It has happened at last! A tiered registry bill has been introduced in the state legislature.
Before looking at the substance of the bill (Senate Bill 695), it is important to look at those who are offering and supporting it. The bill’s authors are two powerful members of the state Senate — Senator Ricardo Lara, who chairs the Appropriations Committee and Holly Mitchell, who chairs the Budget Committee. The bill’s sponsor is the most powerful district attorney in California, Jackie Lacey of Los Angeles. And the initial supporters of the bill are law enforcement organizations who wield significant power in the state capital.
It is important to note that the sources of this strong level of political support have not always been our allies in the past. For example, we remember clearly when Senator Lara voted in favor of a bill we opposed (Senate Bill 267). We also remember that law enforcement led the charge to defeat two previous tiered registry bills.
Therefore, it was with a sense of skepticism and concern that we analyzed the tiered registry bill that was introduced yesterday. Could a bill with such a pedigree actually help those on the registry today? The answer is a resounding yes.
While not perfect, this tiered registry bill could provide relief for more than 90 percent of those on the registry today. The bill would automatically terminate the requirement to register for more than 10,000 individuals convicted prior to 1987. In addition, the bill would make more than 90 percent of today’s registrants eligible to petition for removal from the tiered registry after 10 or 20 years provided they don’t re-offend.
The imperfections in the tiered registry bill must be addressed. For example, the bill requires Tier 3 registrants to remain on the registry for a lifetime. This requirement is not supported by empirical evidence which clearly establishes that a registrant in the community who has not re-offended in 17 years is very unlikely to re-offend.
In addition, we believe the bill provides district attorneys with too much discretion when they object to a petition. The bill also treats those who offend as juveniles the same as those who offend as adults. Further, the bill increases the tier level of an individual based solely upon risk factors that adversely impact young gay men and others.
We will address these and other imperfections as an advocacy organization, however, we need your help to obtain a tiered registry that helps as many registrants as possible. Please send letters now to members of the Senate Public Safety Committee.
by Janice Bellucci – Read all of Janice’s Journals
A list of Senate Public Safety Committee members (.doc) and Talking Points (.doc) to address in your letter are available below:
[ezcol_1third]SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE
Senator Nancy Skinner (Chair)
State Capitol, Room 2059
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4009
Fax: (916) 327-1997
Senator Joel Anderson (Vice Chair)
State Capitol, Room 5052
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916.651.4038
Fax: 916.651.4938
Senator Steven Bradford
State Capitol, Room 4085
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4035
Fax: (916) 651-4935
Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson
Capitol Office
State Capitol, Room 2032
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4019
Senator Holly J. Mitchell – Co-Author
State Capitol, Room 5080
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4030
Fax: (916) 651-4930
Senator Jeff Stone
State Capitol, Room 4062
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4028
Fax: (916) 651-4928
Senator Scott D. Wiener
State Capitol, Room 4066
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4011
REASONS TO SUPPORT A TIERED REGISTRY
- Tiered registry bill (Senate Bill 695) introduced on Feb. 17
- Senators Ricardo Lara and Holly Mitchell authors
- Bill supported by CA Sex Offender Management Board
- Current registry provides public with “False Sense of Security”
- More than 90 percent of those who assault a child are family members, teachers, coaches, clergy and are NOT on sex offender registry
- Less than 1 percent of sex offenders on parole commit another sex offense – CA Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation
- Only 5.3 percent of all sex offenders commit another sex offense – U.S. DOJ
- Tiered registry for sex offenders would increase public safety and save $115 million annually for state and local governments
- The registry includes many individuals who pose little threat to society such as those convicted of the non-violent crimes of “sexting” on a cell phone, urinating in public, and engaging in consensual teen sex.
- The registry also includes individuals who pose significant threat to society such as those convicted of multiple sexual assaults against children and adults.
- Tiered registries exist in 46 of the nation’s 50 states and successfully protect the citizens of those states
- California is only 1 of 4 states with lifetime registries along with Alabama, South Carolina and Florida.
- Tiered registry would end a life-time sentence for registrants who do NOT pose current harm to society
- Registrants often lose their jobs and/or housing solely because they are registrants. Section 8 housing not available to individuals listed on a lifetime registry (like California).
- Some registrants are physically harmed, even murdered, by vigilantes.
- All individuals required to register under Penal Code Section 290 would remain on the registry for at least 10 years
- Those convicted of low level offenses could leave registry in 10 years
- Those convicted of moderate level offenses could leave registry in 20 years
- A tiered registry would continue life-time registration for those who pose a current significant harm to society
It’s been several days since the new Tiered registry bill has been introduced. Perhaps more of you have read the bill. I have not had time yet.
Will someone please tell me if names and photos of Tier 1 registrants will be displayed on the public registry?
Thanks for taking time to respond.
How truthful are the talking points?? I see at least one that isn’t a true thing: CA is only 1 of 4 states with lifetime registries along with Alabama, South Carolina, and Florida.
~~~~~
I moved back from Missouri 2 yr ago and they don’t have a tiered registry either. It’s all lifetime in Missouri too. So that talking point needs to be fixed?
I know back in 2014 Missouri did try to change their registry to tier but they never did it and to this day Missouri is still lifetime without a tier.
Funny thing is I also lived in Utah and Arizona after I got out of jail…. for a yr each in Salt Lake and Flagstaff…. both in tiered states…. and their SO registration laws SUCKEDDD even more than Missouri and Cali even though they were tiered. In Missouri and Cali very little restrictions except having to go to PD to register. So I can tell you firsthand that just because a state is tiered, it isn’t better!! Just ask any SO from a tiered state!!
In Utah and Arizona TOO MANY RESTRICTIONS…. most targets only tier 2 and 3s (and I was tier 2 in both). So I know what it’s like to live in tiered states and as you can imagine I am skeptical about this law.
I moved back to Cali to be with family and because I didn’t know I had to live in Cali for 5 yr straight before applying for COR? At least that’s what my $500 per hr attorney told me. So for now I will love and work here…. hey the weather isn’t bad!
Now when this tiered registry passes I will have to wait 20 yr total, so 10 more yr to apply to get off instead of 3 yr that I have to wait under the law we have now. So it looks like if this tiered registry passes my wait to apply to get off goes from 3 to 10 more yr!! Lol?? Funny thing is I haven’t even been arrested or done anything stupid since I was arrested for my SO and that was 10 YR AGO in 2007!! If I get this right I would need to wait 7 yr longer under this bill when passed!!
HOW IS THIS GOING TO BE BETTER?!? Tiered registry won’t help my case and I have to wonder if it hurts me…. then it probably will hurt other people too??
James
REVISED TO: TIERED REGISTRY BILL COULD HELP maybe 5-10% PERCENT OF REGISTRANTS
Because a MAJORITY of 290’s can not afford the APPX $3-5K for a attorney to petition the court for this filing, as MOST were convicted using a PD/ALT PD.
It sounds like it won’t work as planned, but may set the stage for better challenges in the future.
My first thought was that giving in and accepting the tiers would make it harder to challenge the entire scheme. That may not be the case.
The two most ridiculous parts of the bill may help pave the way for legal challenges that abolish the registry:
1) Letting all those off for offences convicted prior to 1987 – This sounds like a relatively easy “equal protection” challenge since that number is arbitrary. What about those convicted just after but that is because their trials were dragged on by prosecutors? Doesn’t sound fair that two people committing a similar crime at the same time could end up with two completely different outcomes. Also, since the 1987 date is arbitrary, how can you say two people that committed the same crime can receive such different treatment based on dates? If the registry is “regulatory” and not “punitive”, then it fails to regulate by letting those off with an arbitrary date of conviction.
2) Letting judges/prosecutors decide if someone can get off the registry – Didn’t work in Texas. Only 1/3 of those who met much more exhaustive criteria than California actually were approved by the judge to get off. They had to have a length of time on the registry greater than the already long federal guidelines and exceeded it. They had to get recommended by a sexual treatment provider. They had to get recommended by the Texas Council on Sex Offender Treatment. Obviously, judges will lose elections if they appear soft on sex criminals so it is in their best interest to NOT let you off. Perhaps, once a few years goes by of almost no offenders getting off in California there will be a chance for a lawsuit. What good is a way off if even those most qualified still don’t get off?
This may or may not be of any help to those living in California. I live in Colorado and follow this site because it seems to be the most active and helpful in the US that I can find. In terms of a tiered registry, Colorado has one which seems, very closely to follow federal guidelines. I recently petitioned to be removed from the registry here. My conviction was for possession of CP back in 1999 and it was a Federal conviction. I wrote the petition myself, compiled all the relevant case law etc. Being paranoid, I did pay my lawyer from 15 years ago to review and file the petition, but he changed almost nothing. I really thought this would drag on for at least months if not years. But almost shockingly for me, the petition was granted (with the 5 year reduction for no subsequent convictions) with no protest from the DA. I am still trying to adapt to not being on the registry. It opens up paths that I thought were forever closed to me. My point being, don’t give up on being off the registry; keep in mind that if you are not on paper still, you can move to other states that might be more liberal about registration laws. If California implements a tiered registry that follows Colorado’s, it could give hope and relief to 10’s of thousands. But it will depend very much on the judges who are making determinations in those districts. No perfect answers.
THIS BILL IS A MONEY MAKING SCAM!!! One of the things we would need to do is finish a sex offender “treatment” program before we all petition off. Look at 290.5(a)(3) & 290.5(b)(2): “The court shall determine whether continued registration is necessary, based on the following factors: whether the offender has successfully completed a Sex Offender Management Board-certified sex offender treatment program.” Why has anyone not brought this up??? How much is this all going to cost??? Specifically, how much is it going to cost to attend & complete one of these hokey pokey “treatment” programs???
@ concerned about costs
You left out 2 important words
Re: Tier 1 and 2….”successful completion, IF ANY, of a Sex Offender Management Board-certified sex offender treatment program”
(290.5 b2 describes a subset of tier 2 people that were under 21 at the time of their offense who can petition early, at the 10 year time period- i.e. Romeo/Juliet cases.)
All said, I just don’t see the justification of having SO’s register when people with violent crimes, robbery, assault, weapons, gangs, drug dealers, drunk drivers, and such who all have a much higher recidivism rate and are a much greater danger to public safety don’t have to register, don’t have a public registry, and when they finish probation they are welcomed back into society. I think there needs to be some justification as to why one crime is punishment for 10 or 20 years to life after release–in many cases no contact and no violence was committed–while other more dangerous crimes have no additional punishment. This is just a mass hysteria that politicians are playing off of the public’s fears.
Janice, I’m very concerned about this. I was convicted of a 288(A) and 243.4(A) over 20 years ago. I’m considered High Risk currently but have been registering with my local PD for so long that they don’t even bother with me. I’ve got two different Psychological evals and both has rated me no risk, and even my 99R got me at a negative score. I’m now afraid that If this Tiered system goes into effect, I will be classified as a Tier 3 and this may end up making my life worse…. perhaps even having the local PD start paying house visits.
What are the chances of someone with my convictions being lesser than a Tier 3?
I agree Eric,
There’s a serious double standard and a blindness/Ignorance in the system.
I know ppl that came home from a murder charge. Their quality of life is far better just in the fact that once parole is up, they are free to move and go wherever they like.
I know ppl with Multiple DUI’s and other than some damn fines and taking some classes they pretty much are unaffected.
It’s the effing title of Sex Offender that strikes an ominous chord in the hearts and minds of others. It’s a focal point that causes ppl to imagine endless perversions from the corners of their own minds regardless of the truth.
Here is another “talking point” that doesn’t make sense: “A tiered registry would continue life-time registration for those who pose a current significant harm to society.”
How does Janice expect us to use that talking point when it is clearly not the case. How can we honestly say that those that remain Tier 3 “pose a current significant harm to society?” This tiered registry bill doesn’t even give the right for a Tier 3 to have an immediate individualized hearing to determine whether a person really does pose “a current significant harm to society” to be placed into Tier 3. Blindly labeling someone a Tier 3 is more of a political act because it allows the politicians (and in this case even Janice) to villianize this group and rationalize lifetime registration for some (while not for others).
This talking point just shows me the true colors of this organization. Acsol is willing to support a bill that will harm some of the very people it pretended to help in past, by creating a whole new Tier 3 label, by broadly saying that they “pose a current significant harm to society” just so Acsol can push their “tiered registry” agenda. I can imagine a few of these soon-to-be Tier 3 people helped support Janice’s efforts in the past only to be stabbed in the back with this bill.
Whatever happened to “We’re all in this together?”
Can the Static-99 score push a Tier I to a Tier II?
Or is the Static-99 score only factored in terms of designating a Tier III?
Not sure yet how to feel about this Bill. Originally my charge (in 2015) was lewd and lascivious for attempting to molest, but when the plea bargain came in, they added kidnapping. I had been drinking at at 6am on a Saturday, I picked up the child (victim) as I had been driving around giving people rides. Long story short, there was no contact, I was scared out of my mind because I had never had a criminal background, so I took the plea and did 7 months county. Never understanding how all this was going to effect me for the rest of my life. Even years later, I get people finding out where I live and the punishment continues. The latest was my car getting vandalized. It just never ends. Everyone thinks they know my situation and what happened just by finding me online, but they bundle us up all together. Nonetheless, I try to stay strong and push the limits on how I can thrive. Not sure how this new Bill is going to help me. Stay strong everyone. If you live a good life, good things will happen.
I’d be really surprised if this bill doesn’t pass if it doesn’t I would recommend for everybody to move out of California until it does it’s one thing to deal with the social stigma at school or at work or dating someone but after all that when you go home and have to deal with your neighbors and the community man that’s Overkill .. truth is without a lot of money or alot of family and lot of support eventually they’ll pick every registered citizen off one by one
I see this bill is rife with problems and prosecutorial hate that is going to blindside a lot of people.
One major one is that this is not set up a pure tiers. It is set up as smoke and mirrors, as it is more like a COR than like tiers. That checkpoint at the end of your tier, the court hearing, is specifically set up like a COR, the presecutor can argue that you remain a danger and should have to continue registering, regardless of your clean record throughout registration, just like they always do for a COR. The bill specifically says that! Oh, that argument by the prosecutor might be uncommon in the overwhelming flood of cases in the first year, but after that, all we have here is the equivalent of an earliest opportunity to apply for a COR, kind of like a first opportunity to apply for a pardon, but you might be denied and have to try several more times.
Also, and in particular, anyone registering anywhere outside California for an offense in California, even a single misdemeanor from 1944 for which the federal government does not require registration, will get no relief ever under any circumstance. This is because this bill deviously shunts aside actual reasonableness, sensibleness and compassion in favor of hateful prosecutorial checkpoints to make sure California can have the pleasure of personally oppressing those people for at least 10 years for even the most minor of offenses, no matter how old — no matter even that these people have no subsequent offense, so already have long since passed the test of time.
The bill is NOT designed with the primary purpose being public safety and that shown simply by how old your offense was or your last offense was — but this is all that matters. It is too surgical and with checkpoints that instead leave it designed to make sure no one avoids suffering oppression in California, and is being used as a net to cobble up all those people and oppress them, despite their offense being many, many years ago and nothing since — its more important to punish them — oh wait, registration is not punishment, that’s right — than recognize the issue has been resolved, the person has passed the test of time, California registration or not.
This net appears to be designed to nail anyone in California who has avoided the oppression – but again, who cares, since they already have passed the test of time — just make this like a statute of limitations, who cares about making sure oppression is suffered if the test of time has been passed, the problem has been solved, if their danger period immediately after the offense is history. If registration is truly not punishment or a sentence, than that is all that matters. Anything more shows that registration actually is punishment.
Gee, even the relief for in-state registrants whose last offense was more than 30 years ago is designed like that. That should simply be a general and immediate amnesty for any offense from more than 30 years ago (actually, from more than five years ago — there aren’t even any legitimate studies showing 10 years accomplishes anything more than five, after five years, hardly anyone for any offense, including sex offenses, recidivates!). But instead, you must show you have registered in California for at least 10 years, and you can only initiate that relief by going in within five days of your birthday in 1918 and registering, and you must live here now in order to do that, and a year later you should be able to stop registering — so if you move or otherwise trigger a registration requirement during that year, you have to go in again. This for offenses from more than 30 years ago, maybe a simple misdemeanor from as long ago as 70 years!
Forget about a net to snare people who have not offended in more than 30 years, who cares, problem is already solved, the net simply proves registration is punishment, a sentence — but that is the only way prosecutors can think.
I have to think that part of the net is aimed at nailing all the people who decades ago were relieved of their registration requirement by getting an expungement under 1203.4 – which used to absolve you of the registration requirement. That relief was lifted for felons at about the same time frame as this 1987 mark for the old-case relief in this bill, and in the early side of the mid-1990s for misdemeanors. It was decidedly applied retroactively when registration went national in the mid-1990s under Bill Clinton. I expect there are lots of those people who do not realize they are now required to start registering again — they are probably the bulk of the people the state says have not been registering! If they haven’t spent all their time looking into the details of this stuff — stuff they put behind them maybe many years earlier and never looked back — they will not know they were supposed to start registering again, even though they had worked for and met the standard for relief and attained the relief and stopped registering.
In fact, now that I thought that through, this bill absolutely should immediately restore that relief to those people! My god, they worked for it, they earned it, they got it — and years later it was taken away as part of the registration hysteria and retroactivity. Gee, to now try to nail those people and oppress them for 10 or more years — that is unconscionable, and it is unconscionable to overlook that in this bill, and instead try to nail them for not realizing they were supposed to start registering again, and now make them register and for at least 10 years!
A clause relieving all those people, provided they have no subsequent registerable offense, must be added to this bill! This bill must recognize and rectify that gross injustice of taking away that previous relief! You have to realize, all those lower level offenses that got probation got maybe a year or two of probation, and then got their 1203.4 relief and stopped registering. This bill leaves them facing a resumption of registration until they hit at least the 10-year mark, which will probably mean a full 10 years as I doubt there is any record around any more showing they registered for a year or two in 1981. That is unconscionable to deny them relief in this bill, and instead make them register for at least a decade to get any relief.
How can we now not be arguing for a clause to that effect to be added? How can the legislators not agree to include that in this bill, it would simply correct an incredibly gross injustice?
On another matter, under this bill, even minor misdemeanors are being handled as one size fits all, they too are a “danger” to society, poor demeanor. Gee, they should simply be dropped from registration at this time, the federal government does not require registration for them. Instead, this bill is chasing them down and making sure they suffer California oppression for at least 10 years. Who even cares if some misdemeanant who hasn’t offended in more than 30 years has ever registered, who cares if some misdemeanant from five years ago has registered. Forget about it, just do a general amnesty for the old cases, even more, just use this opportunity to drop them from 290, along with all other offenses for which the federal government does not require registration — save the state and local police departments all the money of doing that pointless registration, all for poor demeanor!
How can we not be demanding this at this one and only juncture when 290 is being rewritten — we will never get another chance to argue this, the legislators must at least hear these ideas!? Instead, this bill uses its relief as a prosecutorial tool to set up checkpoints to pointlessly catch people to make sure they suffer oppression, checkpoints that serve to deny others any relef, such as those out of state but registering for offenses in California, and put burdens even on those who eventually might get the relief, such as the requirement that those whose offenses were more tan 30 years ago must go in and register in 2018 anyway, and wait a year beyond that to stop registering.
Mind you, the only point of those checkpoints is hate; since the people already have passed the test of time, it is only to make sure those people do suffer oppression – that outlook makes it a sentence, punishment. This is not about solving a problem and public safety, it is about punishment — these checkpoints prove that. You can’t now impose registration on people whose offenses were 30, 40, 50 years ago and have no offense since that, whether they are out of state or even if in state, and argue it is not for purposes of punishment. And in many cases, at least as pointed out for those who had been able to stop registering many years ago because they got 1203.4 relief and did not know the law now makes them start registering again, you cannot of good and honest conscience chase them down now and nail them when their supposed offense is actually a gross injustice done to them by taking away their previous relief.
This bill and its checkpoints is set up as if it were addressing an escapee who has failed to serve his/her sentence! This bill is giving less than it seems, as providing for an extension of your tier once you get to its limit. We, of all people, cannot overlook this in a frenzied rush to pass anything the prosecutors want, any old crap at all. These points absolutely MUST be addressed.
Janice, now that you can stand before the Supreme Court, will you be tackling the facts on Recidivism anytime soon to set the record straight?
Anonymous Nobody, I recommend you listen to the recording of the Tiered Registry conference call when it is posted. Janice answered a number of issues you brought up.
Regarding your statement, I have No PROBLEM with anyone making comments on this website, and I am not a moderator.
But I DO have problems with keyboard activists who TROLL MAJOR NEGATIVITY and piss all over recommendations made by the most experienced professional in sex offender legislation: Janice.
Why am I angry with what you trolled? Because all your toxic negativity takes HOPE away from the 105,000 guys trying to get off the registry. This bill is vital to ACSOL’s strategy.
Janice has PROVEN STRATEGY, based on her expertise. YOUR strategy is to make unfounded, melodramatic statements but no positive action.
Remember this: Hammering out pages of negativity on your keyboard IT DOESN’T MAKE IT TRUE.
You wrote a line Emperor Palpatine could have said with an evil, intimidating smile: “I can’t tell you my experience in politics, government and law. But I would recommend you not presume.”
If you really had experience in politics and government, you would not put down ACSOL members as ignorant by saying:
“This is the first AND FINAL step. Inexperienced people won’t see that.”
Then you wrote “we were flat out nixed from even getting to have any input on what was being recommended to the legislators for a bill!”
BUT you ignored the fact that we WILL be giving input in Sacramento on March 20 and 21. Will you be there, or will you just keep pouring your negativity all over what ACSOL is accomplishing at you sit at home in your computer cave?
Here, you project your own despair upon every politician:
“our issues are far worse for a politician than that, they would rather eviscerate Social Security than touch our topic. This will NOT be taken up again”.
My guess is that you don’t know who the author and co-author of this bill are. And you don’t know their motivation why they support it. RIGHT? I didn’t think so.
I’m wondering what your goal is by saying these lies passionately and with absolute conviction, but NO EXPERIENCE, NO EVIDENCE, and NO ALTERNATIVE. Ego building?
Maybe I should recommend that Janice step down and let you run ACSOL based on the “experience in politics, government and law” you can’t tell us about.
So what will it be: work with ACSOL to give 105,000 RCs hope for the future, or keep trolling baseless crap?
I hope you deflate your ego and choose the former. I would be proud to work with you on a future of hope for us.
I was so focused on other things that I overlooked another MAJOR and devious issue with this tier proposal, truly devious: It eliminates the out from registration for all those lesser offenses for which obtaining a COR currently will let you stop registering. This means anyone who was able to stop registering by getting a COR will have to start registering again if this bill is passed, and will only be able to stop registering again if and when they meet the standards set up in this bill to stop and are granted the relief by the court. This bill changes the state of the law, which changes whether those people do not have to register because of the COR – it changes it so they do have to register.
So technically, if this bill is adopted as-is, and takes effect on Jan. 1, then all those people would have until Jan. 5, the five-day grace period you have once your registration requirement is sparked, to go in and register or be subject to prosecution for failure to register. This is NOT hyperbole, this is reality. And this is NOT the first time this kind of thing has happened, I have been pointing this out here for years. And if you think you can expect some common sense and leniency about this situation from the prosecutors, have you ever seen that from them in tha past?!
I expect all offenses that now can stop registering once they obtain a COR will be Tier 1 offenses. Of those, most had to wait 10 years to get the COR, so they have met their tier time — as long as they are currently registering in California when they now seek relief anew; but for some offenses, such as indecent exposure, they could get a COR in seven years and stop registering (this is a problem of this tier proposal, it actually lengthens the time you have to register for those offenses from seven years to 10 years! We are backing a measure that lengthens the registration time!), so would have to register for three more years before seeking relief under this new standard. The state of the law if this tier proposal passes as-is means all those people who stopped registering after getting a COR will now have to start registering again and will have to be evaluated under the testing, and will have to file in court (fees, a lawyer) to seek relief from registering under the new standard for relief. That COR that relieved them before will no longer provide them relief if this bill is passed as-is, so they lose that relief they previously had been granted, and will have to seek relief all over again.
This is just like what they did 25 years ago when they changed the standard in place then, under which people could stop registering once they got 1203.4 PC relief, an “expungement,” and then subsequently made everything in 290, including the new standard, retroactive. All those people who had obtained that relief over the previous 50 years suddenly were required to start registering again, and continue to have to do so to this day. Gee, if any of those people were subsequently able to stop registering after getting a COR, they again are having their relief taken away, a second time, and again must meet a different standard and yet again apply to the court and beg for relief!
I can only imagine when the next change will come along and they have their relief taken away yet again! People think these things can’t happen, but they already have happened and now they are about to happen yet again! I have warned in these threads for years about this! This new standard being instituted is retroactive. These people will have to resume registering and continue to do so until they file for and obtain relief yet again under the new standard.
How about adding a clause to this bill to the effect: “Anyone who at any time prior to 2018 met the standard to stop registering that was in place at that time shall not have to register for that offense regardless of any change in the standard subsequent to their relief.”
This is the kind of basic fairness that even many right wing Republicans would support.
If we would just speak up and advocate rather than cheer, this now is a chance not only to correct the injustice this bill is about to do but to also finally correct the injustice from 25 years ago — finally — as the issue of the two time frames is one and the same, and the older one is still in play even after this bill is passed. This is an injustice that was attempted to be fixed in Doe v. Harris for those who had obtained relief by getting a 1203.4 “expungement,” for at least those who entered plea bargains, but which our state Supreme Court denied — and which we here said we would continue to fight for. Well, this is the time and place to fight for what we said we would fight for! This can go a long way to getting what Doe v. Harris did not get.
We cannot be so blinded as to simply cheer on this proposal rather than demand any number of changes in it, this latest one a pretty serious one.
We at least need to have this bill rewritten to correct this, to retain the relief from registration for all those people who previously could stop after getting a COR. And of good conscience, we MUST, we MUST take advantage at this time also to correct the very same egregious injustice imposed on all those who previously met the standard for relief from registration by obtaining a 1203.4 “expungement”; that standard was good for felons until the mid-late 1980s and misdemeanants until the early-mid 1990s.
Many of those people who stopped registering after their “expungement” probably don’t even know they were supposed to resume registering, and might be walking around under danger of being stopped for who knows what, their violation that they don’t even know about being discovered and land them in jail — gee, they could get nailed simply if they applied for a passport under the new IML law!
That is, it might be old now, but those people are still in serious danger, whether they know it or not. Who knows how many of those have moved to another state in the past many decades, from where they can’t even get out from under registration under this bill ever — but this corretion now will get them out. We must incorporate into this correction the same correction for these people who previously had been relieved of the registration requirement by obtaining 1203.4 relief — no matter that I’m sure the Justice Department will say that no one actually faces that Catch 22; that is a lie, they do, I expect many of them whether in-state or out-of-state, and if the Justice Department thinks not, then they should have no problem adding that relief in as they won’t lose anything. The only justification for them to fight adding in that relief is because they know it will help some people — which would only prove my case.
But note, if those people who lost their relief from registration via expungement get this correction but with the stipulation that they still must meet their tier, many of them could be facing 9-10 (or maybe more) years of registration before they can get that relief again, as their time on probation would have been only 1-2 years or so. The Justice Department will lie and poo-poo this concern, but it is real and serious, and if they think non-existent, then they should not mind this correction being granted. They fought such a correction back in the mid-1990s when 290 was made retroactive, so they do intend to hang anyone caught up in that net. And even now they are not just making an amnesty for all tier 1 and tier 2 offenses older than 30 years, they are still handling it as a sentence, as punishment, and requiring a showing that you currently are registering in California and for at least the amount of time for your tier, or else you must complete your sentence first, before you can have your first “parole” hearing.
Please, people, stop being blinded in your approach to this tier proposal!
As I look more into this tier proposal, it is becoming ever more obvious it is NOT a tier proposal. This is an incredibly devious proposal to block us from real tiers. This proposal is little other than a word game, redefining a COR as tiers. That means this is simply giving us what we already have, the possibility of a COR.
You are not going to find “90%” of registrants getting relief from registration under this proposal any more than they get it under a COR.
A tier proposal would let people out automatically after they finish the time for their tier. But that is NOT what this does. This sets up a possible court review — to be determined by whatever prosecutor you are stuck with, such as Rackauckas in Orange County — pretty much as deep and intrusive as a COR. Consider what the law will now say MUST (“shall” means “must”) be considered in any court hearing at the end of your tier:
“In determining whether to order continued registration, the court shall consider: the nature of the registrable offense; the age and number of victims; whether any victim was a stranger at the time of the offense (known to the offender for less than 24 hours); criminal and relevant noncriminal behavior before and after conviction for the registrable offense; the time period during which the person has not reoffended; successful completion, if any, of a Sex Offender Management Board-certified sex offender treatment program; and the person’s current risk of sexual or violent reoffense, including the person’s risk levels on SARATSO static, dynamic, and violence risk assessment instruments, if available.”
So, even what your offense was can be used as a reason to deny you the relief!
That makes your tier irrelevant, it is just a COR time frame to be allowed to apply, but to be denied! The nature of your offense is already known in deciding how long you must register to get this relief. As a tier, its already supposed to have been decided that that time is enough for that offense. But its not, under this bill your original offense can be a cause to deny you this relief! And absolutely, if your offense was a higher one, and they let you plea bargain to a lower one, you now are going to be judged on that higher one, on the “nature of your offense.” If that is your situation, you better start getting used to the idea that you are not going to get out of registration at the end of your tier, that dismissal of the charge you got in the plea bargain is not going to be worth as much as you thought — absolutely, that is exactly why the prosecutors put that language in this bill, to in effect put you on trial on that dismissed charge after all.
Gee, they can even use your PRIOR or subsequent perfectly LEGAL conduct (behavior) as a reason to deny you this relief! That is, even though you have now learned to not cross the line, never violate a law, you have proved via the test of time that you can keep yourself contained within the law, that is not good enough! That’s good enough for everyone else on the planet, but that is not good enough for you, you must be better than that just the same as you must be to get a COR. That is, for example, what consenting adults do legally and in private behind closed doors can now be used to deny you this relief — or whatever else it might be that the prosecutors want to assert or wherever else you might do it. Any of the requirements of a COR can come in under that language — all those requirements for a COR are considered to be “relevant.”
Mind you, if you had ANY criminal “behavior,” not “conviction,” since your registrable offense — and it does not need to be a registrable offense or even sex related — that can be used to deny you this relief. It even specifically writes that clause so that that criminal behavior does not even need to be “relevant!” Only the non-criminal behavior must be “relevant,” whatever that means, and that’s another point, that is just too vague, that will allow anything that’s surrounded with some hyped up language.
And of course, the bit about your current assessment by SARATSO. This is a major, this means your tier time is irrelevant — other than to deny you what your SARATSO score says you should have a LOT sooner. This makes the tier proposal nothing but a smoke screen, only your SARATSO rating is relevant! And the various things that get you negative points on that are unconscionable, such as simply that you are single – – tell me, how many women want to marry, or have anything to do with, a convicted sex offender who is registering and suffering compliance checks!?
Gee, it even requires the court to consider the time period during which you have not reoffended, as in does the court agree with the times set for the tier! But that is what the tier time is supposed to already have decided, that that amount of time is plenty enough, it is not supposed to be overruled by a judge with a different opinion of, or less respect for the tiers, a judge who wants a longer “tier” to decide you are safe.
And again, I note, they are NOT dealing with this as a time frame from your offense or release, which is all that should matter and which a tier would be. They are measuring this as the amount of time you have registered, as in a sentence, and even more specifically, that registration must be in California, as in a sentence to California. I have advocated since day on that a real tier should be measured as time from offense or release, not time on registration – bad attitudes produce bad bills. A tier is supposed to mean you have passed the test of time, not that you have served enough of your sentence. A tier should be more like a statute of limitations that a sentence. Gee, those people who were not prosecuted before the statute of limitations ran get full relief from all of this, but those who suffered the conviction are now to suffer more if they registered out of state or maybe just didn’t start registering again in the mid-1990s when their previous relief under a 1203.4 “expungement” was lifted, but they never realized it was lifted and that they were supposed to start registering again. All this because this is not being handled similar to a statute of limitations, as in how long have you not reoffended, you have passed the test of time, period.
These things just make this tier proposal nothing but an indeterminate sentence! That’s not what a tier proposal is supposed to be. This is making this relief nothing but the earliest time you can have your first parole hearing. None of this should be involved in a tier proposal, this is all for a COR. A tier proposal is supposed to be more like you have reached the end of your sentence, they cannot hold you any longer. A COR is what is supposed to be more like a parole hearing. The prosecutors have come in on this proposal and played word games, simply taking out the COR as a means of relief and calling what had been relief via a COR a tier, but handling it like a COR. Gee, it even conforms to the times for a COR, except for the lesser offenses that before this bill could have gotten relief in seven years — those we are now being lengthened to 10 years, getting the COR at seven years will no longer end registration for those people.
Yes, this change is taking away any relief one might have gotten from a COR. If you got a COR and with that were allowed to stop registering, under this bill, you will now have to start registering again come Jan. 1 and, if or when you get to the end of your tier, you will have to file for removal from registration, and possibly have to suffer this court hearing — its up to the prosecutor, although I would hope, since you already got a COR, they don’t demand the hearing, but I would not bet on it, especially if you had some behavior they don’t like, perfectly legal or not, after your COR.
And another egregious thing completely unrelated to tiers this bill is exploiting is to take away the relief from being posted on the Internet that some registrants applied for and obtained. That is now being taken away, and they will again be posted on the Internet! This is like when they took away relief from registration obtained via a 1203.4 “expungement,” required those people to start registering again. And now this bill will be taking away relief from registration attained by getting a COR.
And how many years will it be before relief you might get under this tier proposal is taken away? As the state high court said in Doe v. Harris, you should know you can lose this relief at any time via subsequent changes in the law. That has already happened in the past for all those who had obtained relief via 1203.4, it is now about to happen for all those who were relieved via a COR, and it is now about to happen for all those delisted from the internet after applying for and earning that relief. And we are not complaining about this!
This is NOT a tier proposal. This is NOT attitudes changing to be more reasonable, this is just a shell game.
There are loads of details all through this change that have nothing to do with tiers, and which no one is focusing on but do make our situation worse.
This is all to confusing can’t we just get rid of the registry once and for ALL?
Joe and Roger, I agree with you completely. The tiered registry bill will not affect anyone who has already been granted a Certificate of Rehabilitation.
I don’t know if it has already been mentioned but the tiered registry bill is scheduled for public safety committee hearing on April 18.
I know some people are saying they could be put back on the registry by this bill.
If that happens, in today’s climate of the registry being acknowledged as “punishment”, wouldn’t it be challenged under “Double Jeopardy” as well as issues of fairness and finality under “Due Process” ?
From what I see : “The double jeopardy clause protects against imposition of multiple punishment for the same offense – ”
See more at: http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment5/annotation05.html#3
If Janice or team can answer this question please. I was concerned about the exclusion from Megan’s Law website would be taken away once the tiered registry is implemented in California. So I read the latest SB 695 bill and from what I read, registrants can still apply for exclusions if they are tiered 2? For my situation, I would be place on tier 1 so does that mean I can apply for exclusion from Megan’s website? Currently I am excluded from Megan’s website. Please reply. Thank you.
JCM – I believe once you reduced your felony to a misdemeanor , you will be able to restore your gun rights. That is why we were told by attorneys to get the reduction first, for that very reason.