Assembly Further Amends, Passes AB 2569

The Assembly further amended, then passed Assembly Bill 2569 which would reduce the number of individuals eligible for an exclusion from their name, photo and other personal information being posted on the CA Megan’s Law website.

The bill was amended by the Appropriations Committee on May 27 and would require a “local assistance center for victims and witnesses” to speak to a victim in order to determine if granting the exclusion would be “in the best interest of the victim”. A prior version of the bill required CA Department of Justice to speak to victims.

The bill was passed on the floor of the Assembly on June 1 and then referred to the Senate on June 2.

“Assembly Bill 2569 must be stopped in the Senate,” stated CA RSOL President Janice Bellucci. “If this bill becomes law, the lives of many registered citizens and their family members will be significantly harmed.”

In the Senate, AB 2569 will be heard by both the Public Safety and Appropriations Committees. The bill will only be considered on the floor if the committees vote in its favor. No committee dates have yet been set, but will be reported on this website as soon as they are available.

The annual cost to implement this bill is estimated between $150,000 to $180,000.

Related posts

Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...


  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  19. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
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.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Well, the part where they request to speak to the victim is a little strange? What if the victim is dead? Mentally disabled? What if the person is mentally incapable? Living in Europe? Asia? Very odd. It’s difficult to believe this part of the bill could be carried out in both a fair and professional manner. Secondly, it’s difficult to believe that it will be done at all when the State of California can’t even update and run the Megan’s website as it should. There are no updates and it’s filled with errors. Good luck with updating thousands of records.

How do we stop it? What can we do to bring logical rational thinking to brain dead people how can I help.

I’m a little confused. Who does this bill apply to? Incest convictions only?

Too funny. These criminal regimes are getting dumber by the day. The only intelligent thing to be doing is reducing the number of people on their Registries. Anything else is idiocy that is harming our country.

USA- Yes this group of SO is being targeted

Sounds like implementation of this bill will far exceed $150,000 to $180,000. Considering the grossly excessive salary, compensation, and pension benefits of state and local government con employees, the 150k to 180k seems like the annual salary alone for one manager of these “local assistance center[s].”

Can Janice please verify exactly who this amended bill applies to please

JN -Read the post trail

In California, there are over 18,000 registered sex offenders — of the over 100,000 — NOT published on Megan’s Law website. This bill seems like a small step to ensuring more, and perhaps eventually all, of the unpublished sex offenders are published. So the slippery slope begins…

More names = More money justified to run that damn list.

Simple as that.

it says the annual cost of this do nothing piece of work is $150-200K per year; has anyone thought about filing lawsuits as a tax payer on behalf of the tax payer for pending legislation in a committee and require them ( the sponsor or committee chair) to show good cause the cost benefit analysis of passing such legislation.

honestly based on that approach it doesn’t need to become law first.

Obviously this cannot be RETROACTIVE?
What if you were granted exclusion many years ago?

Can someone PLEASE clarify what the amended bill applies to? Does it apply to only those cases of incest or does it include other offenses such as 647.6a?
Thank you.

PH it only applies to incest victims

The way the law is written they can retroative if they want it’s all subjective.