ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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


Monthly Meetings | Recordings (6/12 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings

Click here to sign up now for ACSOL’s Online EPIC Conference: Empowered People Inspiring Change Sept 17-18
Download a PDF of the schedule

California

Sex offender compliance checks throughout San Bernardino County nets 27 arrests

A sheriff’s operation to ensure registered sex offenders are compliant in their terms of release netted 27 arrests during a two-month span.

San Bernardino County sheriff’s deputies assigned to the Crimes Against Children detail along with State Parole agents, County Probation officers, and officers from the San Bernardino and Redlands police departments fanned out around the county making compliance checks in part of a national program known as Operation Broken Heart. Full Article

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 do not solicit funds
  • If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  • All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  • 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.  
 
Subscribe
Notify of
61 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

The beginning of the Article says 700 people were checked on, and the end of the Article says 369 were Compliant.

Out of the 700, all 369 RC were compliant. Out the 27 arrest, most likely, were not sex offenders. That is what I am reading between the lines. Another, so called good doers report from the police on the backs of RC’s, which, had nothing to do with SO’s so the media will bait it and sell it.

Actually, I’m not sure this writer fully understood what was going on. But to your point, the story says:

” … conducted 52 probation searches, 132 parole searches, and 542 compliance checks during the operation. … The operation also found 369 registered sex offenders were compliant.”

So, the 369 figure is related to the 542 figure, not to the 700 figure. Still, that is a problem, as what came of the other 173 people subjected to compliance checks, considering the story says they only found 369 compliant?! Perhaps those people weren’t home at the time, or refused to answer the door or otherwise talk with them or confirm anything. Or???

This story is talking of probation and parole. But it noted they did probation and parole searches, and they also did compliance checks.

I find this confusing, and I suspect it means those who got only a “compliance check,” which the story does not define but probably means confirming they are living there, were NOT on parole or probation, and so could not be searched.

So, I am suspecting this was compliance checks on registrants who were all done with parole or probation, and I read 290 to specifically ban that, makes it illegal. In fact, here there will have been more people off parole or probation subjected to that than to those subjected to parole or probation checks.

290 limits what registering agencies can seek to prove residency, giving a list of what can be produced to “prove” it, and compliance checks are not on that list. 290 says “proof” is “limited” to what is on that list, meaning nothing else can be required. I read that to mean compliance checks in person cannot be required/imposed. The pertinent part of 290, at 290.015 (a) (5) (capitals added for emphasis):

“(5) Copies of adequate PROOF of residence, which shall be LIMITED
to a California driver’s license, California identification card,
recent rent or utility receipt, printed personalized checks or other
recent banking documents showing that person’s name and address, or
any other information that the registering official believes is
reliable.”

I don’t even see how that “limitation” can be read as allowing anything but what is on that list, and compliance checks are not on the list. That says you already have PROVEN your residence, so they can’t have you prove it over and over again, you are only required to prove it once a year when you register or at any other time you might be required to register, such as if you move. As such, the only time I can see a compliance check being allowed is with probable cause — and that is not the case for these compliance checks.

And it should be illegal to do such “compliance checks,” it is just plain harassment, and harassment is its only real purpose. 290 lists what documents can be used. It has been proven, there is no justification to demand continual proof all the time, the law says that is only required once a year.

But those compliance checks will continue — until someone hires a lawyer to raise that issue and beats it.

Simply pure harassment!! On parole, probation or not how difficult it is to try and establish a life when u have numerous squad cars and practically a tactic team in full gear raiding your home. It’s out of control. What’s the use of even having an Internet exclusion if they do this which simply exposes one. Absolutely ridiculous.

“What’s the use of even having an Internet exclusion if they do this which simply exposes one.”: That’s one of the big reasons they do it and why they do it in the way they do it, loudly! This serves to notify the neighbors, even as 290 specifically bars them from notifying the neighbors except in the more extreme cases.

But I gave my reading of the section that appears to bar compliance checks, and using that, you would not even have to show it is harassment. But again, the argument for those on probation or parole, and your comment suggests you are one of those, is much murkier, and those are the only ones who could be subjected to a search without a warrant or your consent.

That’s exactly my point anonymous forever. My wife and I raised our kids in this house we’ve owned for the last 15 years having a good report with all the neighbors. I have a Internet exclusion for a 22 year old offense and these crazy address verification checks which are according to the station is every 6 months. Neighbors are beginning to wonder why a squad car and uniformed cops keep showing up at my house. insane!!

Same here, Frank, been living here for 15 years, had the exclusion for 10, but they still have to show up every six months and park their patrol cars up on the street or pull into the driveway, sometimes they wear bullet proof vests. Thankfully, the lots are big here, can’t always see your neighbor, but still…actually the whole thing is comical in a dark way.

And these seem to only be getting more prolific. Until someone files a lawsuit to challenge them, they will continue. That suit should challenge them on all possible arguments, including my reading of 290 barring such checks without probable cause, that they are harassment, that the manner in which they are done is a subterfuge of the 290 prohibition about informing neighbors, and any other reasons that someone might come up with.

Regardless, you do not even need to file a suit to not cooperate with them. You are under no obligation to do so. And, you can even bar them from coming to your door by posting a “no trespassing” sign, maybe even a narrow and specific one to bar them only. But if you allow the compliance check, absolutely never let then enter your home or even peer inside from the doorway.

That is why we need to document these things across the State. Video them, have a form to fill out. A few instances is not enough to make a case. Kind of like stop and frisk, a few and they will just say over zealous individuals doing their job. If a pattern of ignoring PC 290 is established, that means operating procedure, then we have something.

Timmr, I see in a sweep just done in Camarillo, in Ventura County, the story notes it was done with a federal grant. I saw in one up north that the feds were involved in that one. I think probably all these are being pushed and paid for by the feds. See that story here:

http://citizensjournal.us/sheriffs-sex-offender-sweep-of-camarillo-and-county-find-all-in-compliance/

The grant is called the Sexual Assault Felony Enforcement (SAFE / ELEAS). But I would not presume it is limited to felons.

I note, the feds cannot make police do it. And as I have noted in other posts, my reading of 290 is that it actually bars compliance checks. Federal grant money cannot override the state law, the compliance checks are illegal even with federal money and a federal push for them.

Codename – Operation Broken Heart ranking right up there with Operation Desert Shield, Operation Desert Storm, Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Desert Shield, Operation Desert Fox and etc. etc.
Thanks to all those brave soldiers who fought this dangerous and bloody war against this dreaded and treacherous enemy. (sarcasm, of course)

It is no different than that emotional manipulation of the government naming all these illegal “laws” after dead kids. Magan, Adam, blah blah blah

And without a doubt, every single one of those checks was conducted on overtime.

Clearly, there is a manipulation on the numbers. Either law enforcement partaking in “Operation Broken Heart” is not being honest in the figures, the newspaper reporter, or both? Seems very Tom Tobinish to me…

But no matter the precision of these numbers, a lot of raids and confronting of registrants took place.

Same thing with a recent article on a Sacramento Sweep:

http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/crime/article71288737.html

Headline “43 Arrests in Sacramento County Operation Targeting Sex Offenders”…sounds like they arrested 43 registered citizens right?

Read the article:

2 day sweep (April 6-7)
426 Contacts

ONLY 16 OF WHICH WERE EVEN REGISTERED CITIZENS!!!

“More than 1/2 of the 16 were arrested for being out of compliance” so 9ish probably though they don’t say specifically how many, the rest were just vagrants who had outstanding warrants.

Yet headline on ABC10 website “28 sex offenders arrested in Sacramento County sweep”
http://www.abc10.com/story/news/local/sacramento/2015/11/20/28-sex-offenders-arrested-sacramento-county-sweep/76133652/

and headline on KCRA website “28 sex offenders arrested along American River Parkway …” http://www.kcra.com/news/28-sex-offenders-arrested-along-american-river-parkway/36586044

The media loves to distort the #’s any chance they can get and the law enforcement press releases are purposely worded to be ambiguous so that this will happen!

headline on KCRA website “28 sex offenders arrested along American River Parkway …” http://www.kcra.com/news/28-sex-offenders-arrested-along-american-river-parkway/36586044

article also says:
“Deputies are reminding folks to stay vigilant: don’t walk on the 23-mile parkway alone, don’t travel off designated paths and avoid exercising at night”

Maybe it’s just me. But wouldn’t you think these deputies & city officials would find a place for these folks to live instead of along a river? Instead officials make a few sweeps here and there, and scare people into avoiding the river.

It was my understanding that the Duty to Register meant that an RSO needed to report yearly or monthly, whatever the case may be.

I did not know that this has been construed to mean that RSO’s need to provide proof on demand that they are in compliance with their Registry.

You are absolutely right, once registrants are off parole or probation. See my comments above about why my reading of 290 actually bars these compliance checks as illegal.

But they will continue, until someone spends a lot of money on a good lawyer to challenge them. Of course, if that person wins, the legislature will simply change the language in 290, so there might be a respite from this, but it is not likely that respite would last.

Nonetheless, if you are off parole or probation, you do not need to do anything to cooperate with this, you do not have to answer your door, if you do you do not have to say even one syllable to them, you do not have to identify yourself, you can simply close the door again. If you say anything at all to them, you might want to limit it to simply telling them to get off your property and away from your home or they will be in violation of the criminal trespassing laws. In fact, you can post a sign at the front of your property barring their entrance as criminal trespassing.

If all or nearly all registrants were to handle these compliance checks like this, eventually the police would figure they are wasting only their own time. Imagine these news reports saying the police spent all this money on these checks, and it was a 100% waste because no one at the addresses would open the door to them or, if they did, they simply told the police to leave or they would face criminal trespassing charges.

But as long as registrants cooperate and talk with them, or even more than that, out of fear and intimidation, this absolutely will continue and probably only grow. Your cooperation feeds the beast.

Keep in mind that every additional codified law adds to the punitive effect for the entire scheme in the first place. As a matter of fact, registrants cannot be arrested, if they are not on probation or parole, if they refuse to answer the door or communicate in any manner whatsoever with field compliance officers. In addition, this is not a matter of needing a lawyer to “fight.” If anyone is arrested based upon the registrant’s non-compliance of a compliance check, then that person has been falsely arrested. Pure and simple.

Thank you for your information. I looked up 290.015 (a) (5) and read it. It seems to me I only have to give my information once a year, it never says to re-confirm it during compliance checks.

Absolutely, Mike. That is what I have been saying in these threads for a long, long time.

In addition, in my reading of that section, it gives the list of what will “prove” residency, and you must present that proof at time of your registration; and it says proof of residency is “limited” to that list. I read that to mean the police are limited in what they can demand for proof, limited to that list, and compliance checks are not on that list. Since police are not allowed to require more or other than that list, such as compliance checks, that seems to me to bar the compliance checks being done at all, absent probable cause.

Further, as you point out, you are only required to provide that proof at time of registration.

You are correct, nothing in the authorization to conduct Home Verification Raids is there a mandate that Former Citizen Detainees must cooperate with the raids.

However this IS 2016 in the United States and if you are a Former Citizen Detainee convicted of a sex offense and you do not bow down to your badge adorned masters, you will be killed.

THAT is America folks, you obey they gun bearers or they will kill you. When a gun bearer kills a FCD, the rest of the American Pig Dogs will not pay attention and the screams of the loved ones of the FCD will go unheard, because if you are not willing to kill and/or die to be heard, your voice is but a whisper.

Simple as that.

~Silence DoGood

Well, sorry to hear this. If you move, you do have to change your address. Plus, using drugs isn’t a good idea. I have a few questions for people/or I need their constructive opinion. I’ve been doing a major home rehab for more than a year. I’m registering now in the City of (?). I’ve been doing this for a year or more. I’m moving back to a different city (residence complete). It’s located in a county where obtaining a Certificate of Rehab is tough (I tried back in 2007). As such, according to the registry, if you stay or even spend the night periodically at another location, you must register there? I was thinking of registering at both locations and trying a Certificate of Rehab in the county where my residence isn’t located? Any thoughts? Let’s think about this in a legal way.

We did things that are illegal. Except for prostitution, these things should be illegal.

Probation and parole are the system’s way of seeing if we can be depended upon to stay clean and not break more laws. I just got off of probation for possession of child porn. The rules of probation were clear. I had to read and sign a list of those rules, and then they gave me a copy of the list. It was also clear my home was going to be searched as part of a probation check.

It’s easy to get through parole or probation without breaking the rules. So I don’t have much sympathy for those who break the conditions of probation and parole.

The whole sex offender registration thing stinks, but it’s the law right now, so we register. It’s not hard to register every year, and it’s not hard to register when moving. I have to register at every community college where I take classes. It’s a ridiculous rule, but I do it, and it doesn’t take very long.

It stinks that the rules keep on changing, but every time I re-register, I get a copy of the new rules, so it’s not hard to obey the new rules.

Sometimes I get really angry at it all. If I get stuck in that anger, and focus on it hour after hour, saying to myself “it’s wrong” over and over, it just eats at me, and makes it harder for me to live my life. I’m worried that some of you are also getting stuck in anger, and that it eats at you.

It’s beyond anger for some of us at this point. Since you just started on the Sex Offender Registry you don’t really know that it will be impossible to be successful no matter what you try to do. Why even bother with Community College? You aint gonna get a job being on the list. And good luck finding an apartment! Or roommates!

David, reality will slap you in the face soon enough. There is more to this than simply getting your driver’s license and renewing it. You will find that you are impacted in everything from being denied housing to being denied jobs to being denied where you can “legally” live/reside to being denied international travel and the basic enjoyment of life.

Your ride on this rollercoaster is just beginning…hang on because it’s going to be a bumpy one.

David, you make it sound simple, wish it was. Sure, some out there aren’t affected as much as others. Some are lucky enough to have a life style that is UN affected and the offense makes little impact in their daily life. The laws that are passed don’t affect them. But for the rest of us, we are impacted in every part of our lives. Yes, we all committed an offense, but after we have done our legal responsibilities, we don’t have to sit back and accept a life time of persecution. Anger gets things done, passive acceptance just gives the enemy more power.

USA, I applaud your resourcefulness. You might have a very good idea there. I suggest that one key to it will be which location is your PRIMARY residence. So check what is needed to establish a place as your primary residence, and get that done at the location your want to file under — the worse case scenario is that that will only make your case for jurisdiction stronger.

But you will have to actually stay living in the jurisdiction’s location at least the clear majority of the time, and more reasonably the great majority, or your claim of primary residence could be undermined and, with that, possibly your jurisdiction claim too.

Don’t forget, when you seek a COR, both the county where you live and the one where your conviction was can be involved. So if you are doing this to avoid the county where you were convicted, well, that county can be involved anyway, although that will be up to them if they want to.

It’s that time of year for SBC I guess. Here’s more press releases:

http://www.vvdailypress.com/article/20160520/NEWS/160529974

http://www.highlandnews.net/news/breaking_news/operation-broken-heart-results-in-arrests/article_c23eeac8-20f2-11e6-9ae1-e3f4e71a9faf.html

http://cms.sbcounty.gov/sheriff/MediaCenter/SheriffPressReleases/PressReleasesfor2016/May/RanchoCucamonga-OJJDPOperationBrokenHeart.aspx

When I (not on parole or probation) was visited for the 2nd time last year (just a month prior to my annual), there was a confrontation with the officer who visited me. In contacting the dept., I was informed they do these compliance checks twice a year.

Just makes me wonder even more, The Unforgiven,

More added punishment. What if they decided they want to check on you twice a day.
Do we just open the door for them?

When I was sentenced by the Judge, they said I had to register for life. Period.

They didn’t say: “And any new law or decision made by the State, County or Feds I must comply with at anytime that new procedure is implemented by the jurisdiction.”

They didn’t say: “As laws change over the years, your punishment may get worse and worse.”

They didn’t say: “In order to protect your privacy and attempt to live a normal life, you may want to retain an attorney for life…just to be safe.”

I recall back in about year 2 or 3 of my Price Club renewal…I was marched down to a large semi-dark garage at the local PD. There were 2 chairs planted in the middle of this huge empty garage. There was a nurse sitting by herself in one of the chairs. The officer said: “We are going to draw some blood”
I didn’t have a choice. Do you tell them no you are not going to take my blood?

I don’t know if they still pull this BS today as they did 25 years back.

It just goes on and on and on.

What jurisdiction are you in? San Diego County does twice a year, at least for me. May just be for my type of offense, may just be for me. Don’t know what reasoning they are using, or just do everyone twice a year. I think it would be a good idea to have a form to fill in by registrants, concerning these checks to document what is going on, to see any patterns, much like the Travel Group’s form. Many in LA have said they don’t get any or almost no compliance checks. Also, the officers try to push buttons to get you upset, not all, some are polite and brief, look like they really just want to get it over and do some real policing.

@Timmr, if your question was directed to me, I am in San Bernardino County. Again, after my run in, I contacted the dept., spoke with the one who does registration. She informed me that they (the dept) has to do twice a yr checks. I was not given info as to why or what offenses. Also spoke with the Sgt. regarding my matter. Been expecting a visit for awhile now but since there are recent press releases, I think I won’t be bothered for a couple months. No one has stopped by that I’m aware of. The officer in question did get a rise out of me. I refused to sign his paperwork. He argued with me, threatened a warrant for my arrest, based on not signing. I questioned everything, including the warrant. That made him even more angry. I did eventually sign it to make it/him go away but it won’t happen again. I’m fully aware that I only have, like, five rights left so I intend to stand my ground on them. I wrote about my experience in Dec 2015 when I had my annual. It’s in the Compliance Checks II section of this site.

Thank you, it was directed at you and at everyone who has gone through the compliance checks. I would just like to get a big picture view of how they are doing this. You maybe can make some sort of case out of it. I am doing something else right now, so I don’t know if I can manage some kind of compliance check survey.

I did contemplate filing a complaint which the Sgt. had no qualms about and gave me that as an option. I decided against it, mainly for not wanting to stir up things. Except for these checks, I am left alone, I have a place to live, etc, and I can just choose to not engage them anymore. I thought maybe that might be my best option for now.

Yeah, I don’t think the individual complaint is going to work with these checks, we have to get together and show a policy of disregard of 290. That is just my intuition, I am not a lawyer.

I wonder what the next operation will be called “Finger up a$$” ? they have operation boo, broken heart, all stupid names to make the public think they are doing work.. LAME… 27 arrests of RSO’s for violations over a 24 month period is NOTHING, most parole offices arrest a FEW RSO’s for so called rules violations on a daily basis ! this is all to make the public think they are doing thier job… piss poor excuse.

Main message this propaganda wants to give the public is 27 sex offenders arrested. Hip, hip, hooray, government making us all safe, law enforcement doing its job! The numbers are there to give the appearance of being a well thought out article. The public isn’t going to check them out. Thank you, the two who pointed this out on the comments section on the article page.

They keep deleting my comments.

If you use the word “sex” in a Disqus comment, it will be delayed indefinitely.

Thanks Anonymous. I have a few ideas. As noted, even if you stay there periodically, you must register! From what I’ve read/and experienced, you must inform the county you where convicted of if you file in another county. I doubt they can arrest you for still registering? My response, my wife and I have been having marital issues and I’m not sure how to answer that!

Yes, the county where the conviction was will/must be notified, although I’d have to go re-read the statute to see if you are the one who must notify them.

You do have to register in multiple jurisdictions if you reside there, including whether that is merely “regularly,” whatever that means, but “regularly” requires as little as once a week and presumably even less than that, maybe once a month or once every few months. So, you might very well need registration in multiple jurisdictions, but you do need to actually live at the one you want to file under.

And like I said, you would only have a stronger argument for that jurisdiction if you made that residence your primary residence, but that means you need to actually live there, have all your mail go there and other. You would be “residing” at both, but the one would be established as your primary residence — and like I said, I strongly recommend that you reside at the primary residence at least the majority of the time and, better, the great majority of the time. You are dealing in a question with nothing specifically written in the statute to address it — probably because the COR statute was originally written when no registrant ever had to register in more than one jurisdiction. (It used to be that the registration would be done in your hometown, and the state Justice Department would send it to any other jurisdiction that should have it, you did not have to run around to multiple places. But, as they have clearly tried to make registration as onerous as possible and as punishing as possible, they changed the law to make you run around to multiple jurisdictions, including multiple places where you “reside,” school campasses where you take classes, etc. They even tightened the time frame you have to do the registration from 60 days to 5 days.)

I think you are suggesting that you would live/reside at one location and not the other, but register at both even though you are not residing at one of them. No, that would not be wise, do not register that you are residing somewhere that you are not residing, that will only lead to trouble, you might get charged with filing a false or even perjurous report,or worse.

SB county does two compliance checks per year, at least this is the case while under supervision (parole/probation). In the meantime, 2016 has been a record year for homicides in both cities of San Bernardino and Highland.

Don’t Answer your door when they show up. There are no laws that say you must open your door to them. If they don’t call me first to tell me their coming, I don’t answer the door. They can knock all day long for all I care. If you Violate the registry, tell the judge you want a judge and jury of your peers, not his peers.
Also if you break any laws try telling the judge the law wasn’t written for our Class since were separate.

And, if true, it would be nice if they would make it clear something, “None were rearrested for sexual related offenses”

None of this surprises me. Even if they didn’t do regular compliance checks, they would be doing Halloween checks every year on RSOs. This is very common in a lot of states. Make sure you have your lights out & not handing out candy to the kiddies

Correct. I live in OC (expunged battery/Summary Probation/20 years ago/nothing prior/since). They show up twice s year? I was rather shocked the first time/they looked like contractors. I asked them a few questions and they didn’t know the answer (beach ban). I’m rather offended because they act like I’m some terrible person. I’ve always been very cordial. I’ll no longer answer the door.

I’ve invested in fencing my entire property and putting in iron gates. No one can even get into my yard. Good luck checking up on me!

If the gate is locked, OK. If it is not locked, then by law they have implied consent to take the walkway to the front door. But a simple “no trespassing” sign will eliminate that implied consent and make that entry criminal trespassing, barring even the police from entering without appropriate probable cause or a warrant.

Had 2 police knock at my door today at 9:30 AM asking me if I was who I am. I said I was indeed that person and then they asked for ID to prove it even though they had my info and picture on the clipboard. I showed my ID and they left.

This is just a reminder that they are always watching us…just a reminder that they own us.

Once you are off parole/probation in CA there is NO “beach ban” and no “park ban”(at least not in my county)… I dont think they can enforce it anyways as a citizen has access to places that he pays for in taxes….I think some counties did this but they were thrown out as beaches and parks are public(again at least in CA) I know I take my dog to the beach, and parks, I am a 290 and will continue to do so, as im not on parole/probation.. (dog beach) I pay taxes and I pay for parks, and beaches .. I dont know about candy/lights on Halloween, I think the porch light off (in CA) is only for parole/probation again, then again im above 30 and have passed out candy like maybe TWICE in my life ! once in my late teens and once like late 20’s ! dont care to pass candy out (I guess im the scrooge of Halloween aha)

Here you go: this is very vague!

Registration At More Than One Residence. Registrants who regularly reside at more than one residence address must register at each address, regardless of the number of days or nights spent there. If the addresses are in different jurisdictions, the registrant must go to the law enforcement agency having jurisdiction over each address (Pen. Code § 290.010).

Now, if you had a hard ass cop and he asked, have you been at this residence before? No. Ok. I could have a gf in ? If I slept there once a year and didn’t register, I could be non compliant! So, I’m just following the law!

I’ve always thought that wording of “regardless of the number of days or nights spent there” was confusing. Similar to what you mentioned, it would mean if I was at a place once but never again, it’s still “regularly” and should be registered as such. For awhile I was a transient. I did much traveling around CA & OR. Some spots, all in CA, I would just list numerous places with addresses of where I’ve been. It was nice to reflect on my vacation time and things I got to see, lol. Through my experience of being a transient, one thing was constant. Law enforcement wanted to know where “I lay my head at night”. That makes total sense of course as we’re all so “dangerous” and “predatory” when we’re sleeping.

The roving Compliance Checkers just visited me this evening. I stood at the gate to my property, confirmed who I am. They asked if they could come into my house. I said, “No.” They asked, “Why is that?” I explained that my civil rights attorney* said, “Never allow police officers into your house unless they have a warrant.” They asked if I had any computers and said, “I guess we can’t look at those either?” “Not without a warrant.” Then they pretty much shrugged and said, “Okay, see to next year.”

*civil rights attorney=Janice!

Beautiful. I wonder how many Americans have been hauled off to jail after giving police permission to poke around in their house or vehicle when police didn’t have a search warrant or probable cause. Good for you for knowing your rights and exercising them. I plan on doing the same now that I’m off probation.

What David did was right, NEVER allow law enforcement into your house or property once you are off paper unless they have a warrant. Never give them any info unless it is your name. Screw these pigs. I also have a locked gate, have not had anyone come around for going on 4 years. The last time when they did come I refused entry into my home, they just left.

David..you should have said on the cya next year… Doubtful as either 1) you have a new policy in effect to NOT ANSWER the door to anyone, or 2) youll be working on the job ha ha, Its good you gave sticked it to the man !….”and they walked away with their tail in-between their legs” ahah they are the SCUM out harassing people now, sounds like they are the predator now ! What city/county/agency was this so we all know ? 🙂 If you dont mind ?

Jake, I’m in SoCal. (The officer did seem a bit chagrined when I told her that I hadn’t been compliance-checked for the last two years so I hope that their agency wasn’t receiving federal funds for a job it hasn’t been doing.)

David: yea me to (so cal) and ROFL on the stupid cops NOT doing their job for the last 2 yrs…

Just another piece of information I found on the Casomb.org website, talking about compliance checks. I copied and pasted what is on page 161 I believe:

“Summary of Gaps in Registration and Notification:
• There is no law requiring law enforcement agencies to verify an offender’s registered address, either by utilizing field compliance and/or mail-in verifications on an ongoing basis. Law enforcement agencies that currently have registration verification and enforcement teams are generally unfunded and pulled together from existing, limited resources”

So, where in the PC290 regulations does it call for these? I don’t believe it does, and LE only thinks it is a policy. I would like to see their internal policy that states that these compliance checks are mandated by their department.

Someone who cares, after seeing San Diego County’s SAFE website it appears the compliance checks serve one main purpose — advertizing for public funds. They want to show what great people they are, keeping the constituents safe. And people don’t question that, because they think we are all raving sex maniacs. It is less dangerous and less costly for the LE to knock on our doors than rounding up gang members or breaking drug rings. Government is the biggest business in the country, and what they do is anything to get revenue and assure their continuance as any business does. They are amoral, the public defines what is moral, whether they know it or not. If we want to stop compliance checks, we have to find someway to convince the public this is all a sham. The legal system is rigged against us.

61
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x
.