California DOJ Agrees to Correct Megan’s Law Profiles

The California Department of Justice (CA DOJ) agreed yesterday to correct more than 90 percent of individuals’ profiles on the state’s Megan’s Law website which lack the date of conviction. The agency’s agreement is the result of a lawsuit filed by CA RSOL in November 2015.

“The lack of a conviction date coupled with an individual’s current photo on the Megan’s Law website profiles led many potential employers, landlords and others to assume that the offense for which individuals were convicted occurred recently,” stated ACSOL President Janice Bellucci. “There are many individuals listed on the website who were convicted decades ago.”

According to a settlement agreement signed by CA DOJ, the agency will correct most of the profiles no later than December 31, 2016. Corrections to the remaining profiles, belonging to those convicted prior to 1980, will be made as soon as the necessary data is made available by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

State law required CA DOJ to correct individuals’ profiles on the Megan’s Law website no later than September 2010, however, the agency failed to make the corrections due to limited financial resources and computer software.

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

Congrats Janice and all!

Congratulations on another victory!

Janice, as one of many RCs whose information was incomplete and wrong, my many thanks to you for making a lazy, intransigent bureaucracy dance! It is no surprise that the CA DOJ have insisted they couldn’t do it since Sept 2010, but now that they are forced to, they claim they can do it in 4 months. Wonderful! Many kudos for your hard work.

Great job ACSOL and Janice. I do have one concern though. I was perusing the State of California’s Department of Justice Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) as it relates to Sex Offender Risk Assessment. The DOJ appears to list a claim that the Static-99R is accurate “70-75 percent of the time.” Yet I’ve read studies showing the “high-risk sex offender flag” only accurate ~20 to ~29 percent of the time within a five-year period. Then after, the “high-risk” recidivism rates appear to drop dramatically at the 10 yr mark for those who do not reoffend while free. Here is a link at the DOJ’s questionable 70 to 75 percent accuracy claims (which seem totally bogus and a downright lie by the CA DOJ):

Thank you Janice.

Pretty pathetic when a body calling out their name as “the dept of justice” has to be sued in order to do the right thing.
Where’s the remorse,and the public those who’ve they’ve harmed, as I’ve shown?
Where’s the pledge to be a better entity, moving forward, as I made to myself 40 years ago?

Thank you so much

This question has been bugging me and maybe some Californians can answer it. Does the state’s Megan’s Law public site still divide disclosed information into categories home address, zipcode, undisclosed, and excluded? Or did the state stop that practice and make all registrants disclose everything. I never hear anyone on this forum mention the disclosure categories. That’s why I think the practice may have stopped but I could be wrong. If the California site only list the addresses of the most high risk offenders, they’re way ahead of most states that disclose everything regardless of offense or risk level

This is truly wonderful news! I personally find it hard to believe that these updates will occur in a timely manner. I believe there are 80k plus registrants in Ca? I wouldn’t even know where to begin. Hopefully (guys/no negative comments) this will be a wake up call and allow for a tiered system to occur in Ca. We have thousands of individuals who remain on the registry, despite being a non disclosable offense and having their offenses being expunged. We even have people on the registry who received summary probation?

What score is given for those of us never given a Static 99 test?

As a resident of California, a taxpayer, and a government employee, it is utterly APPALLING to me that it requires a lawsuit and settlement to get the CA DOJ to do the job IT WAS ALREADY REQUIRED TO DO six years ago!! Unbelievable!!

Uh… This may seem an odd or contentious question.

If the law already required this for September 2010 and CA DOJ failed to comply due to lack of/poor resources, why will they now do this?

Are there unrevealed “teeth” this this agreement? Won’t they just cry “poor” again?

I’m wondering if we can pressure the California State to admit that this is “unworkable” and be forced to drop the whole thing? I know I’m dreaming that it will be done anytime soon.

What will it take to remove Megan’s law ?

It’d be good if they would include factual info. Local PD put my address as one of two my hub supposedly lives. He does not live here. He visits here almost daily so they included my address. He cant live here legally as its too close to a park/school. Yet they have my address listed.
As far as the stat99? What a joke. In order for my hubs score to be lower, he’d actually have to commit another offense. (no, he isnt going to) So how stupid is that?????
And the extension of parole? Dont even get me started on that crap.

In checking my own name on the site, obviously having someone else type for me in case someone cares, it shows Abdomen Unknown under the Scars/Marks /Tattoos section. This is new this year and completely false. I have never given any information to warrant that and they wouldn’t know anyways. What gives? Others have blatantly false information?

No correction or updating on mine.. Tool blank… score blank… risk blank… promises promises and nothing yet

I am very upset that the Dept. of Justice claims to be able to predict the future with the Static 99R scam. I think my score is grossly exaggerated. I’ve always felt this way ever since the score was given to me by an imposter Ph.D contracted by CDCR. The fact the static score is listed on my profile and assumes I am at the same risk level as I was 6 yrs ago is really stupid.

As someone mentioned, where are the alleged recidivism rates for over 5 yrs? What is DOJ hiding?

There is no way my score reflects my true “risk.” The fact the Static 99R SCAM is advertised on public profiles and sold as a credible scientific “instrument” by California is even more troubling. It’s abuse of power!!

It been a while
have anyone check on this to see if they have made any progress?

Well now it is almost end of Oct. Have anyone ask a friend if there were some changes on their Megan’s Law website? Remember, if you are a RC you can’t even look at your own record.