ACSOL Makes Formal Presentation to CA Sex Offender Management Board

The Alliance for Constitutional Sex Offense Laws (ACSOL) made a formal presentation to the CA Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) during the board’s monthly meeting on January 19. In its presentation, ACSOL notified CASOMB that it would lobby on both the tiered registry bill and Senate Bill 26.

ACSOL told CASOMB that while the organization supports the concept of a tiered registry, it has several serious concerns about the draft tiered registry bill. One of those concerns is the amount of discretion provided to district attorneys to stop the petition of an individual eligible to be removed from the registry. Another concern is the lack of opportunity for individuals assigned to Tier 3 to be removed from the registry. While some CASOMB members agreed with those concerns, others stated the board would not agree to those changes because the coalition which drafted the bill (consisting of district attorneys and law enforcement officials) would not support them.

ACSOL also told CASOMB that the organization opposes Senate Bill 26 because it would prohibit all registrants from visiting all school campuses for all reasons. The organization’s opposition has also been expressed in the form of two lawsuits challenging similar policies adopted by Fontana and Grossmont Unified School Districts.

Also during the meeting, CASOMB reported that there are currently 104,145 individuals listed on the state’s registry of which 6,830 are transients. Of that total, there are 6,368 individuals on parole.

Finally, CASOMB reported on the tiered registry bill stating that the bill is expected to be introduced as early as next week. The board estimates that the bill would result in about 24,000 individuals being assigned to Tier 1, about 64,000 individuals being assigned to Tier 2 and about 8,000 individuals being assigned to Tier 3. Individuals assigned to Tiers 1 and 2 would be eligible to petition for removal from the registry although individuals assigned to Tier 3 would continue to register for life.

In addition to individuals eligible to petition for removal, the California Department of Justice would automatically terminate the requirement to register for about 11,000 individuals convicted of an offense prior to 1987 provided they had registered for at least 10 years.

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

If the static 99 is applied in this scheme my 234.4(d) a misdemeanor with 1203.4 dismissal. currently not subject to internet disclosure would become a tier 3 offence Notice on the static 99 it goes by charges filed and not convictions, it doesn’t matter if those charges were dropped as in my case.

Lll, no. The Static 99 question you have is for repeat offenders. Read it correctly: prior sex offenses! Prior. Read it more carefully

Just remove the whole reg thing.

To all individuals contacted over the last five years. ​All of you know the issue: sexual offenders are hated and feared. The two news articles attached will begin the change we need to promote in every community. The editor, Carol Feineman, will present a positive series of articles over several weeks. This is the beginning of a nation wide effort. Promote, forward, and discuss this issue with everyone you know.

My role is to;
1. Expand awareness to help offenders instead of hating them
2. Build community support to provide housing and jobs
3. Help offenders prepare, plan and present themselves as ready for release to the state evaluators and the court
4. Provide a Hub; Fresno will become a central location where any offender will have all the community services they need to succeed
5. Be a Liaison and mentor who teaches Self-Regulation Success
6. Create transitional housing statewide (we now have 3 homes in Fresno)
7. Create a community volunteer support program using Restorative Justice Principles.
8. Encourage the medical experts to survey successful registrants and ask them why they were able to change.
(No organization has ever done a detailed survey.)
9. To make sure no one who is released will re-offend.

Thank you for your support in what ever way you have an interest.
Frank Jarez, “Founder of WHITEFEATHER Community Release Liaison.”
posted by:, Bruce Fein, “WHITEFEATHER Spearheading Research Coordinator.”

I like the tier registry but because I was 22 at the time of my offense, entrapment. I am now 25, and I am automatically Tier 2. Will the static-99 change as well?

or what now?

I think time served w/ good behavior as well as time on probation/parole with no violations should count for time off (early release from the tier)
The other side is always searching for ways to punish and destroy us, we need to find ways to use the system in our favor wherever we can.

I would have expected a Static 99 was performed on you already? Your age, relationship status and possible criminal history would clearly have an impact on your scoring. Simply Google Static 99 testing and take it!

I will have to admit, as I think about the tiering, I’m a bit concerned about which tiering people should be on. For example, what if s person had a PC 243.4a and went to prison and was released on parole? Then, compare that to a PC 243.4 a County Time, summary probation and the charge was expunged? (both pleas or convictions where felonies)