ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (7/10 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

General CommentsGeneral News

General Comments June 2016

Comments that are not specific to a certain post should go here, for the month of June 2016. Contributions should relate to the cause and goals of this organization and please, keep it courteous and civil.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I was wondering if anyone knows of any job sites that are similar to Craigslist, but would have a more professional bent? The reason I am asking is that I’ve tried writing up a short description under the resumes section, and have only gotten responses from scammers.

Basically I wrote up something describing my education and experience, and then go on to state something to the tune of “over 10 years ago I made a mistake..and so on” I keep it very high level, not giving details.

So I was wondering if there was something similar that I could use to put the same thing in front a more professional audience. It seems all the major job search Monster, SimplyHired, etc do not allow anything like that. I thought trying to be upfront right off the bat would be the honorable thing, but what do I know. (if it matters, I am off the hit list, I would just have to worry about the BG check, which will still be a monster, which is why I thought being upfront right away would help.)


First, yes, CL is overrun with spammers and scammers. I would not post my personal info there.

That aside, re revealing on there resume, I would advise against that. First, if you have gotten an expungement, you can legally say, for most jobs, that you have not been convicted. Second, it seems to me that we passed a law in California that took effect this past Jan. 1, Band the Box, which bars employers from asking on a job application whether you have been convicted of a crime. They can check after hiring you, but in this scenario, that will mean they will have to justify firing you, I expect they would have to show that conviction directly affects the job — although I’m not sure what sanctions that might spark, if any, but regardless, this give your more leverage to keep the job. This is very different from simply not even interviewing you because you said you have a conviction, they have to justify a firing.

Further, while most companies might want to know about your conviction, not all do, so don’t put it on your basic resume. I know, for instance, that Bloomberg right on their application wants to know only about convictions that are no older than five years ago, even felonies — they specifically state they do not need any information about older convictions. (And frankly, I think there ought to be a law to establish the Bloomberg policy as a requirement. And mind you, five years is the former standard for considering someone to have passed the outside mark for the test of time, based on facts — we have now simply arbitrarily lengthened that to 10 years with no facts to back that up.)

Thanks Anonymous…I live in Ohio, and we only have the “Ban the Box” for the government jobs. I don’t think it applies to anything else. Luckily, I was was under the old tier 1 before AWA, and hence automatically fell off after 10 years. So you would suggest to simply not say anything at all? I’ve considered hearing a lot of companies go back 7 or 10 years.

I’ve been chewing on how to go about applying to a particular position that I am totally qualified for, but they ask for biographical info (on top of submitting a resume), including “Have you ever been convicted of a felony.” I don’t see any way around that one. Funny thing is though, that I looked up the corporate address of the company and noticed one person who is currently registered who works there. Not sure if he “knew someone” or how he got in.

This article is a year old, but very informative:

Static-99: A bumpy developmental path

I’m reposting this as I think it’s an additional avenue to have our voices heard. This is not to replace letter writing or phone calls to your representatives, it’s just an additional way to voice your opinion. When politicians receive these responses they get an overall percentage of people’s opinions and a breakdown of votes by districts along with the individual messages submitted by those in that representative’s district. So far only two of us have voted their opinion on these 2 upcoming bills. If you are not registered with POPVOX, please do so. Every California and Federal Bill can be voted on here and most importantly please leave a personal message. Personal messages (short or long) have the most impact. All messages sent are delivered to the politician that belongs in your district. POPVOX will display your vote and message for all to read, however your personal identity information is not shown publicly, it is only given to the politicians that received your message as that is required for all online messages sent to politicians. I know that the messages have been received as I have received many email responses from Congress. POPVOX has been very active on the federal level, but it is very new to California, so there is not much activity with people submitting their votes and messages. California is one of the first two states that they have expanded their service to. Also remember that you must be a resident of California to vote on a California Bill. Lets make sure we have an overwhelming NO vote to both of these Bills.

SB 448: Sex offenders: Internet identifiers.

AB 2569: Registered sex offenders exclutions.

Please be sure to carefully vote to OPPOSE both bills, as people have mistakenly voted the wrong way in the past. (Like voting yes but then writing a message opposing a bill). For those of you that sit by the sidelines and don’t normally let your voice be heard, this is the easiest way to help us help you!

I was so disappointed to see that only one person bothered to vote on either of these bills since I posted these links. Makes me think that very few of you are willing to do anything to support fighting against these laws. POPVOX does work well when people actively participate. If you’re too lazy or afraid to speak up for yourself, don’t expect anyone else to do it for you.

I voted on both , I got 2 emails thanking me for my votes

I would, but the site just goes gray and doesn’t do anything when I click oppose using the browser on my phone.

I’ve never tried it on my phone. I do know that some mobile browsers might not work well with all sites. I always have at least two different browsers installed on my phones just in case one doesn’t work well.

Lake County-The page just went dim on me and didn’t accept my attempt.

Maybe they didn’t like me being in Nevada? Will do what I can from here.


You must be from California to vote on these bills. However you can vote on Federal Bills from any state.

I live in CA and it did the same thing to me, when I voted that is , yet I got e mails saying thank you

I tried to vote, but the screen darkens and nothing happens.

I just voted and everything went okay, however, I had to sign in, first.

The stuck screen happened to me when I opposed. I am on a laptop using Firefox browser.

I use Firefox too. I had no problems, but I was already registered. The new CA section is still in Beta Test, so maybe they have some bugs to work out. I have used this countless of times for Federal Laws though without one problem. This really is a great tool that has worked well on the Federal level and will eventually work well on the State level. We are lucky to be one of the first 2 states that can use this service. I know that politicians read our messages since I’ve had many emails from Congress thanking me for my comments. You will only get a response back from politicians if you send a message with your vote. They probably do look at the overall votes, but adding a message has much more impact on them. Your messages will ONLY get forwarded to your actual representative as that is normal procedure for all correspondence to politicians. It is policy (in Congress especially) that all letters or messages received to be only considered and replied to by your representative based on your address. The exception might be(?) if you write to a committee member if your representative is not in that committee. It normally takes 2-3 weeks for me to get a response from Congress.

Actually, the problem is I wasn’t logged on. Duh, Harry said so above. It let me make my comment after I logged in. Sorry Lake, I didn’t see your post until now. Website administrator, how about having a POPVOX link on this site, next time?

Great job so far everyone, now we have a few votes and messages to show. So far no one has supported these bills on POPVOX. Most likely, the supporters don’t yet know this service exists in CA. There ignorance is our gain. Now we just need comments added by some group leaders, AKA “Stakeholders” as their messages also have great influence and their messages are read more often by politicians and the public who are deciding how to vote. This is one more opportunity to educate the public.

Am I reading this LA Times story right? Is there a 290 registration exemption for GOP officials who pleaded out to a felony charge of distributing pornography to a minor when the DA reduced it to a misdemaener? Nowhere in this article is lifetime sex offender registration mentioned as part of this distinguished gentleman’s (former head of the LA County Republican Party) punishment.

He was ordered to attend a 52 week “Sex Offender” counseling course, put on probation for three years, ordered to stay away from minors, and has to perform community service. But no mention of 290 registration.

Methinks there is a foul odor emanating from this courtroom. I can’t tell if it’s coming from the judge or the DA. I know it may be hard to believe, but I think they might be in cahoots. My faith in the American justice system is just utterly shattered. Woe is me!

No, no exemption. The story simply didn’t mention registration one way or the other. I haven’t looked up that charge, is it even the list for registration?

The media doesn’t think registration is a big deal anyway, they believe in the Price Club myth, so it doesn’t occur to them to mention it as a real consequence of committing a sex crime. Yes, have to keep that in mind when reading these articles.

This was classified as a misdemeanor. I have actually had to have an argument with the LA Times in the past over the point that yes, misdemeanants DO need to register and are subject to the collateral disabilities that go with registration. The Times kept insisting that is not so, but finally ended by saying just about no one registers for a misdemeanor, they all proceed to committing a felony and register for that — and they attributed that to what they were told by the state Justice Department! And the Times would have nothing more to do with the discussion, as far as they were concerned, since as far as they were concerned just about no one registers for a misdemeanor, so it is not worth bothering to report or let the public know. This was with the Times ombudsman — a policy person — and that person dealing with the reporter.

We know the state Justice Department knowingly lied to the LA Times. And no honest or reputable news person would accept such crap from the Justice Department as the final word, that is NOT up to the level the Times pretends to be at. They would at less check what the 290 statute says and see misdemeanors must register. And they would not accept a say-so about them all moving up to a felony in short time – just like reefer madness.

I think both of you guys are probably reacting more sensibly than I did. I let my emotions get the better of my logic here. But I did check out the details at the LA Superior Court website and determined the following:

(Caveat lector: I am not a lawyer & only hope that I read the codes correctly.)
Mr. Hounsell pleaded out to PC 288.2(A)2 which is a wobbler. His sentence indicates the misdemeanor version. A felony conviction of 288.2(A)2 does require registration. A misdemeanor conviction does not. I bet that the registration issue was the #1 issue to Mr. Hounsell and once that was off the table he would have pleaded to most anything.

As far as the press not mentioning registration, my experience tells me they almost always mention it if it does, in fact, apply. Probably because the press understands that it is a form of punishment or, at least they understand that the public perceives it as punishment and they want to give the public their full pound of flesh.

For Risk Assessments, what does ‘convictions’ mean? For example, if you were convicted of a felony and 2 misdemeanors at one time and then nothing subsequently, would that be 1 conviction or 3?

I know a few states like Ohio and Maryland have found that registration is in fact punishment and thus cannot be enforced retroactively. Now that that precedent has been set, does anyone know if there are any cases in the works claiming that registration is cruel and unusual punishment? It is my assumption that that would be the next logical step in the process for the repeal of sex offender registration laws.

Individual states may have a constitution that will interpret the registry as punishment, however that has no effect on other states who’s constitutions are worded differently. The precedent may have been set in those states, but that will not have an effect on CA. Our biggest issue is that the Supreme Court had already ruled that registration is not punishment and the court’s decision will be very hard to change.

I don’t believe the SCOTUS ruling was on California registration. The details of the individual state’s requirements are part of the determination of whether it is punishment. AND, a lot has been added since the state high court and SCOTUS made those decisions. In fact, the state made its decision based on how it applied to the defendant in that case, a misdemeanant who was not even posted on the Internet.

This goes way beyond just challenging retroactive. We need to challenge SO Registration for everyone.

It is a clear violation of Substantive Due Process, and even the SCOTUS justices back in 2003 questioned if registration violates that. It’s a shame we can’t get that tested in SCOTUS, but we do need to wait for a 9th judge. If we tie, we lose as long as the lower court already says registration is constitutional…which it will if it has judges elected by the people.

Well, the retroactive affects even all the new things that they keep adding on. So if tomorrow they say you will have to live in a concentration camp and perform slave labor, they will make it retroactive and you will have to, even if you were convicted in a plea bargain and would never have agreed to it with this new horror. So retroactivity does affect everyone.

Imagine how the state would be turned upside down if it could not make any of the new stuff retroactive, so had to have 10,000 different forms of registration to keep track of depending on when people were convicted.

This Sotomayor decision seems very encouraging, although not sex offender related, it’s possible she will swing our way.

Yes, I found the Sotomayor Decision pretty extraordinary…there may be hope from her, but the Supreme Court needs badly a liberal replacement in the current vacancy. (hopefully, very liberal)

Best Wishes, James

I haven’t read that, but it was noted when she was nominated that she had a record of hard on crime. Whatever that case says, it might be more an aberration than an overall outlook.

Well I am on the national call with RSOL and from Janice’s comments, it looks like we are going to be stuck with this law. Furthermore, it appears in the Federal system that there seems to be little in the way of checks and balances on a prejudiced Federal judge. This is very depressing.

I apologize for harping. As I ponder Janice’s portion of the call, I feel gut punched. Any half educated person who read Janice’s motion as opposed to the government’s briefs, would be struck with how clearly that it should be an easy decision. There is absolutely no lady of justice with any scales. In this case she is just a black robed governmental employee protecting her paycheck. In her case it is as if a Federal judge should not use any common sense. To rule that one of the plaintiffs should suffer an indignity, for the case to be ripe, perhaps death in the case of the plaintiff with Iranian ties, illustrates that common sense and a sense of fairness is not required to sit on the Federal bench.
Maybe for the younger citizens there will be a silver lining, but for me the sands are almost finished slipping through the hour glass. Now when I am in public and the star spangled banner plays, I want to throw up.

So we splurge on sending a volunteer registrant to England, where he will only be sent back, not allowed to enter, and we have a ripe case. That’s not difficult to address. We don’t have to wait for someone to do it and volunteer to be in the case; we can set it up.

Interesting article on a recent study regarding crimes committed by police officers. One notable quote: “The most common crimes were simple assault, drunken driving and aggravated assault, and significant numbers of sex crimes were also found.”

well I did my price club this morning , it sucked of course , I am zoned for the county , and even tho this is kern county , it beets going to PD because there rude and go out of there way to make you feel like crap , but the county are not that way , thay don’t like shake your hand and say they are glad to see you or anything like that lol, but they don’t act like your a leper , I guess they know you already feel sad , mad,and everything else all at the same time . I feel this days before and days after, well most of you know that. I just want to just go jump on just about any motorcycle and point the front wheel north and roll for a few days

Question for those that have been in this hell longer than I have:

Since in the 2003 Smith VS Doe the SCOTUS justices made reference to how Sex Offender Registration may violate Substantive Due Process and should be challenged on that instead of just challenging Ex-Post Facto like it was, then why in 13 years has no case come close to doing just that? Or did it, and I missed it?

Looking at the description and chart here:

It clearly violates Substantive Due Process since it inhibits numerous rights and the state’s goals could be achieved by means that do not affect the people that it does that don’t deserve it. The states should also have to prove that there was a “stranger danger” problem existing that was bad enough to remove almost a million people’s rights.

Can someone help me understand? Are all 800,000+ of us to poor to challenge it? I know I am too poor, and I’ll be off (unless it changes again) before a challenge would make it high enough in the system.

I agree 100% that the registry is a violation of substantive due process. I have been saying this to any person who would listen for the past ten years. It is also a violation of ex post facto because just it does not pass the duck test. Calling the registry regulatory is a name. It is the lack of PR that dooms us. The politicians and judges all have no political cover to show any intelligence with regard to the registry issue.

What really doesn’t pass is how the justices and what means they used to call registration “government interest” That has never been challenged as well. We all know the “frightening and high” comment is totally bogus and has been used by over 70 courts in the US to pass further laws.

As my husband nears the end of his probation (just seven weeks to go), a new fear has arisen: the possibility of compliance checks. After surviving the humiliation of two searches during probation and monthly home visits from P.O.s who wear badges around their necks, carry giant walkie-talkies in their hands, and sometimes sport t-shirts that say “L.A. County Probation: Relax,” I cannot fathom the horror of finally settling into a semi-normal life, only to have that life disrupted by police officers coming to our apartment door just to verify that my husband does, in fact, live here. Does anyone have any experience with post-probation/parole compliance checks in Long Beach? Currently, after my husband has registered and/or updated his address, he gets a call from LBPD to verify his info. This is not a problem for us. He answers the officer’s questions, and we quickly move on. If I knew that that would the extent of the checks, I could maybe, just maybe, relax. Any information that anyone from Long Beach has would be much appreciated.

Hi iam challenging these checks. I have a lawyer. I know how you feel. If theres a way i can contact you or something. I had all my neighbors looking at my door when the cops came. It was hell. Not to mention they do it 2 times per year were i live in SoCal. I will probably be evicted soon because of this. Any ways strength in numbers.

Tee, I’ve posted on here as well regarding these so called “address verification” I believe their called compliance checks when your either on parole or probation. I’m not on either. My wife and I have owned our home for fifteen years where we raised 4 wonderful daughters and not to mention we have a good report with our neighbors. I’ve been a registrant for over 20 yrs and all of a sudden I get a patrol car parked outside my home with 2 uniformed sheriffs knocking on my door every six months. I know I have the right to not answer let alone build a fence or gate to keep them away but if I do they’ll only keep coming back which only raises the curiosity of the neighbors :-(. It’s horrible because we work hard, pay taxes along with bills and it boils down to harassment and stress. The kicker here is I’m fortunate that I’m I have an exclusion from Megan’s site.however it totally defeats the purpose of the exclusion by them constantly coming over to our house which raised suspicion. I wish we had the money to fight this. I look to this site for comfort and thank God for people like Janice and all those with the positive imputs and encouragements. I wish I could do more but can only donate when I can. Im right there with u with this nightmare. Please keeps us posted as to the status of your fight.

Thanks monitor for your descretion, I respect that

Hopeful and Tee. Do you guys live in smaller towns? it seems the “cowboy” sheriffs in smaller towns like to do these compliance checks. There MUST be financial incentive for them to do them (Overtime). I live in the SF Valley, LAPD, and have never had one check in nearly 20 years and I am on the website.
What’s happening to Hopeful is complete BS.

Yes, it appears to exist more in conservative, rural areas and more conservative suburbs of Southern California. By conservative, I mean those who are tending xenophobic. In those areas the law enforcement shares the sentiments of the population. That is what it seems like.
But we won’t know for sure where it is worse until we do a survey, like one being done in TAG with IML.

Wrong. We have numbers, but no strength. This site is for venting only. Nothing gets done because we are second class citizens. Accept it. Janice can sleep at note knowing she tried, but that’s as far as it will ever go.Maybe these religious groups are doing it right. Sacrifice yourself for the cause.

If you choose to open the door for the cops ALWAYS record them wheather it is with a phone or another device. If they try to say that you can’t record them they are lying. It is your 1st Amendent right to do so and as public officials they haveno expectation of privacy while they are on duty and in public. This way you have arecord of your conversation and proof if they try to violate your rights.

Thanks, tee. What kind of lawyer did you hire for this? Would you mind providing his or her name? My husband could then contact that same lawyer maybe.

The Feds are now pushing compliance checks, and more and more so and are even sometimes involved in them. The feds are now giving money to the locals to do them.

But under my reading of 290, it actually bars compliance checks. It lists what things can be used to determine residency, and compliance checks — or anything outside the police station – are not on that list. By 290 law, your driver’s license “PROVES” you live there – they cannot impose an in-person check because they don’t want to let it go with only your driver’s license.

I hope that point is used in the lawsuit. Harassment of course, but that would be trickier to prove than a law outright baring compliance checks.

After probation is over, you have every right to tell them to “take a flying duck and go practice going down on each other”. Besides registration, the blue balls have no authority over you.

In fact, after probation you don’t even have to open the door when they come.

I have been off parole in Long Beach for seven years now. I have never had a compliance visit. Was called on the telephone once, a couple days after an annual, to verify my phone number. And, for what it’s worth, my personal experience with the LBPD registration staff is that they have always handled my many annual registrations with professionalism and remarkable efficiency. I have always felt they treated me with dignity and respect. Based on some of the stories I’ve read here, I count myself lucky to be living in Long Beach.

Speaking of luck, and being sometimes the superstitious sort, I will end this now so I can go and knock on wood.

Someone in LA (Louisiana) was just arrested for having a social media account in violation of the law – It is illegal to even have an account there. If this is not an unconstitutional violation of the first amendment I do not know what it. It creates a chilling effect on free speech.

So if I go vacation in Louisiana I need to delete my face book account first? Then when I get back its ok?

Technically, you’re not supposed to even have a facebook account since they claim they don’t allow registered citizens. Do you report the one you have? Every time I go in, they ask about social media accounts.

American Detained in America, are you living in CA? You do not yet have to disclose social media accounts unless you are on probation/parole in CA. And Facebook Terms of Service says sex offenders are not allowed to have accounts. Although it is not a crime to have a Facebook account, they can delete it if someone complains about you having one. I would suggest any Registered Citizen not use their full real name on a Facebook account. Also don’t post pictures of yourself on your account as Facebook is a major user of facial recognition software.

I think that was a question. HA HA
A prime example of how pitiful some of these laws are.
As well, the pitiful lawmakers who actually stand behind some of these laws.


I have a solid question… so I was convicted of sleeping with a 15 year old who lied about her age when I was 21. At that time there was a law stating age of victim and the fact she lied was not a defense. Now there’s a law that says age of victim is a defense so I was not allowed to use it. I took a plea and there is no way I am going to go to court again because I would probably get screwed with more time. Do you think it’s a due process violation that they can retroactively force me to register again because of this. I could have pleaded to a lesser crime had I been able to use it as a defense. What’s your thoughts?

I don’t understand about you needing to register again.

Are you saying you didn’t have to register and now you do?

It’s normally an ex-post facto violation to have a change in laws affect someone for a previous crime. However, Doe V Smith 2003 found that registration is not punitive and is regulatory and therefore can be applied. Since registration is now nothing like it was in 2003, it would be nice if this could be challenged again though.

“Now there’s a law that says age of victim is a defense”. Please explain what you meant by this and what law are you quoting from and what state.

If anyone hasn’t read this yet, including Janice, than it is a MUST READ:

This is a great summary of the history of how we got stuck with registration laws, and ends with the ways the tide can change if a new challenge can make it to SCOTUS. I’ve read hundreds of articles on the subject, and this is the best I’ve seen.

Is there a place to permanently put this on this web site? It is a crucial legal analysis that would benefit registrants as well as legal professionals.

Sorry for my ignorance, I see now that this professor talked at RSOL with Janice back in 2013 so of course Janice is aware of it!

Great video…I guess I just need a simple web page that educates me on all this in the right order.

Wow Chris F.
I just got an education. Comprehended about 2/3 of the content. Will need to go over it
again and again. Great Stuff!

Really noticed this:

And herein lies the critical threshold issue:
Can it be said that ramped-up sex offender registration laws
continue to warrant the label of civil remedial sanctions, or have they morphed into criminal penalties cloaked in civil rhetoric? The balance of
the Article argues that under
the Mendoza-Martinez multifactored test, spiraling amendments have
tipped the schemes to the punitive and that tip unravels their


WANT TO GET JANICE’S ACTION ALERTS EMAILS? Send us an email to this address (sorry, I have to spell this out due to spam bots):
carsolinfo at gmail dot com

You can ask us to put you on the Action Alert list.

You can also ask us to forward Janice’s latest Action Alert to you.

You won’t be spammed because we don’t give out our email list and we only send a few emails per month at most.

Not sure if there’s a dedicated thread for this or not, so figured I’d post here. Last weekend, I went in for my annual registration update. (On Father’s Day) I’ve been a registrant since 1998. Since my first registration, up until last years annual, I’ve always registered at the Anaheim Police Department front counter. This year, however, they’ve apparently changed things. When I called to make my appointment, I was told that I’d be reporting to the jail on the backside of the station. I wasn’t quite sure what to expect, so I was a bit cautious going into it. I reported early, as I always do…about 15 minutes beforehand. I also dress for this occasion, figuring I might be given a slight bit more respect for looking like the successful businessman that I am. Of all the years I’ve registered, I’m generally treated with nothing but respect and have never been made to feel like I’m a lower classed citizen. However, this time was different. I was told to take a seat, upon reporting and telling them what I was there for. Once they were ready for me, I was called upon by an officer shouting, “Hey you! Come over here.” He asked me for my ID and told me to go sit back down. Approximately 45 minutes later (Yes, it took that long, as my wife and I were sitting there wondering why it was taking so long) the officer finally called me back up to the glass again. “Hey, come here again.” I proceeded up to the glass window and was asked to meet him at the first door to the right of the counter. I was then buzzed into this little visiting room and the heavy, metal door shut behind me. This visiting room was a solid brick room with a metal seat and a phone hanging on the wall and a glass window that separated the officer and me. At this point, I wondered, what the heck is this? I was literally sitting in one of the visitation rooms that people visit the prisoners in. The officer then proceeded to go over the entire process with me, asking me every question while he typed everything into a laptop. He did not communicate with me via the telephone, but instead slightly yelling to me through the window so that I could hear him. Constantly having to ask me to repeat my answers. Once we were done, he asked me to go back and sit out in the lobby again. I was buzzed out, as you can’t just open the door to get out without it being released. (False imprisonment?) I returned back to the brick seating area in the lobby. (Very different from the Police front lobby with there nice looking wooden benches. These were full brick, as though it was a jail cell) After another 20 minutes or so of waiting, I was again called by the officer, “Hey you, go over to that door, pointing at the door on the left of the counter.” So, I proceeded to the door and was buzzed in. This time, leading to the jail area. Upon entering the door, he immediately gave me directions to put my hands behind my back, walk close against the wall, and go down the hall an turn to the right. Once I got to that point, he then commanded me to stop and place my hands against the wall, where he promptly patted me down. (Never in my previous 18 years of registering have I ever been asked to keep my hands behind my back or been patted down.) Mind you, I pled to a misdemeanor 647.6, never did a day of jail time, and have no other convictions. Once he was done searching me, he then had me proceed to a little room, while again commanding me to keep my hands behind my back at all times. Once in the room, this was where he proceeded to finger print me and take my photos. The entire time, he made sure my hand that he wasn’t printing, was placed behind my back. I decided to ask him when they started doing this process in the jail area and he replied, “about 2 months.” I then asked, “No intended disrespect, but why do I get treated as a prisoner when I’ve never had this treatment before when registering at the front desk?” He responded with, “this is how we do it back here. Anyone who comes back here is treated this way.” That was the extent of our conversation, as I just shut my mouth and waiting for it to end. I must say, as humiliating as annual registration is, I’ve always been treated with some form of respect up until now. Not only do we have to endure this terrible event at our birthdays, but now have to also be treated as though we’re in custody…at least if you’re registering at the Anaheim Police Department. It’s a shame they have decided to make this processing change, because the cadets always did a decent job of making you feel, at least somewhat human during this dreadful process.

No they cannot take you into the jail area and search you. It’s a violation of your rights on so many levels. My County did this for many years (actually booking us) and then they realized they might get sued, so they set up a 290 section in another building. Somewhere here there is some old comments from about 3 years ago on this subject. Try searching, I will also look more into it tomorrow.

Thanks for this info. I found an older thread regarding the Santa Ana and Torrance process. I can only assume Janice was able to get the processes changed. Maybe she can head this off in Anaheim before it continues for long. Not quite sure why Anaheim decided to change something that worked pretty well to begin with.

Actually, while they might get sued, in the description here, they walked the borderline between legal and not legal. They are allowed to check people coming into the police department, especially past the front desk. Would it have made a difference to you if they had used a metal detector rather than a simple pat down? It was only a pat down, not a more intrusive search.

If he had asked to leave that first room, and the door were locked and the officer would not unlock it, only then would he have been in custody – it was not tested, he did not ask.

Its all wrong and oppressive, and certainly in order to treat you unlike a free person. But if it is illegal, that is not the lest be certain, it is a question for the court – and which way do you think our courts will interpret it?

In fact, be happy he was referred to as “hey you” rather than something like, “Sex Offender” come here. It is not upcommon when registrants are sitting in a public area waiting to have it loudly announced that they are a sex offender, for all in the public area to hear. Its wrong, of course, but it happens.

Another thing that is wrong is that you can’t just go in on any day within five days of your birthday. That five days in 290 is the registrant’s days, not the police department’s. When they limit registration to a choice of only one day in that period, they have denied you your legal rights under 290, you have been given only one day, not five, so the local agency has changed 290 to make it that you have only one day in which to do your registration. You might not have had to arrange a day off from work and the lost a day if you actually could go on another day in YOUR five day period, or it might otherwise be a lot easier for you on another day. Meanwhile, the police department fingerprints and photos people 24/7/365, its not like there is no one there to do it on the other four days of your five days – they are limiting you to create trouble for you.

G12, out here in SCV we get the same treatment as if I’m an inmate with a full pat down hands in your pocket while walking towards what looks like an interrogation room. So demeaning.

It’s terrible, considering we’re not prisoners. We should receive the same treatmeet as someone going in for fingerprints for a background screening for a job. I’d bet they aren’t being patted down or brought to a jail holding area.

G12, I am sorry that Anaheim is going this way…but it is only one day a year. Hold your head up…this is the best revenge for them being bastards.

On the other hand, my jurisdiction has gone from being a terrible and lengthy process to being fast, efficient and fairly pleasant.

Who knows how these things go? I think maybe a new police chief, a reassignment of officers or detectives…but if it can go from good to crappy, then it can go back to good again, as it has for me.

Who can fathom these things?

Best Wishes, James

Agreed…I continue to hold my head up and respond in kind, but at the end of the day it’s a bit depressing. And fearful knowing that things can actually get worse.

Correct me if I am wrong, I believe one country in South California actually tell RC to change their clothes into jail clothes and charge them with “possible 290 violation” Thanks God, Janice put a stop to it..

I believe that was Santa Ana.

Thanks for your responses, everyone. Not sure what can be done here, but hopefully Janice will read my latest experience and let us know if this can be fought the way that some of the others were in the past. (Santa Ana, Torrance) It’s one thing to be required to do this process against our will, but another to be treated as if you’re an actual prisoner during the process.

Unfortunately my NY Attorney has just informed me that we would be unable to move forward with a federal action against the NY Registry with the other Plaintiff, who would have been my co-plaintiff.

He already went through the NY State Appeals Court regarding his issue in the fact that NY is forcing him to remain on their Registry despite the fact that he no longer lives, works, or pays taxes in New York. Similarly, I haven’t lived or worked in New York for over 16 years, and yet despite the fact that I’m not even required to register in DC, New York continues to force me to comply with their registration scheme.

Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, lower federal courts do not have subject matter jurisdiction to review state court judgments. Rather, the only federal court that can review state court judgments is the United States Supreme Court.

Without another plaintiff, I would not be down with bringing a federal case against the NY Registry by myself.

Amazing PK. What fundamental interest does the government have in displaying your information when you have not been a resident for 16 years? I would like to hear their reasons for doing so, except for “because they can.”

Well they do it in Florida- You didn’t know?

According to several posters, even if you are visiting Florida for a 1 week period to visit Disney World, ANY RSO must register IN Florida within days of their arrival.

Then, as a rule, that person is to remain on the Florida Registry for life, and no mechanism exists to have one’s name ever removed from the Florida Registry.

I have an ideal. RTAG put together a matrix of all the countries that are a go and no go for RSOs traveling internationally. We should put together a matrix of states that keep RCs registered for life just for visiting that state. We know about Florida & New York. I know Kansas doesn’t do it because they specifically say on their state registry website that they remove the name of a person once they depart the state. I found that out for my son so he now can go visit his grandmother in Kansas without staying on their list forever after he left the state. We need to WARN folks of these other states like Florida. Yeah you can go see Mickey, but don’t stay longer than the time allotted they give you until you have to register. Or just don’t take a chance at all in any of those states

There is a link in the top right of the site that gives an overview of the registration laws in all 50 states. It’s a year or two old but still a good place to check first.

I am curious to know PK what was your tier level in NY? If you were a lifer in NY, normally the state you move to goes by the “greater” time period between your convicting state & your new state of relocation. Now if you were suppose to be on the NY registry for just 15 years, and if NY still lists you after that time period has past and you’re living in a different state, I can see it posing a problem. New York state does give visiting RCs plenty of time (compared to most states) until they have to register. I believe it’s 10 days. That’s enough time to see a the empire state bldg or Broadway play.

I’m a Level 2, because I had a previous conviction of Possession of Controlled Substance. That- in and of itself, put me into the Level 2 bracket, as opposed to Level 1.

According to my Plea Agreement for my BS 2001 Misdemeanor Conviction, I was to register for only 10 years. In 2006, they changed all that, and eliminated the 10 years I was promised- so now it’s a lifetime of wonderful registration.

I’m not required to register at all where I live now, but yet I continue to receive those Annual Registration Letters from New York.

The Matter of Doe vs. O’Donnell 2011 addressed this very issue however the Plaintiff lost the case on Appeal in New York. In fact- that Doe was supposed to be my co-plaintiff in this new case that would have been filed in Federal Court within weeks.

The fact that Doe lost Doe vs. O’Donnell 2011, is where the Rooker-Feldman doctrine precluded this co-plaintiff from moving forward in the federal case with me.

However, I just learned today that this Doe is allowing the Attorney to keep the money he already paid in advance for the federal case, in order to help me in my cause, and encourage me to be the sole plaintiff.

For many reasons, I’m not sure if I want to be a “sole plaintiff” in this federal lawsuit.

where do you live now?

Sounds like the state of New York moving the goal post but you’re not alone. RCs are fighting this retroactive bull all over the country. Recently courts in Massachusetts & I believe New Hampshire said you can’t go back retroactively when new laws are passed. But it seems NY is still behind the times. Hopefully you’ll eventually get some more co-defendants so you won’t do it alone. Good luck

Yes these Registries need to be challenged for each individual statute.

The Issue of Ex Post Facto whereas new regulations and statutes are applied retroactively, is one that has been challenged in many state level courts. My issue is somewhat different than that.

New York can adopt all the laws it wants. Its laws do not extend beyond its border. They cannot place any sort of requirements on people in another state for anything other than something they might be doing in New York — unless you perhaps are on parole, possibly lifetime parole; when you are on parole, you are considered to still in custody.

So, they can put out an arrest warrant, and if another state would even honor it, then you would fight extradition — and I think you would have a very strong case to win — if it weren’t for widespread dishonesty throughout all the courts in our country on this issue, I would say your case were so strong that it is inconceivable you could lose.

But your approach is better — because your approach could avoid being arrested and facing extradition.

So the States must receive federal funds based on the number of people on their registries. Or perhaps by having so many registrants, L.E. can make the argument that the legislatures must give them more and more money so they can keep track of oh so many registrants.
At the same time, do state’s really won’t bragging rights for who has the greatest number of registered sex offenders??

When reading this article:

Then seeing a Supreme Court Justice Thomas ask “Can you give me another area where a misdemeanor violation suspends a constitutional right?”

I bet the person he asked didn’t bother to point out “ummm…thousands of sex offenders convicted or even deferred on misdemeanor sex offences maybe?”

If I’ve read this article correctly, Hawaii is about to start adding gun owners to the FBI criminal database. Stuff like this just makes me smile…

All the comments screaming about how this can’t be constitutional. About how it will be challenged in court. About how it could never stand. All the people who didn’t so much as blink while registration precedents were affirmed all the way to the supreme court as being merely regulatory and civil.

Welcome to Price Club Hawaii gun owners, it only gets more fun from here.

Hope you enjoy the ride.

Janice Bellucci is enjoying some grilling time in the courtroom today. She was scorching defendent Charles Roderick, shortly after Roderick’s former attorney testified that Roderick is a sociopath. This is really good news!

The law enforcement sex scandal in Oakland and surrounding areas is a joke. Why is anyone surprised at this. Cops thinking their illegal activities would go unnoticed. Looks like “serve and protect” means get your underage whose to service me and I’ll protect my fellow law enforcement officers from exposure. This is going on in every law enforcement agency throughout the United States. They are the real sex offenders and I hope they suffer.

I agree wholeheartedly and tend to gloat when cops, politicians and bureaucats – those who capitalize on the misery of others – crash and burn.