; relevant inquiry more properly focuses on whether the means utilized to carry out the regulatory purpose substantially furthers that end.

    These laws do not substantially further the regulatory purpose or the legislative objectives of increasing public safety, reducing sexual abuse or preventing recidivism as evidenced in the following reports and actual facts from the leading authorities on this subject.

    California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) End of Year Report 2014. (page 13)

    Under the current system many local registering agencies are challenged just keeping up with registration paperwork. It takes an hour or more to process each registrant, the majority of whom are low risk offenders. As a result law enforcement cannot monitor higher risk offenders more intensively in the community due to the sheer numbers on the registry. Some of the consequences of lengthy and unnecessary registration requirements actually destabilize the life’s of registrants and those -such as families- whose lives are often substantially impacted. Such consequences are thought to raise levels of known risk factors while providing no discernible benefit in terms of community safety.

    The full report is available online at. http://www.casomb.org/index.cfm?pid=231

    National Institute of Justice (NIJ) US Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs United States of America.

    The overall conclusion is that Megan’s law has had no demonstrated effect on sexual offenses in New Jersey, calling into question the justification for start-up and operational costs. Megan’s Law has had no effect on time to first rearrest for known sex offenders and has not reduced sexual re offending. Neither has it had an impact on the type of sexual re offense or first-time sexual offense. The study also found that the law had not reduced the number of victims of sexual offenses.

    The full report is available online at. https://www.ncjrs.gov/app/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=247350

    The University of Chicago Press for The Booth School of Business of the University of Chicago and The University of Chicago Law School Article DOI: 10.1086/658483

    Conclusion.
    The data in these three data sets do not strongly support the effectiveness of sex offender registries. The national panel data do not show a significant decrease in the rate of rape or the arrest rate for sexual abuse after implementation of a registry via the Internet. The BJS data that tracked individual sex offenders after their release in 1994 did not show that registration had a significantly negative effect on recidivism. And the D.C. crime data do not show that knowing the location of sex offenders by census block can help protect the locations of sexual abuse. This pattern of ineffectiveness across the data sets does not support the conclusion that sex offender registries are successful in meeting their objectives of increasing public safety and lowering recidivism rates.

    The full report is available online at. http://www.jstor.org/stable/full/10.

    From Justice Policy Institute.
    Estimated cost to implement SORNA
    Here are some of the estimates made in 2009 expressed in 2014 current dollars: California, $66M; Florida, $34M; Illinois, $24M; New York, $35M; Pennsylvania, $22M; Texas, $44M. In 2014 dollars, Virginia’s estimate for implementation was $14M, and the annual operating cost after that would be $10M.

    For the US, the total is $547M. That’s over half a billion dollars – every year – for something that doesn’t work.

    http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/08-08_FAC_SORNACosts_JJ.pdf

    These conclusions are virtually the same in the majority of conclusions and reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community.

    (3) The sex offender registration and notification laws violate my right to freedom of movement and freedom of association by severely curtailing my ability to travel both interstate and intrastate and also international travel. With all the different state laws and local ordinances that are in place and the constant introduction of new legislation in the different states and the constantly changing local ordinances in thousands of cities and counties across the country, it makes it virtually impossible for me to travel or visit anywhere in this country without a very real fear and potential for violating one of these laws or ordinances. It is virtually impossible for a person of average intelligence to research, assimilate and abide by all the different state laws and local ordinances that apply to registered sex offenders across the country. I can not visit family or friends without extensive research of local ordinances and state laws and even after extensive research I still fear I could have missed one of these laws or ordinances. I can not attend meetings or protest that occur in places that prohibit registered sex offenders from being present. The punishments for violating one of these laws or ordinances are severe. The registration and notification laws makes it virtually impossible for me to travel to a multitude of major countries in the world as they are notified by our government of my registration status so therefore I am denied entry. These are not hypothetical situations and are not minor inconveniences of registration but are major violations of my constitutional rights to liberty. These violations will continue to cause me irreparable damage as long as I am subjected to these registration and notification laws.

    (4). The sex offender registration and notification laws violate my right to be free from unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive official actions. These laws are completely irrational as applied to me in my case since I currently pose no cognizable risk of re offense. Since I am a non-violent, non-contact, first time ex-offender from a incident that occurred over a decade ago there is no rational basis to continue to subject me to these laws that have consequences that destabilize my life, restricts my abilities to reintegrate into society and have been shown to actually increase known risk factors for re-offense while not achieving any legislative objective of preventing sexual abuse, increasing public safety or reducing recidivism. Since these laws have been seen as strictly regulatory in nature and not considered part of the punishment for an offense, there must be some evidence that the regulations actually achieve some legislative objective. These laws were originally designed to give law enforcement a tool to investigate and apprehend sexually violent predators, child abductors/rapist and habitual repeat offenders when such acts have been committed in the community but have since been expanded to the point to make the registration and notification laws useless to law enforcement or the general public. Just because these laws are so popular within the legislature or the public does not mean that there is a rational basis for such laws. With the facts and evidence of all the destabilizing collateral consequences I endure and all the recent research done on this subject there is overwhelming evidence that these laws are completely irrational and counterproductive especially when applied to non-violent, first time offenders such as myself who currently pose no cognizable risk of re-offense.

    Conclusion.

    (1) The sex offender registration and notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act. ) as applied to me, severely violate my fundamental liberty rights to my reputation and to my right to due process.

    (2). The sex offender registration and notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act. ) violate the equal protection clause.

    (3) The sex offender registration and notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act. ) violate my freedom of movement and freedom of association.

    (4). The sex offender registration and notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act. ) violate my right to be free from unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive official actions.

    Supreme Court Justice Brandeis noted that the Founding Fathers
    recognized the significance of man’s spiritual nature, of his feelings and of his intellect. They knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure and satisfactions of life are to be found in material things. They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, as against the government, the right to be let alone-the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men.
    Olmstead v. United States,277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting), overruled in part by Berger v. New York,388 U.S. 41 (1967) and Katz v. United States,389 U.S. 347 (1967).

    Law enforcement already has accessible records of my criminal record, including my DNA, my photograph and my complete set of prints and can easily locate me if they were to implicate me in a crime in the future. That process is the alternative to sex offender registration and notification laws and is the least restrictive measure that is available to the government that is related to the legislative objectives of increasing public safety and preventing recidivism. Furthermore, the government already has a meaningful process to determine if an individual poses a significant risk for re offense before ever releasing the person from custody. It is available in the states civil commitment statues. If a person is found to present a potentially high risk of re offense then that individual is confined under the civil commitment statues until it is determined that they no longer pose a risk to the public.
    It is in the public best interest to grant me this relief as it will increase my ability to reintegrate into society and increase the probability that I will maintain stability in my life and be a law abiding, productive member of society which actually decreases my risk for re-offense even further. It will also allow governmental agencies and law enforcement agencies to re-direct their limited resources to monitor high risk offenders more intensively thereby increasing public safety. It will also save the state tax payer dollars that can be used for policies that have proven to actually be effective.
    These laws will continue to cause me irreparable damage if the court fails to grant me relief.
    No one can doubt that child sexual abuse is traumatic and devastating. The question is not whether the state has an interest in preventing such harm, but whether current laws are effective in doing so.

    Prayer.
    I pray the court grant me Declaratory relief and/or Injunction relief or any other relief the court deems necessary and to enjoin local, state, and federal agencies from requiring me to register as a sex offender and subjecting me to the public notification laws (CA Penal Code § 290, Sex Offender Registration Act. ) .

    I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to my knowledge on __________ Signed: _____________________________

    • rs

      Mike R, Thank you for posting such a well worded request for injunctive relief. Your verbiage literally fits my plea word for word. With what court would something like this be filed? The jurisdiction in which I live? The court in which I was convicted? Or a higher power such as directly to the Governor as part of a plea for a pardon based on merit? I have 1 conviction of 288(a) 664 (attempted lewd acts with a child under 14) and it was an internet sting that I fell for when I was 22. I have NEVER had a single run in with the law other than my one time mistake. I’m now 35, married, own a home, have a great career and yet I’m still haunted by what many, including myself, feel is cruel and unusual punishment and an overall denial of Constitutional freedom. As we all know, the Megan’s Law website does far more harm than good and all of us and our families owe a great debt of gratitude to not only Ms. Bellucci, but also to each other for coming together as a community that has been repeatedly violated for the sake of the political aspirations of legislators and others who stand to gain from showing how “tough they are on sex offenders.” The fact that we as a community are in constant fear of physical harm pales in comparison to the emotional damage that comes from the systematic destruction of all of our reputations, regardless of how well we have done after paying our debt to society. After being arrested, we all have an opportunity to make the right decisions, patch our relationships with family and friends and make a better life after the dust settles. Those of us who are successful in leading productive and law abiding lives should be afforded the same opportunities as all other ex convicts. I was able to have my conviction set aside (1204) because it was an attempt. What I thought was a huge victory literally did nothing for me in regards to my standing in the community. I am not able to assert my 2nd amendment rights, I cant serve on a jury and worst of all, I have to live in constant financial anxiety because of my record and my inability to obtain any state licenses. Something good will come of all of this if we bond as a community and do what we can to support Janice in her support for us. Thanks for being a source of information and a place of togetherness.

      • MS

        RS….

        You mentioned that you had your conviction set aside but have been unable to obtain any state licenses. My question is….have you attempted to do so after Jan 1st 2014? See copy and paste below.

        ****************************
        Governor Brown Signs AB 2396, Limiting the Use of Expunged Convictions to Deny License Applications

        On September 28, 2014, Governor Brown signed Assembly Bill 2396, which added language to Business and Professions Code section 480. This addition to the law provides that an individual with an expunged conviction cannot be denied a license solely because of the expunged conviction, notwithstanding any other law in the Business and Professions Code. This new law will give relief to certain applicants applying to certain state agencies for licenses, once it becomes effective on January 1, 2015.
        ************************************

        I’m curious because I surrendered my real estate salesperson license after being convicted of possession of CP. I have heard it is easier to get your license back than to try and get it for the first time…post conviction.

        Has anyone reading this been successful in obtaining a state license of any kind after being convicted? Perhaps AB 2396 provides a chance/hope for everyone EXCEPT 290’s?

        Curious if I should bother trying to get my real estate salesperson license reinstated or not even bother. Maybe after a 17b and expungement (pre AB20 conviction for 311.11a)? Perhaps after a COR and no longer required to register. Of course having a license doesn’t mean I will be able to practice because I would have to have a broker willing to let me hang my real estate salesperson license under him/her.

        Thumbs up on your post BTW

        • RS

          MS great post! I was not aware of that bill thank you for sharing it. You and I are more similar than you think. I’m also in real estate but have had to sit on the sidelines without a license. Luckily my godfather is a broker and has given me a role in his business that allows me to have a career I love. Your post is important because the bill affects all agencies that are included in the Department of Consumer Affairs which the BRE most certainly is. I’ve passed my exam and I have everything required to apply sitting in my drawer like an abandoned dream. I will rethink applying after reading your link. The only thing that bothers me is that the BRE specifically says on their licensing page that those convicted of crimes that require registration per 290 may be denied on that ground alone. Have you looked into a certificate of rehabilitation? I don’t think your offense is excluded from eligibility and it would end your registry requirement. That would make a big difference in obtaining a license.

        • MS

          I think you should give it a try especially if you have had your conviction expunged. I’m guessing that will really help. Perhaps include character reference letters, along with a heart felt letter of your own, psych evaluation, etc. with your application? Perhaps a letter of recommendation from your godfather? If they are leaning towards a “No”…maybe suggest a “restricted” license for some sort of probationary period that turns into an unrestricted license after a probationary period (3 months, 6 months, 1 year, whatever). It would at least allow you to be a part of the commission earnings for referrals, etc.

          I’m still on probation so I don’t think it’s an option for me at this time. I just hired a law firm to begin the process of trying to have my probation terminated early (have completed 28 of 36 months) so I can then petition the courts for a 17b and expungement. Since I took a plea deal before AB20 went in effect…expungement is a possibility for my 311.11(a) conviction. From what I understand I will have to wait a total of 10 years before trying to get a COR…which means 8 more years for me.

          At some point I will try to have my license reinstated. If granted it will be a “victory” in my eyes even if I never close another real estate deal because I can’t find a broker that will hire me.

          I know it doesn’t happen often enough but the more of us that can convince neighbors, employers, state agencies, the media, politicians, etc that we aren’t all monsters and it wouldn’t kill them to give us a chance to prove it…the better things will get. Small victories can and will pave the way for larger ones.

  13. Q

    Matagora, as well as many others have been shot simply because of this web site. Most haven’t been as fortunate as Matagora and didn’t survive being murdered because someone decided to look on the site to find someone to murder. Isn’t this enough proof that Megan’s Law is a bad law, and the site should be taken down because it directly causes people to not only get murdered and assaulted, but also causes unemployment and homelessness, as well as many other things; none of them good?

    Isn’t the fact that Megan’s law has been empirically proven to do nothing to protect anyone or to prevent anything enough proof to get this site taken down? I often wonder what is wrong with these people that can’t see these truths. Could it be because there is no truth in them?

    Thank you Janice and Chance for suing the Dept of no justice.

  14. Marc McCord

    A thing to add to that lawsuit is to eliminate the restriction of a sex offender viewing Megan’s list to see that the information about them is correct. I would love to see the gobblygook they come up with to deny that.

    • PM111

      I believe that the rule that SOs cannot view the Megan’s Law website is absolutely unconstitutional.

      • catch 22

        How would they know you looked at it ? I have a community tablet in my household residents and guests use it . I can have my house mate look me up and just look over his shoulder .
        Good question why do the have that stupid rule ? Isn’t it a violation of the 1st ?

  15. USA

    I think this is a wonderful article. I truly believe it’s time for California to wake up. We have the Prisons stating there is a less than 1 percent recidivism rate! Furthermore, we have a established governors safety board stating its time to instill a tiered system? Yet, we continue to deal with brash city leaders and politicians who are on the lookout to pass new and crazier laws that do nothing to instill safety amongst the public. Lastly, we have a website that publishes the names and home addresses of many individuals that have paid their debt so long ago. This in turn has resulted in job losses, inhibited employment opportunities, provoked neighbor vigilantes (cars parked with signs) and even murder on several occasions. I can only conclude with the fact that I’m so very proud of Janice and I pray and hope for the best. This was an amazing idea

  16. Nicholas Maietta

    I want to point out the first news coverage of this:

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/10/lawsuit-california-breaks-the-law-on-sex-offender-/

    More are surely to follow now that it is on the newswires.

  17. mike r

    There are so many organizations with their hand in this cookie jar that its going to create chaos if the rug was pulled out from under them. All those orgs depend on the money and myths to fill they pockets and justify their jobs. This issue is a major keystone issue for the future of society in every country. Whoever overturns the registry when they do because it will happen are going to be forever remembered as the most influencial civil rights attorneys in history. I hope its Janice she will have earned it and deserves it for what she does

  18. Will Crump

    I wish Janice Bellucci knew of an attorney in TN that would be willing to do what she is doing so that we can start challenging the statutes applicable in my home state.

    So far, thanks be to God, neither I nor my family have been targets of vigilante violence to any degree and I pray that status holds. The legal document drawn up by on of the commenters addresses every issue that needs to be confronted head-on.

    The impetus behind these laws is NOT…I repeat IS NOT public safety. It is a carte blanche that gives the state license under color of law enforcement to harass offenders and their families. To me, the fact I have to be subject to these laws in and of itself is harassment in my eyes. I have to be honest here. I have been fortunate to have two very level-headed, fair reasonable parole officers. (I’m on community supervision for the rest of my life.) However, there is an occasion every year where my officer has no choice but to infringe on my most basic right; my freedom of religion. Every Halloween season sex offenders in TN have a 6 pm to 6 am curfew that runs from about 22 or 23 October until 2 or 3 November. During that time, I have to miss evening worship services. I am a Christian and have faithfully attended church all during my incarceration and ever since I was released in 2012. I shouldn’t have to miss a single church service due to any sex offender restriction. Any law that abridges religious freedom should be stricken from the books.

    • commenter1

      Find a good Civil Rights attorney. We have an attorney in Illinois that’s beginning to put together lawsuits to challenge the laws here. You need to find someone who will file in Federal court and wait to be paid his/her fees by the state when he/she wins the case. I don’t know if RSOL has an affiliate in Tennessee but if they don’t you need to start putting one together. Join the National RSOL call tomorrow night if you want to learn more about the movement. The website is nationalrsol.org. Form there you need to go to Take Action/Calendar and sign up for the call.

  19. Avig

    Well, I couldn’t agree more with this lawsuit. The court should order the website go offline while the matter is adjudicated, appeals are heard, corrections are made and so forth. By the time they fix the web site to comply with state law—–if indeed they ever do—it should be obvious even to the most foolish, that the web site is of no practical value, and should remain offline permanently.

  20. wb

    GREAT NEWS, go Janice,Chance,,, MY questions is my case was filed in 1987, . no contest plea in 1989 given probation, which I violated in 1992, ,,sent to state prison in 1993, which date would be applied to me 1989 or 1993? for the megans website

  21. steve

    Perfect examples of why we are ALL in danger. Janice, you should compile all these comments as evidence?

    From Sacramento Bee

    Charles Davis
    “If you commit lewd or lascivious acts with a child under 14 you deserve to be attacked with a sledge hammer. I couldn’t care less if it happened 20 years ago”.
    ReplyShare00

    Andrew Frisch
    “Honestly who cares if child rapists are victimized. They should be thankful they aren’t put down.”
    ReplyShare

    • COOL CA RC

      Link to this Pls… I wanna rebuke to that!!

      • Nicholas Maietta

        It’s difficult if not possible to have a constructive conversation with an online terrorist. I never waste my time with these types of people.

  22. Craig

    IMO what people need to do is stop being so bitter towards each other, most are here for a reason, to stop these insane laws that are being placed on hundreds of thousands of citizens of this country. We are in a war, a war against continued punishment, banishment, poverty, homelessness and the endless attack on our families. I have never complained much about my initial punishment for breaking the law, but I refuse to allow the public and the lawmakers to keep adding more on to me after I served my sentence, we have to push back hard, dig deep and file lawsuit after lawsuit, there has to be a cost for the states, counties and cities that keep enacting more restrictions. It has never been clearer to me that this is the only way to do, file and sue. Give what you can my friends, keep fighting until you die.

  23. mike r

    Hey rs did I hear you correctly that you had your 664/288 set aside since it was an attempt? I was unaware that you could do that since i have the same charge. Was it difficult, expensive and is there any real world benefit that you have witnessed in your personal experience.

    • mch

      Mike r;
      My conviction was a 664/288, the typical internet sting, two counts, but both 664’s. Last July 2014 my record was cleared via PC1203.4 and was handled by a public defender. There was no cost involved and a simple form to fill out.

    • COOL CA RC

      Keep it up.. I will see what I can do..

      How much money you need to fight this ?

    • RS

      Hey Mike R you heard correctly. An attempt is eligible for 1204.3. It cost me a thousand bucks because I had it done when it wasn’t common place. I hear people doing it with a public defender all day. The court didn’t even blink. I got the minute orders in my favor in the mail shortly after we filed. As far as what impact it’s had…. Unfortunately not a whole lot. It’s nice to have in my back pocket just so I can say it was expunged but ultimately we all know that the biggest issue we face is registration and unfortunately it does not have any impact on that requirement. I would ABSOLUTELY move forward with your expungement though. You never know when the laws will change and that right may get stripped from you too. The California Court of Appeal addressed this issue in People v. Lewis (2006) 146 Cal.App.4th 294. I would encourage all of you to look this case up and see if you fit the mold. It only works for attempts. The idea here is that the law excludes 288a but does not specifically exclude attempts of 288a. The case cites that an attempt and an actual commission of a crime are not the same and the law CANNOT be interpreted to read as such. So that makes you eligible. You can email me at hstge1980@yahoo.com if you wanna chat about it. We’re in this together. The sad thing is that obtaining a certificate of rehabilitation DOES provide relief from registration but 288a is excluded and the verbiage specifically excludes attempts. Huge disappointment. Good luck guys.

      • The Unforgiven

        I also have a 664/288a charge from an internet sting. I’m very interested in all this information and am looking into it further. Does the 1204.3 filing need to be in the county of the offense? Thanks in advance for any info.

        • rs

          I had my attorney do it but I am almost certain it has to be filed with the court you were convicted in. A public defender can do it. I would contact the public defenders office in the court you were convicted in and get direction there. Its a no brainer on 288a/664. DO NOT TAKE NO FOR AN ANSWER. Look up the case I cited in my original post and make it clear you know of cases that have been deemed eligible. These guys LOVE to say NO anytime a RSO asks a question. Good luck!

        • mch

          A 1203.4 must be filed in the county where the offense was committed. I have a 664/288a and received clearance via 1203.4. Santa Clara County and Orange County are both famous for their illegal internet stings and dishonest prosecutors and DA’s. Go for the 1203.4, you’ll get it.

        • NPS

          That depends. I was convicted in Orange County, however, I immediately relocated to San Francisco County and had my probation transferred. I received my 1203.4 from San Francisco County. It no longer depends on where you were convicted but where you completed probation.

  24. USA

    Very interesting. As such, I’m very disturbed to learn that the information posted on the web site for all to see isn’t updated? I’ve actually called the number via the site to ask questions and it sounded like the woman was asleep. Lets be real. Posting the names and addresses of individuals is very disturbing. Yet, people want to pass harsher and crazier laws? SOmething must be done. Its out of control. Good luck Janet

  25. COOL CA RSO

    I say END IT !!!

  26. mike r

    Thanks mch idk I’d I can do that because although I only have one count of 664/288 they tacked on a 288.2b and a 647.6 after i refused their plea deal. My public pretender offered absolutly no defense or rebuttal against any of the charges at jury so of course I was convicted on all counts. Instead of the 8 months of work project if I took the deal I ended up with 5 years 4 months in prison. So word of caution to anyone that wants to fight be sure you can afford a real attorney or take the deal. Sad but true. Anyway thanks mch I’m still going to look into it. And Janice you made headline news here in sacramento last night on fox with this suit. Way to go and god speed on it.

  27. USA

    Guys, I actually filed my own 17 (B) and PC 1203.4 as well. Both were granted and I actually never came to court for the 1203.4. Good luck.

  28. steve

    Are they doing this? Wouldn’t it be helpful to show EVERYONE”S assessment so people know who’s dangerous and who’s not.

    “Beginning January 1, 2013, the Department of Justice is required by law to post static risk assessment scores for sex offender registrants who are eligible to be scored (Penal Code § 290.03-290.09). For information relating to risk assessments, eligibility, and scoring, please visit the State Authorized Risk Assessment Tool for Sex Offenders (SARATSO)”

    • David

      They should be certain to include a critic that notes the Static-99 is biased against the young and against gay men (and is not used for female RCs).

  29. Never Quit

    JANICE: The below cited articles (one from 2003 and one from 1998), from major news organizations (i.e., SFGate.com and a cited study conducted by the AP), indicates and serves to prove that the State of California, and local police departments, have been aware of the inaccurate information contained on their publicly-available database dating back at least 17 years. Their pattern and practice in response to the issue has been to do nothing more than provide ‘lip service’ to those who make inquiries or voice criticisms. I know that you and your ‘team’ will research and chart the yearly expenditures and allocation of funding by the State to operate the database and website. I believe this will prove that the State’s only concern is the $$. As we are all aware, a pattern and practice of reckless disregard as to (a) publishing inaccurate information that (b) places the safety of registered citizens at increased risk resulting in (c) proven acts of violence and vigilantism will need to be proven during the course of litigation. I hope this information proves to be helpful.

    Further, the 1st article is from 1998, which pre-dates the establishment of the internet website. In the article, the then-CA Attorney General, Bill Lockyer, cites a “lack of resources” as the cause for not being able to update the information, and/or keep the information current.

    2003 article headline reads: “Sex offender tracking criticized / Victims, police say Megan’s Law Web site outdated, inaccurate”
    http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Sex-offender-tracking-criticized-Victims-2642468.php

    Article from 1998. Headline: “Flaws Cloud Effectiveness of Megan’s Law”
    http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Flaws-cloud-effectiveness-of-Megan-s-Law-3081628.php

  30. Tobin's Tools

    To those advocating inclusion of Static-99/R scores into the registry: the Static-99/R is often inaccurate. “Static-99 scores do not predict the severity of potential future offenses, however. Rapes involving extreme violence and the abuse of young children are lumped together with crimes like voyeurism and indecent exposure.” Peter Aldhous, “These 10 Questions Can Mean Life Behind Bars,” BuzzFeed News, Apr. 22, 2015. This is the main reason a tiered registry is dumb; it’s based on the Static-99/R! Under a tiered registry endorsed by CASOMB, a violent rapist and/or child molester may not be subject to lifetime registration — yet a non-violent voyeur and/or exhibitionist may be subject to lifetime registration because of one’s static score. The Static-99/R score is mostly reliant on number of charges and number of victims, in which felonies and misdemeanors are scored with equal weight. Equally, the Static-99/R scam scores non-violent and violent victims with equal weight! The Static-99/R is not scientific!

    • steve

      If you have no prior arrests before your sex conviction and none subsequently you should score relatively low on the static 99. That part of it is not science. If you didn’t learn your lesson once the static 99 is not your friend

    • David

      Inconsistent variables. In the State where I was charged, any physical contact, including a consensual hug, was legally considered “assault” and therefore carried the description of “violent”.

  31. mk

    How about the information be true? They show my loved one living at my address. He does not. He comes here just about everyday but he lives in another city. So the site shows him living at two addresses.

  32. Agamemnon

    If they don’t abolish the registry altogether, they should at least include one’s booking photo to help show how much time has passed since the crime was commited.

  33. USA

    Very true. The information on this site should be updated! If they are so serious about continuing the site, they should at least maintain it. The date of convictions are missing/assessments are almost non existent and so on.

    • j

      The ironic (and idiotic) thing is that this is information commonly available and most likely at hand as are all aspects of this information. It was necessary to compile the database and it is just a matter of punishing the registrants through a crime of omission.

  34. Simon, Psy.D

    I absolutely agree with Tobin’s Tools. The Static-99/R is a scam. I disagree with “steve,” in that the Static-99/R inaccurately flags both first-time sex offenders and repeat sex offenders. Like Tobin’s Tools said: the Static-99 scam is highly dependent on number of charges/convictions and number of victims — as both are given most points compared to the other so-called “Risk Factor[s].” Thus, misdemeanors are given equal weight to felonies. Also, victims of non-violent crimes are treated with equal weight as victims of violent crimes. Again, a first-time non-violent exhibitionist and/or voyeur should never score higher than a violent rapist and/or child molester. How absolutely stupid, when all categories of sex crimes are lumped together into one so-called scientific ‘risk assessment.’ Andrew Harris, Amy Phenix, R. Karl Hanson, and David Thornton are all scam artists that must be exposed for being frauds (as they are the Static-99 creators)!

    • David Kennerly

      Well, I don’t know too much about Amy Phenix except that I once had, now about six or seven years ago, a long phone conversation with her and found that she was quite supportive of challenging the registry, the treatment industry, California’s civil commitment program at Coalinga and even critical of Tom Tobin, himself.

      She also confirmed for me that the “sexually violent predator” term is completely bankrupt.

      So, in the absence of other information which others may well have, I’d say that she is probably one of the more reasonable people in the treatment quagmire.

      Here’s a link to where she explains the coding rules for the Static 99, which may be immensely helpful. For myself, I will read it as my own score is completely up in the air, from my confused understanding of it.

      http://www.amyphenix.com/static.htm

  35. Thornton

    To correct steve’s claim, the “developers” of the Static-99/R (David Thornton, et al.) claim their fraudulant actuarial applies at moment of conviction. Hence, even a first-time offender is subject to Risk Factor scoring. The problem with the Static-99/R scam, as Tobin’s Tools and Hanson said, is all sex crimes are lumped together in the samples. Exhibitionism and voyeurism, crimes of non-violence, are not equal to rape and child molestation. Yet the Static 99 developers sell their scheme as applicable to all sex crimes. This is disingenuous at best. The Static 99 scam just tries to make the fortune telling process seem more scientific than it really is. Fact: no test can predict human behavior, not especially when the scam relies on only eight to ten questions. The CANADIAN (not American) Static 99 developers ought to be jailed for the fraud they continue to sell. People’s lives — and sometimes even freedom (in cases of indefinite detention and SVP hearings) — are harmed because of junk science!

  36. sam

    Will CA RSOL challege missing scores as well? And if so, will the legitimacy of the Static-99R be challeged? I pled to five misdemeanor sex crimes in 2003 when I was 24 years old (first time offense). In 2005, right after probation, my record was expunged by the judge under 1203.4. Yet expunging it didn’t stop my status as a sex offender and having my info published! Last year, I applied for a Certificate of Rehabilitation. The judge denied the C of R because I have a 6 score on the Static-99R! The judge ignored that I have never been arrested since, the letters and good reports I had, and my academic/treatment/employment progress. I appealed and lost because the judge has ultimate discretion. Why rely on the Static-99R? The Static-99R is a fraud! I made a mistake for God’s sake!

  37. sam

    Just to add, a 6 on the Static-99R classifies me as a “high risk sex offender,” which I disagree with because I made a stupid mistake about 12 years ago (and learned from it). Under the tier-registry proposal, which relies on the Static-99R scam, I would be required to register for life! Contrastingly, a violent rapist who scores 3 would not be subject to lifetime registration under tiered registration. Any one see disproportionality? (BTW, John Gardner scored a “3.” So much for the Static-99 being accurate! /sarcasm)

    • mk

      My hub has said the only way his score could be lowered is if he committed another crime. (not going to happen) but how stupid is that???

  38. C G

    Hi,
    Awesome website. Thank you for all you do.
    I just had a comment on the registry information being public. If part of the argument against it is the fact that when my brother was in prison he (and all inmates with the same crimes) were separated from the other population because of the fear of attacks and killing? I realize that being in prison is different that in the community but the same people that are in prison are in every community.
    If the state of California has a reason to house them separately and take certain precautions, isn’t that an admission that the website and registry is a very dangerous thing?
    Thanks,
    Christina

    • Timmr

      I agree, doesn’t seem to be much difference between the pecking order in prison or out. Murderers are giving more respect than sex offenders.

  39. David

    The Static-99 needs to be revised to take into account: 1. treatment received/counseling completed, and 2. time/years since the offense occurred.

  40. guest

    Is there any news on this lawsuit?

    I found this memo today, from 2013, from the IT Director of the CA DOJ.

    http://oag.ca.gov/sites/oag.ca.gov/files/info_bulletin_retire_clets_esa_usa_message_keys_0.pdf

    It appears they have plenty of resources to work on this web site for ease of use, but apparently not for legal compliance dating back to 2010.

  41. CA cool RC

    any update on this ?

  42. Two States East

    I guess where this thing sits is maybe it is a very expensive lawsuit. I could sure believe that. Wasn’t back there in 2010 some push to get them to fix this? I can’t find, but the reply back then was lack of funding I think.

    And last November Kamela’s spokesperson, Kristin Ford, said “the statute requires….., but there is no requirement that local law enforcement tell the department when an offender is released.”

    Then maybe it isn’t good to press the issue, as Janis has a good relationship with them. Her offer to all of you who want the info added has been honored many times, which is a wonderful thing.

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 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 *

Please answer this question to prove that you are not a robot *