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.
What if you were never given a Static99??????
Hey guys,
We here in Michigan have the tiered system,and it SUCKS,and everyone gets screwed,one way or the other, risk assessment based is much better,that is part of why the 6th circuit ruled in our favor as far as the registry goes along with the ex pos facto ect,ect. I really hope Janice can put the kabosh on this before it gets out of hand, it’s obvious California is not paying attention to what is starting to take place in other states.
couple things here..
(39) any attempt to commit a crime listed in this subdivision other than an assault
seems like a equal protection issue there since attempted assaults are as serious if not more serious than attempted lewd act..
also why do they state attempted murder in this section but repeats itself with any attempt of any offece in this section…seems kind of redundant or as if the legislators didn’t intend for attempt of the other offenses to be included…so am I correct to assume attempted lewd act minor under 14 is a tier two offense
So you can petition to get off tier 3?? Can someone explain. Whoever is going into tier 3 is being thrown in with sexually violent predators. People in tier 3 should be repeat offenders only. Janice I can’t believe you are going along with this. In my case I never even went to prison my score would be low on the static 99 but now will be tier 3…horrifying.
“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.”
hummm…would this be true for Tier Three Registrants also?
Curious.
Best Wishes, James
Guys. Please be respectful. As noted, the guy inquiring about a misdemeanor battery would be a tier 1. Tier 3 is the highest tier. If you read the proposal carefully, only tier 3 offenders would show online! Thanks
This bill would put me in a worse position. I would be classified as a tier 3 AND my address would be made known. Right now, my address is not made known. Also, I was looking forward to earning a Certificate of Rehabilitation in a few years. No longer an option. This bill would remove the Certificate of Rehabilitation as a way to get off the registry. It’s kinda hard to support ACSOL, Frank, Janice in passing laws that will hurt me and probably many others. I know you have done good. But when this bill will hurt me, and ya’ll have been making the tiered registry seem like a step forward, it’s not logical to keep attending meetings and donating in the basket. I work a minimum wage job, 9 to 5. Might as well continue to work and live my life without getting my hopes up.
I have read everything here. I’m sorry I don’t see the answer to my question, or our situation and I have a very difficult time ever getting answers to what my son was charged with. He is one of the many who were arrested in a Federal sting of child porn download. He was arrested and convicted of one count due to plea to avoid a trial in 2008. He served six years in federal prison. He is currently on supervised release…two years into a 10 year program. He is not listed on the public registry but does register with the Sheriff every year. He is attending mandatory group programs and is currently employed. Where does he and others like him fit in all of this?
Will registrants that now live in other states with California crimes feel the effect of the registry. I live in Florida with no recourse. Florida is stating that I have to register as long as California says so. I have a crime that is exempt from public exposure in California but not in the state Florida. The State of Florida doesnt exempt no one at all. The state of Florida continues to state that as long as i have to register in California, I will have to continue registering in Florida. Will the tiering system help me and other registrants that live out of state that have had to register since 1997 or how ever long. I think that the system must not forget the ones that moved. Some one please respond to me please. Some one with some significant info!!
usa you’re incorrect…tier one offenders will be exempt from disclosure on the public registry…tier two will be on the public registry but they will not publish their current residential address for ten years at which time you can file an exclusion form to be removed from the public registry but will continue to register for another decade…this is just about the only real positive change that could effect a large number of people…it seems according to the drafted bill that it will be much easier to get off the public registry than petitioning the courts…it states that the registration Department will make available a exclusion form ,such as the exclusion form they have for people whose victims were family members, and it states that the doj SHALL,important word there, shall grant exclusion but the burden is on you to prove you have been on the registry for at least ten years and that you haven’t had any subsequent sexual offenses…those are the only two requirements for removal from the public registry….from how im reading they must or shall exclude you if you meet those two requirements…who knows what the actual bill look like though….they need to at least exclude non contact offenses from tier two status…somehow a non contact attempted lewd Act is a serious felony under pc 1197.2 but attempted assualt with a maching gun or other weapons in the attempt to commit rape sodomy or other sexual offenses is not serious…
I will support this bill. But hopefully it will be tweaked to be better by the time it gets passed.
well it doesn’t look like this will effect my motion much since the only issue it will make moot is the current address on public display issue….which will in turn moot the harrasment issue somewhat,not completely though since you will still be able to look you up using your zip codes…also the fact that i will be off the public registry in two years ….isn’t going to change anything for how I go forward from here….still violates a panoply of other rights that only being relieved of the duty to register will resolve….
Certain registrants get off automatically, but future ones do not? There is a petition? Why? This is not equal at all.
”
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.
”
Why does the DA have any say in this? This is highly suspect! They get to judge us TWICE?! That’s bafoonery! There shouldn’t be any petition! Do you realize how difficult it already is to get a Certificate of Rehabilitation?! So now it’s a petition that the DA and Judges can extend for how every amount of time they wish.
If you reached your expected time to be off the registry, then why have a petition at all b/c you’ve met the conditions.
Another query is why 10 and 20 years? Why not five or anything coinciding with probation? Doesn’t less than 1% re-offense rates matter? This fact is missing in this tiered system!
Registration is still compelled service a la involuntary servitude. You get no pay, the term doesn’t fit anything legit, and you’re still domineered by the state.
Maybe we should take up Michigan’s mantle. Do research and discover for a fact that 1203.4 did give relief and that registration was once called punishment under California law.
I have the same question as Steve. What if you were never given the Static99? Also, it says that his or her risk will be evaluated. From what I have read, the Static99R is strictly for male offenders. So, will women automatically be taken off the registry? I am against the tiered registry since it accepts that the registry is legal, and it is not. I would much rather invest our resources into abolishing the registry once and for all. I feel like this is Nazi Germany all over again, where people where excited when Hitler took over because they were promised jobs and money. Nobody knew or anticipated what would happen. Soldiers died, food was non existent and the promised wealth never materialized. We are going blindly into the unknown again. It might sound good, but is it really? Are we getting excited now just to realize later, when it is too late, what a disaster this will be? The registry needs to go. If there is no registry for other categories, we are being discriminated against.
Mike,
I think you are right. Keep in mind, things can change. I plead to a misdemeanor sexual battery expunged/summary probation almost 20 years ago. I’m thinking I’m a tier 1 (doesn’t that sound terrible.
I spy… with my little eye. I think I see a typo. Bear with me.
Also know the difference between 288(a) and 288a(…)(…) – pay attention to the parenthesis, there is a BIG difference. Look at your paperwork.
On page 2….
(1) Tier I Offender includes assorted offenses NOT listed in PC 667.5. Including “subdivision (c) of Section 288” – which is L&L with a 14/15 year old.
(2) Tier II Offender includes assorted offenses that ARE listed out in PC 667.5.
PC 288(a) L&L with a child under 14 – IS listed in PC 667.5. HOWEVER – Tier II Offender includes “subdivision (c) of Section 288” again in (2) Tier II Offender – same as in (1) Tier I Offender. This is redundant. You cannot have the same offense (down to the subsection) in two categories.
I believe this should read “Tier II Offender includes “subdivision (a) of Section 288” – which is L&L with a child under 14 – PC 288(a). Which is what many many are convicted of. PC 288(a).
Because a single conviction of subsection (a) of Section 288 is NOT listed in Tier III.
(3) Tier III Offender includes
(i) AFTER original conviction requiring registration – another conviction listed in PC 667.5 (violent)
(ii) person ever committed as SVP
(iii) person convicted of Section 187 (Murder!) with intent to commit registerable sex offense
(iv) person’s risk level is well above average risk.
(v) person is a habitual sex offender
(vi) person has 2 (two) SEPARATE convictions for PC 288(a) (I read this as NOT 2 charges but two different cases apart in time)
(vii) person was sentenced to 15/25 – life for an offense listed in PC 667.5
So, a single conviction (multiple charges possible) of the most common offense – 288(a) – should be listed in Tier II. Meaning such convict would get off, possibly, after 20 years. UNLESS such person re-offended – important – WITH an offense listed in PC 667.5 (Failure to register or DUI or any other other conviction NOT in PC 667.5 does not count), had committed murder in combination with a sex offense initially, or committed an offense listed in PC 667.5 that is so bad that he got life in prison.
I am good with that. Let’s face it. The registry will not be eliminated by the legislature in our life time. Too much riding on it. Maybe by the courts, but not in Sacramento.
Tier III consists of recidivists (of major offenses involving young children), murderers and clinically diagnosed individuals. I do not agree that the registry is the proper way to deal with such people (as it does nothing to re-integrate them into society), but to lump this group in with people who had a willing partner that was slightly underage, or had some photos on a smart phone, or had an inappropriate conversation with a teenager, is ludicrous.
The only issue is the much maligned risk determination for Tier III – (3)(iv) that could bump one up to Tier III. However, if memory serves, the Static99 is NOT suitable for juveniles, females AND offenders living offense free in the community for ~10 years. Since one has to wait a minimum of 10 years anyway to attempt to get off, such risk assessment should be a moot issue at that point (after 10/20 years of offense free living in the community).
Back to the issue at hand. Is there a typo in Tier II? Should it say 288(a) instead of 288(c) for a second time?
Anyone? Janice?
DON’T DO IT!!!!
I’m in a State (WA) that has the Tiered system and it is BS. According to their scoring system the BS Static 99… I am a level 2 however the Sheriff has the discretion to raise the level or lower the level.. When I was released from Prison in 2003 the county sheriff arbitrarily raised my level to 3 because I released to a county of non conviction and lack of local support.. here it is 13 years (nearly 14) later and do you think they will lower my level to a 2???? Hell no!!! who is going to put their signature on a piece of paper recommending to lower a level or even release someone from the requirement of registering…. Get real people. don’t support it!!! we all need to fight to abolish the whole system. This whole thing SORA, AWA, IML…. they all fall under the Bill of Attainder…
The Constitution prohibits both the federal government (in this clause) and the states (in Article I, Section 10, Clause 1) from passing either bills of attainder or ex post facto laws. The Framers considered freedom from bills of attainder and ex post facto laws so important that these are the only two individual liberties that the original Constitution protects from both federal and state intrusion. As James Madison said in The Federalist No. 44, “Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligation of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation.”
Janice…. Why aren’t you attacking any of these laws as being what they are??? BILLS OF ATTAINDER
Please Cali….. don’t fall for the TIER System
lets be clear..it is actually straight forward and easy to determine what tier you will fall into… if your convicted of any of the following offenses you are not eligible for tier one designation…any other offenses are tier one…im not an attorney but that is exactly what this bill states…
(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.
or
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.
its that simple….pretty straight forward
your 288 misunderstanding is 288(a)is a lewd acts under 14 while (c) is 14-15 years old…
there is no ambiguity that tier two is for any of the offenses included in those two subsections I gave above…all other misdemeanors or felonies that are not included in those sections are tier one offenses…once again I am not an attorney but that is exactly what the bill states…
I have a cp conviction from 16 years ago. I never took the Static99. Instead the judge sent me to his trusted Psychiatrist who did a 2 hour evaluation of me and wrote a report to the judge that I was low risk to reoffend. I wonder then what level I would be placed in. I am currently listed on the website as the person was 15 yrs old. A few months older and I wouldn’t be publicly listed. That is my only conviction ever.
Oh, I read your tier starts after release from custody. That makes a big difference. Bummer.
There is lots of “ambiguity” in this bill. The fact that you don’t automatically fall off, but have to “petition” a judge, is absolutely baloney. Will ELECTED judges, especially in Orange County, REALLY grant a petition to not have to register? And why did they get rid of the ability to get off the registry through a Certificate of Rehabilitation for some? Does that mean that those who rightfully earned a Certificate of Rehabilitation will now have to reregister under this tiered bill? Sure Frank and some of the other old timers will get off. But what about the rest of us? This tiered bill has so many loopholes that is sure to screw us in more than one way. Some of you saw this scam coming from months ago. You were right. This bill is a sham. Good luck ACSOL. Best of luck to you all. Hope this tiered bill makes your special interests happy. I am out!
So a non-contact first-time offender can be Tier 3 if he scores high on the Static 99 Revised? Hmmm… that’s a lot of confidence to give to 10 questions (designed by quacks from “Carleton University”).
This bill in its entirety needs to be crushed like a cigarette butt under a boot to extinguish it completely.
A tiered system is not the way to go CA! Heed the warnings of those who live it.