Los Angeles District Attorney (DA) Jackie Lacey has agreed to co-sponsor a tiered registry bill along with the California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB). A copy of the draft bill was distributed during today’s CASOMB meeting.
As expected, the draft bill proposes dividing registrants into three tiers based upon the offense for which the registrant was convicted as well as his/her risk level. For registrants in the first two tiers, their duty to register would end in either 10 or 20 years after release from incarceration provided that they have not committed a subsequent sex offense. Registrants on the third tier would continue to be required to register for life.
In addition to tiering, the bill proposes that registrants convicted before 1987 would be automatically removed from the registry. It is estimated that about 10,500 registrants are eligible for automatic removal.
Registrants convicted in 1987 or later would be required to petition for removal from the registry near the date of their annual registration requirement. The petition would be reviewed by law enforcement to ensure eligibility and then sent to the DA’s office in the county in which the registrant resides. The DA’s office could either agree to removal or object based upon a belief that “community safety would be significantly enhanced by the person’s continued registration”.
If the DA’s office objects to a registrant’s removal, the final decision would be made by a Superior Court judge. The bill provides judges with guidelines for his/her decision such as the nature of the offense(s), the age and number of victims, whether any victim was a stranger, criminal and relevant noncriminal behavior before and after conviction, current risk of sexual or violent re-offense and completion of a CASOMB-certified sex offender treatment program.
According to CASOMB, the District Attorneys, Police Chiefs, and Sheriffs (in large jurisdictions only) have agreed to the draft bill, however, minor changes could be made to the bill prior to its introduction in January 2017. An author for the bill has been selected, however, the identity of that author was not revealed during the meeting. The tiered registry bill is expected to be modified during the legislative process.
Superior Court Judge Brett Morgan, a new CASOMB member, expressed concern during today’s meeting regarding the role of judges in the proposed bill which he described as an unfunded mandate similar to that found in Proposition 47. Judge Morgan added that despite his concern, he believes the state’s judges will be able to adequately address the requirements of the tiered registry bill.
During the public comment section of the meeting, ACSOL president Janice Bellucci acknowledged that a large amount of effort was required to draft the tiered registry bill. She added that ACSOL members, including registrants and family members, will lobby in the State Capitol regarding that bill, however, it has not yet been determined whether ACSOL will support or oppose the bill.
Sounds like a great thing to me
I just want to voice my thanks to Janice and all here at ACSOL along with the L.A. D.A. and others who are taking this huge step forward. I know that there have been mixed feelings on here about a tiered registry. I haven’t read the draft bill. I don’t know the in’s and out’s of any of this. However, I just want to say that ANYTHING that opens the door to folks who are currently law-abiding and who have finished their sentence to be able to stop registering has my full support! I say this even if I personally could not be qualified to get out of registering. I think we all have to look at the big picture and stand behind Janice and all on this.
This is my opinion. If you disagree, then do so respectfully. Otherwise, we all need to stand together and make this move forward. No matter what, this is a First Step forward. Other steps can follow, but we have to make this first step and hopefully united together.
Thank you, Janice! God Bless You and all of your assistants for what you are doing.
my crime is 243.4a misdemeanor, based on the draft bill which tier ?, having trouble understanding
the context of the draft bill!
So…if you’re about 90 yrs old, you get a pass… hmmm. I want to say as someone who has lost his youth to registering as a subhuman son/brother/father/husband, Twenty Years of this IS A LIFETIME!!!
The incremental aspect says to me they put little thought into who a person is/was/will be. If laws are supposed to be based on fact not fiction, then why did the 17 yr mark go right out the window? Why should anyone have to petition s@!# when their “time” is up??? Unless someone is deemed a SVP.
Common sense takes a backseat at Every Turn because lawmakers are so shell shocked by their own imagination.
They created a disaster by shoving us all in the same boat “one size fits all” and now…DECADES later, this is California’s problem solver???
DA’s are master manipulator’s as in up means down unless they say otherwise but are not limited to which is which.
Janice needs to be a large part of composing this bill and or one that runs along side it for consideration.
I’m mostly venting here because our justice system makes me sick, but I do believe that we need people that look at this thing from All angles to create something that is Progressive not just a a continuance of Opression.
well looks like a rap for me in two years if it passes as drafted…so if I file my motion by the time it goes thru it will be moot…..guess we’ll see what happens…..if it passes as drafted it seems like a really good thing and I cant see any downside for anyone….god this would be great…………………
wowww The fact that the DA’s, Police chiefs’, and police dept’s. in the large jurisdictions agreed to the current draft is really promising…They all know its a colossal waste of resources and just makes their jobs harder having all these low risk offenders on there…That bill even says that tier two offenders will no longer have their residential address but only their zip or county that they reside in…. This is an incredible compromise and though not perfect its the best were going to get on a across the board change…People will still have to file as applied challenges if they want to get off the registry earlier and this will make it almost impossible for that to happen if this passes because they will definitely be able to say that it is now narrowly tailored and here in cali we dont have all the restrictions like they do in other states….I wonder how this will effect IML and if you travel in other states….
Could one of the legal experts provide a list of the different felonies in the Tier 1, Tier 2 and Tier 3 categories. It’s really difficult to find and decipher all the different sections and subdivisions, and I’d like to get an advance warning of which tier my crime falls in.
I bet they are getting really nervous because they know its just a matter of time before someone takes down the entire scheme….It was coming and they no it…must of read my motion…lmfao….
Baloney! What is magic about 1987? Quit making large blocks of time like this become hurdles for restoration. CA needs to work to find something much much closer than 30 years ago, say starting in 1997 if you must do 20 years. Stupid blocks of time with no relevance!
The text of 290 as shown in this bill is actually worded stupidly. 311.11 didnt become a crime until 1990, and then only for material with minors 14 or under as I recall. Didnt become illegal for under 18 until 1993, and it wasnt registerable until 1994, yet the wording in this bill says “anyone who since 1944”. Shaking my head.
I knew it wouldn’t be long before this was headed through the backdoor.
You know this will be supported…
Even the lead up was full of flags. Can’t wait to read the bill!
One thing that people are missing here: it eliminates a LOT of people previously exempt from Megan’s Law will then appear on the website.
Well folks, here is what I was dreading:
“Tier Three offenders must register for life. Persons shall register for life if: (iv) The person’s risk level on the static risk assessment instrument for sex offenders (SARATSO), pursuant to Section 290.04, is well above average risk, as defined in the Coding Rules for that instrument.”
This fictitious tiered registry puts an awful lot of weight on the Static-99R Scam!
A lot of the benefits of a Certificate of Rehabilitation are removed in this fictitious “tiered” registry. In many ways, it’s actually worse than the current registration scheme that we have! Also troubling:
“Tier Three offenders must register for life. Persons shall register for life if: (iv) The person’s risk level on the static risk assessment instrument for sex offenders (SARATSO), pursuant to Section 290.04, is well above average risk, as defined in the Coding Rules for that instrument.”
So this fictitious tiered registry also puts an awful lot of weight on the Static-99R scam!!
The fact that a DA would co-sponsor a three-tiers bill is a MAJOR CHANGE, guys!
No, it won’t help me and many other RCs in the short term, but it shows there IS HOPE for all of us if we work together!
Whatever Janice recommends, we should support her.
Also troubling, more people — based on their Static Scam score — will be subjected to the Megan’s Law website. So many people who were not previously published will now be published under this fictitious “tiered” registry.
Like most bills, there in bullishness and are not clear of intent.
Which persons get on which tiers,it seems that 288a gets you on tier 3
regardless of the time since the offense occurred ,absolute crap.
Tier 3 would require reporting every 90 days,plus massive
harassment.As it stands in the present tier system lower offenses
and medium offenses are in the same tier,you only have to report once a year.
Only those that are designated violent predators are to report every 90 days,as I interpret
this part of the bill ,it will make my life a living nightmare for no reason at all.
I would like some feedback from fellow members and Janice on this.
The bill would be ok if in 10 years your off for lower level offenses ,20 years your off including 288a if there are no other
sexual charges in that time,lifetime for violent predators .
A member here posted that hes state went to the Adam Walsh Act,before he only had to report once a year after that he was required to report every 90 days,this bill could cause the same problem.
It would be completely crazy to force someone having registered once year for many years and designate him a violent predator and force him to report every 90 days.
This is definitely a step in the right direction, thank you Janice for all of your hard work. I am hopeful that soon all will realize that the registry is a complete waste of resources and money will be better allocated to educating our children and rehabilitation for offenders and victims. Does anyone have an idea of what effect, if any, this bill will have on those who have had their records expunged but are still required to register? (288.2b)
Too bad. This tiered bill will require publication of all registrants now. That means if you are some of the “lucky” few not currently publicized to the public on the Megan’s Law website, you NOW WILL BE (provided you don’t somehow “petition” off of this phony scheme).
As for the 1987 part… I don’t get it. Why not just make it 30 years max (without the “lifetime” part)? Why is it arbitrarily 1987? It makes no logical sense as the generally more serious crimes were the only crimes that required registration pre-1987. Now, in 2016, you have 60+ 290 offenses, not all of them as serious as pre-1987 290 offenses, and yet the 30 year period would not apply to the lesser serious offenses?
Honestly, this bill makes no sense.
I have to disagree with the tier registry. In places like indiana, depending on the crime or age of the victim, youre automatically put in tier 3. The tiers should be based on the crime AND your conduct since you were released from prison. I fail to see how to justify a guy as tier 3 if hes been out and crime free for many years regardless of the alleged crime he comitted.
You should be most worried about the involvement of judges in letting people off the registry.
Judges are elected, and most will be unlikely to risk their careers by letting someone off the registry. Why should they?
As proof of this, look at Texas. If Texas requires more time on the registry than the SORNA required time, then you can petition the court to remove you after completing the SORNA amount of time. Now, even though that is usually a very long time on the registry offence free and everyone that petitioned had approval from the Sex Offender board as completing treatment and being deemed low risk, only 1/3 of the requests were granted removal. ONLY ONE THIRD WERE GRANTED REMOVAL!
Yet again, someone is creating something that looks good on the surface, but underneath, it’s really just continuing the scam that will keep people on the registry but serve the purpose of looking like there is a legitimate way to get off so that courts won’t be likely to find the registry UNCONSTITUTIONAL, though it is.
I hope Janice and her team fight this, and not give in like they are being offered an olive branch. It’s really poison ivy.
Think about it. It’s not legal for any other crime to receive special conditions for all guilty of that particular crime. It’s a complete violation of Due Process and Equal Protection:
U.S. v. DAVIS•452 F.3d 991, 995 (8th Cir. 2006)
Federal law requires the district courts to consider the “nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant” when crafting a special condition of supervised release. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a)(1), 3583(d)(1); cf. United States v. Heidebur, 417 F.3d 1002, 1004-05 (8th Cir. 2005). That inquiry must take place on an individualized basis; a court may not impose a special condition on all those found guilty of a particular offense.
It states that those who have scored well above average risk will be placed in a high-risk category for life. I cannot seem to figure out who would be considered or how the consideration is made as too well above-average risk. This classification average risk does not seem to be present on the static-99. Maybe Janice can offer some insight thanks
In reading the bill one thing doesn’t make sense. For someone who was convicted of a non contact internet-based offense which may have multiple victims they are automatically exempt from Tier 1. Meaning that when it describes how to obtain relief after you meet your 10 year period you could only petition if you have no more than one victim between the ages of 13 and 17. How does this relate to persons who communicated with multiple persons or had multiple images for their conviction. It seems that this clause should not be applied to non-contact offenses. Again I cannot speak for everyone or everyone’s case however this is based on my experiences and my knowledge of other cases. I do want to thank Janice and all who have been working so hard on this and getting this to move forward. Just to have officials backing a tiered registry I think is a huge step.
Looks like Im burnt…Attempts are in there…20 years for me…..and probabaly most people on the list….The only real positive about this is that level two’s wont have their residence address on the website..for what thats worth..And they can petition the court after ten years to be removed from the public website but will still have to register for the 20 year period…..
667.5. Enhancement of prison terms for new offenses because of
prior prison terms shall be imposed as follows:
(a) Where one of the new offenses is one of the violent felonies
specified in subdivision (c), in addition to and consecutive to any
other prison terms therefor, the court shall impose a three-year term
for each prior separate prison term served by the defendant where
the prior offense was one of the violent felonies specified in
subdivision (c). However, no additional term shall be imposed under
this subdivision for any prison term served prior to a period of 10
years in which the defendant remained free of both prison custody and
the commission of an offense which results in a felony conviction.
(b) Except where subdivision (a) applies, where the new offense is
any felony for which a prison sentence or a sentence of imprisonment
in a county jail under subdivision (h) of Section 1170 is imposed or
is not suspended, in addition and consecutive to any other sentence
therefor, the court shall impose a one-year term for each prior
separate prison term or county jail term imposed under subdivision
(h) of Section 1170 or when sentence is not suspended for any felony;
provided that no additional term shall be imposed under this
subdivision for any prison term or county jail term imposed under
subdivision (h) of Section 1170 or when sentence is not suspended
prior to a period of five years in which the defendant remained free
of both the commission of an offense which results in a felony
conviction, and prison custody or the imposition of a term of jail
custody imposed under subdivision (h) of Section 1170 or any felony
sentence that is not suspended. A term imposed under the provisions
of paragraph (5) of subdivision (h) of Section 1170, wherein a
portion of the term is suspended by the court to allow mandatory
supervision, shall qualify as a prior county jail term for the
purposes of the one-year enhancement.
(c) For the purpose of this section, “violent felony” shall mean
any of the following:
(1) Murder or voluntary manslaughter.
(2) Mayhem.
(3) Rape as defined in paragraph (2) or (6) of subdivision (a) of
Section 261 or paragraph (1) or (4) of subdivision (a) of Section
262.
(4) Sodomy as defined in subdivision (c) or (d) of Section 286.
(5) Oral copulation as defined in subdivision (c) or (d) of
Section 288a.
(6) Lewd or lascivious act as defined in subdivision (a) or (b) of
Section 288.
(7) Any felony punishable by death or imprisonment in the state
prison for life.
(8) Any felony in which the defendant inflicts great bodily injury
on any person other than an accomplice which has been charged and
proved as provided for in Section 12022.7, 12022.8, or 12022.9 on or
after July 1, 1977, or as specified prior to July 1, 1977, in
Sections 213, 264, and 461, or any felony in which the defendant uses
a firearm which use has been charged and proved as provided in
subdivision (a) of Section 12022.3, or Section 12022.5 or 12022.55.
(9) Any robbery.
(10) Arson, in violation of subdivision (a) or (b) of Section 451.
(11) Sexual penetration as defined in subdivision (a) or (j) of
Section 289.
(12) Attempted murder.
(13) A violation of Section 18745, 18750, or 18755.
(14) Kidnapping.
(15) Assault with the intent to commit a specified felony, in
violation of Section 220.
(16) Continuous sexual abuse of a child, in violation of Section
288.5.
(17) Carjacking, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 215.
(18) Rape, spousal rape, or sexual penetration, in concert, in
violation of Section 264.1.
(19) Extortion, as defined in Section 518, which would constitute
a felony violation of Section 186.22.
(20) Threats to victims or witnesses, as defined in Section 136.1,
which would constitute a felony violation of Section 186.22.
(21) Any burglary of the first degree, as defined in subdivision
(a) of Section 460, wherein it is charged and proved that another
person, other than an accomplice, was present in the residence during
the commission of the burglary.
(22) Any violation of Section 12022.53.
(23) A violation of subdivision (b) or (c) of Section 11418. The
Legislature finds and declares that these specified crimes merit
special consideration when imposing a sentence to display society’s
condemnation for these extraordinary crimes of violence against the
person.
(d) For the purposes of this section, the defendant shall be
deemed to remain in prison custody for an offense until the official
discharge from custody, including any period of mandatory
supervision, or until release on parole or postrelease community
supervision, whichever first occurs, including any time during which
the defendant remains subject to reimprisonment or custody in county
jail for escape from custody or is reimprisoned on revocation of
parole or postrelease community supervision. The additional penalties
provided for prior prison terms shall not be imposed unless they are
charged and admitted or found true in the action for the new
offense.
(e) The additional penalties provided for prior prison terms shall
not be imposed for any felony for which the defendant did not serve
a prior separate term in state prison or in county jail under
subdivision (h) of Section 1170.
(f) A prior conviction of a felony shall include a conviction in
another jurisdiction for an offense which, if committed in
California, is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison or in
county jail under subdivision (h) of Section 1170 if the defendant
served one year or more in prison for the offense in the other
jurisdiction. A prior conviction of a particular felony shall include
a conviction in another jurisdiction for an offense which includes
all of the elements of the particular felony as defined under
California law if the defendant served one year or more in prison for
the offense in the other jurisdiction.
(g) A prior separate prison term for the purposes of this section
shall mean a continuous completed period of prison incarceration
imposed for the particular offense alone or in combination with
concurrent or consecutive sentences for other crimes, including any
reimprisonment on revocation of parole which is not accompanied by a
new commitment to prison, and including any reimprisonment after an
escape from incarceration.
(h) Serving a prison term includes any confinement time in any
state prison or federal penal institution as punishment for
commission of an offense, including confinement in a hospital or
other institution or facility credited as service of prison time in
the jurisdiction of the confinement.
(i) For the purposes of this section, a commitment to the State
Department of Mental Health, or its successor the State Department of
State Hospitals, as a mentally disordered sex offender following a
conviction of a felony, which commitment exceeds one year in
duration, shall be deemed a prior prison term.
(j) For the purposes of this section, when a person subject to the
custody, control, and discipline of the Secretary of the Department
of Corrections and Rehabilitation is incarcerated at a facility
operated by the Division of Juvenile Justice, that incarceration
shall be deemed to be a term served in state prison.
(k) (1) Notwithstanding subdivisions (d) and (g) or any other
provision of law, where one of the new offenses is committed while
the defendant is temporarily removed from prison pursuant to Section
2690 or while the defendant is transferred to a community facility
pursuant to Section 3416, 6253, or 6263, or while the defendant is on
furlough pursuant to Section 6254, the defendant shall be subject to
the full enhancements provided for in this section.
(2) This subdivision shall not apply when a full, separate, and
consecutive term is imposed pursuant to any other provision of law.
this is pc 1192.7(c) second or third tier if convicted of any of the following….
(1) Murder or voluntary manslaughter; (2) mayhem; (3) rape; (4) sodomy by force, violence, duress, menace, threat of great bodily injury, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the victim or another person; (5) oral copulation by force, violence, duress, menace, threat of great bodily injury, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the victim or another person; (6) lewd or lascivious act on a child under 14 years of age; (7) any felony punishable by death or imprisonment in the state prison for life; (8) any felony in which the defendant personally inflicts great bodily injury on any person, other than an accomplice, or any felony in which the defendant personally uses a firearm; (9) attempted murder; (10) assault with intent to commit rape or robbery; (11) assault with a deadly weapon or instrument on a peace officer; (12) assault by a life prisoner on a noninmate; (13) assault with a deadly weapon by an inmate; (14) arson; (15) exploding a destructive device or any explosive with intent to injure; (16) exploding a destructive device or any explosive causing bodily injury, great bodily injury, or mayhem; (17) exploding a destructive device or any explosive with intent to murder; (18) any burglary of the first degree; (19) robbery or bank robbery; (20) kidnapping; (21) holding of a hostage by a person confined in a state prison; (22) attempt to commit a felony punishable by death or imprisonment in the state prison for life; (23) any felony in which the defendant personally used a dangerous or deadly weapon; (24) selling, furnishing, administering, giving, or offering to sell, furnish, administer, or give to a minor any heroin, cocaine, phencyclidine (PCP), or any methamphetamine-related drug, as described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 11055 of the Health and Safety Code, or any of the precursors of methamphetamines, as described in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (f) of Section 11055 or subdivision (a) of Section 11100 of the Health and Safety Code; (25) any violation of subdivision (a) of Section 289 where the act is accomplished against the victim’s will by force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the victim or another person; (26) grand theft involving a firearm; (27) carjacking; (28) any felony offense, which would also constitute a felony violation of Section 186.22; (29) assault with the intent to commit mayhem, rape, sodomy, or oral copulation, in violation of Section 220; (30) throwing acid or flammable substances, in violation of Section 244; (31) assault with a deadly weapon, firearm, machinegun, assault weapon, or semiautomatic firearm or assault on a peace officer or firefighter, in violation of Section 245; (32) assault with a deadly weapon against a public transit employee, custodial officer, or school employee, in violation of Section 245.2, 245.3, or 245.5; (33) discharge of a firearm at an inhabited dwelling, vehicle, or aircraft, in violation of Section 246; (34) commission of rape or sexual penetration in concert with another person, in violation of Section 264.1; (35) continuous sexual abuse of a child, in violation of Section 288.5; (36) shooting from a vehicle, in violation of subdivision (c) or (d) of Section 26100; (37) intimidation of victims or witnesses, in violation of Section 136.1; (38) criminal threats, in violation of Section 422; (39) any attempt to commit a crime listed in this subdivision other than an assault; (40) any violation of Section 12022.53; (41) a violation of subdivision (b) or (c) of Section 11418; and (42) any conspiracy to commit an offense described in this subdivision.
– See more at: http://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-1192-7.html#sthash.WGUIqKqO.dpuf
I just read through a large part of this bill, it’s actually better than some of the previous versions. Under a previous version, even with no actual victim(fictitious victim), I would have been Teir 3 because of how a bogus new case was manufactured and I was pretty much forced into a plea that resulted in prison time because the powers that be were not happy that I had served no jail time. With this one, I would be a Tier 1, which is more appropriate. While I personally believe the registry should be abolished completely, this is better than most of the proposals that have come through.