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.
Well, this was to be expected. I just don’t know why the major concern of those opposing this bill was not brought up. All the comments on this site mentioned the worry of those not currently on the public site would now be in a higher tier and therefore on the public site. This is just not fair and shows how ridiculous the registry really is. How will it be explained to the public that for years they did not know about all these “dangerousl” people who now appear on the Megan’s law site? That seems like the ultimate deceipt to me. But this was not even mentioned when addressing concerns about this bill.
On this part:
“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.”
Someone is going to have to explain to me how that isn’t a state violation of the Equal Protection clause.
Anyone with the same circumstances must get the same treatment, and the date of something occurring that is supposed to be “regulatory” and not punishment would have to regulate regardless of date. Otherwise, it’s punishment and you can’t change the terms of agreed to punishment or it’s ex-post facto.
I guess it’s best to let the law take effect and then file a case to get everyone off that has registered for 10 years. How will the judge explain that it’s ok to set an arbitrary date like 1987?
“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.”
So what? They’re not the ones in office. Nor are they ones who can vote yay or nay. Why is CASOMB trying to appease a group that clearly has zero power in the legislative chambers?
Great work! Janice, please advise. How would those with expunged offenses be affected? I have a PC 243.4 (a) expunged years ago with Summary Probation. I’ve never taken a Static 99 Test and 18-19 years has passed since my plea/crime free? Does expungement have an affect on tiering? I never noted anything via the proposal. Thank you
So CASOMB puts out a video showing that offenders are all very different and have a risk greatly lower than other offenses. They’re also in a state that showed a 4.8% average re-offense rate, being the lowest or all crimes, yet they STILL are moving forward with their plans? Does anyone use their brains anymore? Is it really that difficult to pay attention to empirical evidence rather than baseless emotions? You have to have a Backbone to stand up for the truth, which it seems many people especially in authority lack.
I still strongly disagree with the fact that a person would have to file a petition to be granted from registry relief. Unless that said person has committed another crime it SHOULD be automatic removal. It is just another burden put on registered citizens by big brother government.
Casomb = corrupt. A lot of us will end up in worse shape with this bogus “tiered” registry. What a joke!!
The concerns that Janice brought fourth truly serve “In The Interest of Justice” and the imperical data To Date at hand proves her case “Without a Shadow of Doubt”.
Yet we are informed that : “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.”
We can Correctly Infer by their stated positions that the DA’s & LE officials desire to serve their Political Motivations and in effect have made Political Prisoners of 104,145 persons. We are now lead to see the Ugly Truth, that the reality that their policy’s keep the public safe is a Falsehood they have perpetuated for far to long.
They offer society solutions that Malfunction at the most base level and in practice have caused Evil (Want) for the parties involved.
The Justice they produce is equal to False Coin as contrasted with True Coin, the Fruit of their tree is a “Counterfeit Justice” a “Coliseum Justice” for the masses to consume.
In the same spirit as Moses came to Pharaoh and called out to him to repent and return from the wicked path he traveled upon, I too say the same message from The Most High Father in Heaven who formed light and created darkness: Set His Children Free, as Heaven and Earth is witness against you before the Court of the Only Eternal One.
As Yehovah Lives, I speak Truth
Kudos to ACSOL for their efforts to improve this bill. In case anyone missed it, an invitation to make formal presentations to policymakers is not easy to secure, yet Janice and her team were invited to the table because they have credibility and make well-reasoned contributions. Also, building influence requires recognizing the political realities involved with this bill, which is the product of negotiation between many powerful players in state government. I think Janice and the rest of the ACSOL board are smart to advocate for changes that have a realistic chance of being implemented. There will be problems with almost any bill, but advocating for realistic positions that help the maximum number of registrants is a better strategy than advocating positions that will be ignored by the government and therefore help no one.
I can agree with everyone’s comments! Can a judge just deny your removal from the website for no reason? Or, is it your compliant/no further arrests and it’s straightforward? The removal from the registry altogether is also questionable? Is this just a straightforward request (compliant etc)? Or, is this going to be like a COR? I hope guidelines can be instituted? I’m presently not online after 20 years with an expunged offense? Will this change? I feel for you. This could drive the courts crazy! Just remember, stay positive and nothing has been signed into legislation!
That lifetime term of negation of privacy runs contrary to the inalienable right to privacy AND obtain it as specifically stated in California Constitution Article 1, Section 1.
This continued propagation of lifetime negation of privacy is a violation of the law. Thus, with this new bill, they are stating exactly that tier 3’s cannot regain their privacy whereas tier 1 and 2’s have the so-called opportunity to “obtain privacy”.
Also, with this new bill, they are admitting there were no direct pathway to obtain privacy for this group of convicts until this bill was introduced with their own way of doing so after a minimum of a decade with the power to negate privacy further at their discretion as opposed to meeting set criteria. Again, that is NOT a direct path to obtain privacy as discretion is far too powerfully vague.
Are we not allowed to use our California Constitution to combat the negation of privacy, which is what registration is? I’m giving my privacy away every year for the rest of my life without a direct pathway off of registery, to which California states in law that ‘privacy is an inalienable right as well as obtaining it’. Apparently, 1203.4 isn’t a direct pathway to “obtain the inalienable right to privacy”. If that doesn’t do it, then there truly isn’t a direct path to obtain it outside the whim of discretion.
Inalienable – unable to be taken away from or given away
Inalienable right – right that is unable to be taken away from or given away.
Why exactly are we not using Article 1, Section 1 of the California Constitution to do away with any form of registration outside of being in custody? We, Californians, have something written specifically for Californians that other states do not have – “the inalienable right to privacy”. Registration is taking away my privacy and giving it away (this includes giving it away to the IML). That’s all registration is… all about my private information.
::: sighs ::: I wish I could generate enough money to file a suit against the state for violating my California Constitutional’s “inalienable right to privacy and obtain it”. Was my right disabled for my crime (meaning did I lose it)? If I lost it, then how is that possible considering the terminology of “inalienable right”? And if I did lose that right (disabled my right to privacy), then why wasn’t that disability restored when I earned my 1203.4 as stated specifically within its statute and nothing “below” within that same statute says I need to continue to register after earning my 1203.4?
I really don’t know how the courts can work around “inalienable right to privacy AND obtain it”? According to our California Constitution, any form of taking away my privacy is a violation of the law. That means this registration scheme is a violation of the law as it is. Tack on the “lifetime” term of negation is a second violation as it’s also “an inalienable right to obtain privacy”.
Who cares about categorical punishment when you have this LAW telling you the state cannot take privacy away! Let alone not give it back to you! We aren’t part of a national registration program, so this is only a state program. And this program should be deemed unconstitutional as it violates it’s first section!
Thank you for being my voice and my pillar of support. I am proud of the team.
I thank you ASCOL for being active. Although I may not agree with every position you take, that is immaterial to the fact you are providing a physical presence for us before the boards of power and is much appreciated. Our greatest danger is to remain invisible and voiceless. When that happens, those who should know better will fill in the void in their perceptions with monster myths and lies provided by the background culture.
Regarding: ” In its presentation, ACSOL notified CASOMB that it would lobby on both the tiered registry bill and Senate Bill 26.”
By “lobby on” do you mean “lobby on BEHALF of” the tiered registry bill and, as we already know, not on behalf of Bill 26?
because the coalition which drafted the bill (consisting of district attorneys and law enforcement officials) would not support them.
The above quote is a major problem, not just with this bill but all legislation drafted by those outside of government at every level. District attorneys, law enforcement, lobbyists, CEOS and other executives, and anyone outside of a legislative body should have zero influence on the exact language for any proposal that could become law. A person or group is free to propose an idea with whatever details they might want, however no person(s) in a legislative body at any level of government in the United States of America should allow anyone outside that body to write potential law. The coalition here is not serving the people of California, they are only serving themselves by pretending to assert their authority and expertise in one area they directly oversee.
Thank you for helping us!
I am very torn on this…
My gratitude for the work and taking the fight to our enemy to improve the station for our people is hard to express or quantify however;
I do not trust our enemy, the people of the United States, in particular the future legislators of the main enemy, the State of California. I am afraid I will live to see the day where the changes sought and achieved will be considered dangerous loopholes that need to be closed for good and that in 2025 our enemy will place us under far more post-punishment punishments than we endured up to 2017. All it takes is one offender, even a first time offender, to do something horrible, truly shocking, and the newly elected enemies in the legislature seeking to continue their sucking off the California teat via votes, will see an opportunity.
The motto for our legislative enemies has always been “Never let any tragedy go unexploited.”
I trust those people like Janice who are fighting for us. I do not trust anyone else in the United States. No one….
HELLO IM REALLY CONFUSED WITH ALL THIS TIERIED REGISTRY STUFF. MY QUUESTION IS AS FOLLOWS, I PLEAD TO A 288A IN 1989 , I WAS 18 VICTIM WAS 13 NO SEX NO FORCE ETC, LL WITH A CHILD UNDER 14 , WERE DO STAND AS OF NOW IF TIRERD PASSES LEVEL??? NO ARREST OR CONVICTIONS OF ANY SORT SINCE THIS 1989 RIV COUNTY CONVITION…..
The presentation at the CASOMB was not just on ACSOL’s concerns about the tiered registry bill. Janice also talked about our success in Sacramento over the last two years – our successful lawsuits and that ACSOL killed all but one bill directed at registrants and their families. There was a time (not long ago) the board actually told Janice they didn’t want her (or us) to lobby against legislation and that “we really, really mean it.” When Janice was done with her presentation the board had a new respect for her and her ability to bring people together and they understood the importance of ACSOL and real effect we have had in Sacramento. For the first time, they actually saw Janice (and by extension all of us) as an asset and not a liability. THIS IS AN ENORMOUS VICTORY.
The tiered registry bill will be heard before both houses and will probably go though many changes along the way. You can choose to work hard on shaping the bill into something better by making phone calls, writing letters and attending hearings in Sacramento, you can choose to work on passing the bill as it is currently written, you can choose to work on killing it all together, you can choose to support ACSOL’s efforts on behalf of all registrants with your donations or you can choose to not participate at all.
Whatever you choose to do, please recognize how far we have already come and how much further Janice has taken ACSOL in the eyes of the CASOMB just this last week. Understand that while we do have a long way to go, together we will get there and then my friends, choose wisely.
I have some questions about the Static-99 as it relates to this bill.
First, if the crime one has committed determines the tier (according to the bill), how does the Static-99 even factor into the tier classification? Obviously, in many cases, the initial classification would be contradicted by the classification determined by the Static-99. Someone please clarify.
Second, how can one tell to which tier a person would be designated based on his Static-99 score? I saw a comment on another post on this site that a score of 5 would designate someone as a Tier 1, but a 6 would be a Tier 3. So what is a Tier 2? And where in the bill are these classifications by Static-99 score outlined? Perhaps I overlooked that section.
Finally, when is someone given the Static-99 assessment? My husband has no recollection of ever being asked those questions, and he certainly never received any paperwork regarding his assessment.
So you go through a court procedure to get off the list. Spend a lot of money to be removed only to have some whacko starting a new website who thinks they are saving the world by posting public information. It’ happened in washington st. What do we add in this legislation to keep that from happening. If there is nothing to stop anybody then what is the point?
Molly,
I believe your comment summed everything up! Change doesn’t occur over night! We could be dealing with a Klass Registry? After reviewing other states Regustries, I’ve noted almost all of them have instituted a tiered system and only repeat offenders remain on for life. So, something must and has to change. I personally filed my own 17 (B) wobbler/reduced to misdemeanor and expungement PC 1203.4 expungement. I was even detained by error after released on bail /never charged and later filed a PC 851.8 Seal Arrest Records! All where granted! I did this on my own! I had to re-file the 17 B twice/initially declined. I went online and everything is downloadable and a clerk will walk you through it! Filing a COR was different. I filed it, but the DA was a monster! I imagine California will do the right thing! I believe removing yourself from the Internet after 10 years and the registry will be more straightforward. Work hard!
M,
I completely concur with you! As your already aware, people currently in California are basically on a tiered system as we speak (other, medium and high risk). The only difference now is we have a chance to be removed from the registry?
People, I have a 288 misdemeanor and I had a “failure to register” dismissed. I have registered for almost 20 years, can someone please tell me what the “static 99 is and consist of?” My sentence did not require prison time and I don’t recall ever taking such a test.
The registry should have 5 tiers, not 3, because there are literally hundreds of different circumstances that could lead to a conviction. A suggestion;
Tier 1 — Register for 1 year (example; urination in public)
Tier 2 — Register for 3 years (exposing yourself intentionally)
Tier 3 — Register for 5 years (s*x with minor)
Tier 4 — Register for 10 years (forcible s*x with fear)
Tier 5 — Register for 12 years (continuous forceful abuse over time)