Tiered Registry Bill Introduced as Senate Bill 695

Senator Ricardo Lara introduced today a tiered registry bill (Senate Bill 695). If passed by the legislature and signed by Governor, the bill would create three tiers that would allows most registrants who do not re-offend to lawfully end their requirement to register in either 10 or 20 years. The remaining registrants would still be required to register for a lifetime.

“We have just received a copy of this bill and have not yet had time to compare it to the draft bill distributed a few months ago,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci. “We will provide a comparison of the two bills as soon as possible.”

Senate Bill 695 (pdf)

Senate Bill 695 (on CA Legislature web site)

Legislative Fact Sheet (Sen. Lara)

Related posts

Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...


  1. Submissions must be in English
  2. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  3. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  4. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  5. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Always use person-first language.
  6. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  7. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  8. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  9. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  10. 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 that are not personally identifiable.
  11. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  12. Please do not post in all Caps.
  13. 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.
  14. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  15. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  16. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  17. Please do not solicit funds
  18. No discussions about weapons
  19. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  20. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  21. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  22. 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.
  23. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
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

It appears this will throw thousands of people up on the website who are not there now, if I read this correctly. Is that the trade off they’re giving us for being granted the ability to petition?

Can’t we just go and file a lawsuit and get the registry removed?

13 year registrant here, For the longest time we had no hope, I even stopped coming to this site for awhile cause all the news just seemed bad-Negative and it actually depressed my day, but finally we have hope and we all should take a second, take a step back and appreciate that. Very thankful for Janice and partners for fighting for us and caring when no one else did. Here’s to all of us rising above our label and moving on once and for all.

this is great news for most of us but dont believe for one minute that all these government agencies that are supporting this bill is doing it out of the goodness of their hearts like they’ve all of a sudden found their consciences…their doing it because they know over bloated and out of control and all its going to take is for the right person to come along and file a well articulated brief and the entire scheme comes crumbling down…all they are doing is trying to appease the court before it happens by claiming we now have a path off the registry….hate to tell em that weak assss attempt comes nowhere close to negating all the other constitutional violations as a result of these registration laws… neither will the little fact that some wont have their addresses on line make any difference.. if anything that only boast are argument that the registry is absolutely useless…why would we have to be put on a public website if people cant know exactly where we live….makes it totally and blatantly useless instead of just useless….

So I’ve been reading through the text of this bill, and I had some concerns because I like the idea of being able to get a Certificate of Rehabilitation (COR) and what that wording “meant” to others including employers.

I have some insights I’d like to share.
1. Yes this does remove the ability of a COR to stop registration
2. Getting a COR has harder requirements to meet than the new “petition” to stop registering
3. People that were able to apply for a COR prior to this bill can still apply for one, and if you can get it, then it should pretty much be a “slam dunk” to get the petition to stop registering approved.
4. For teir 1, I would assume that you could have your lawyer submit requests for both at the same time, which may in the end give you a better shot at the petition since the judge may go for the “middle ground”
5. For tier 2, you may still be able to file for a COR after 10 years, but still be required to register. This makes absolutely no sense at all, but politicians rarely do.

WASTE OF TIME !!! Probably around 90-95% of 290’s here CAN NOT AFFORD A ATTORNEY to file the BULLSH*T needed to get removed. 90-95% of ALL 290’s used a PD that is why we got a SH!T Deal to begin with. Since no one can afford $300-500 or WHO knows how much $$$ and to fight a LAME DA… WASTE OF TIME AND MONEY PERIOD !!!!!!!!!!!

Who says money has to be spent? I filed a 1203.3, 1203.4 and 17b. The cost? $0. No attorneys required nor consulted. The result? I won.

Anything can be done in Pro Per. Perhaps petitioning for removal can be done the same way. However, based on my reading of the bill, you only serve the petition with registering law enforcement office and DA. A hearing may not be required.

If this bill is passed, I will file a petition in Pro Per in July 2020 (when I hit the 10 year mark). Anyone who does file in Pro Per before that and does so successfully, please be sure to post your experience as it will help others.

I am generally in favor of this bill but I have two issues that perhaps people will weigh-in on:

1. Can someone tell me definitively if Tier I registrants are excluded from the public registry”

2. It is my understanding that registrants with a Federal child porn case are currently NOT eligible for a California Certificate of Rehabilitation (COR). Is this true? Does the proposed bill address this issue? Can we request that the bill be amended to enable registrants adjudicated in Federal court be given access to and relief via a COR?

Comments from all are welcome.


Does anyone understand what would happen to someone who was previously granted a c of r ?

Those who are concerned about the ability of judges (politicians) to deny removal from the registry should remember that the overall effort to substantially prune the registry does not come from the legislature’s deep affection for us. It is based on the system’s inability to devote so many resources to something that has no value. Judges will be driven by the same practical issues. It’s not that I am unconcerned about the discretion they are granted under the legislation, I just want to temper my concern with the real world.

As an individual who has registered for almost twenty years, I am pleased to know that there is an opportunity for us to have a fighting chance at being relieved from this oppressive law. We all owe Janice and the committee a thank you for putting their collective reputations on the line for us all. Keep in mind that nothing comes easy nor for free, but while we wait, I strongly recommend that we do everything in our own power to fight the law; we must demonstrate to all that we deserve to be removed from the list. Lets be more appreciative to those who are fighting for the change, after all, there has to be some compromise in getting things done. I am expecting to be removed from the registry within the next 24 months, and I expect our Lord to do just that for us. Lastly, can someone tell me what is a static test, who has to take it, and what it consist of? Thanks!

I don’t see anything that would add people to the website that aren’t already there. Janice can you clarify?

What is subdivision (c)? I am at 8 years on the registry and I am one of the lucky ones that was excluded on a misdemeanor 243.4(e)(1). Trying to figure out if this tiered bill passes if I will be classified at tier one or tier 2.

I think this is a no brainer! Like myself, many of you mentioned getting a PC 243.4 expunged. The PC 243.4 (a) restraint is considered physical etc. So, we would be probably considered tier 2? It’s been 21 years for me. So, I would be curious how the Department of Justice would address expunged offenses? By law, we really haven’t been convicted? Otherwise, as stated, we could request to not be posted on the Megans Law website after 10 years, unless your a repeat offender etc.

Drummer, the tiered proposal states 10 years after release from jail or prison? What if the person was given probation? I assume it starts from there! The expungement comment was made because how could you determine a person’s tier if they are no longer convicted of anything? Do they go by your initial conviction? Well, as noted, you have never been convicted of anything per PC 1203.4? I’m sure this will come up as the bill progresses !

Sure hope they Justify the auto drop of people prior to 87 yet keeping other good law abiding citizens stuck on a hit list for years to come…

This “tiered registry” law discriminates against the poor and impoverished because many sex offenders can’t afford the petitioning process to begin with (such as hiring a lawyer, psych assessments, any “certified” therapy, court fees, and so on). The average sex offender probably can’t even find a steady job that pays a sustainable wage (let alone a job to begin with). Jance should know that there are thousands of homeless sex offenders. How does this bill help the overwhelmingly poor sex offenders? Again, this tiered registry bill discriminates against the poor and impoverished! Also, many (but certainly not all… especially when it comes to “sex offenders”) of the impoverished tend to be minorities.

I say “NO” to this tiered registry bill! This bill disproportionately hurts the many underemployed or unemployed sex offenders who will not be able to afford the petitioning process.

Trader Joe,

You don’t even make sense! Zero! I had my charge reduced to a misdemeanor pursuant to 17 (B) and expunged by myself. I researched it online, called the court clerk and downloaded the form on my own! The clerk was very helpful! You clearly have Internet access etc if your on this site! As noted, this isn’t s Certification of Rehabilitation? Otherwise, if your lacking funds, contact the public defenders office? This is pretty straightforward!

Whether this bill passes or not, the fight for fair and just laws will need to continue.

Does anyone one know what tier 261.5c/261.5d would be set in?


I agree that this bill SHOULD have a path for us to get off the registry.
HARD FACT: FREEDOM FOR WE TIER 3-ERS CANNOT HAPPEN IN THIS BILL because no politician wants to appear soft on RC’s. They spent so many years demonizing us that they have painted themselves in a corner. All the logic I see stated in these comments will not change that, no matter how true it is.

SAD FACT that we must accept: HUMANS ARE DRIVEN BY THEIR FEELINGS, and rationalize what they want to believe with contorted logic. It is a rare person that is willing to dramatically change their beliefs based on facts alone. People have to FEEL RIGHT about something in order to change their attitudes. This is especially true of politicians! Until we change the PERCEPTION that the public and politicians and the courts have of us, this bill is the only alternative that exists to start bringing sanity to the wild west registry that we have.


Much of our efforts is spent on fighting bad bills that keep popping up. If we get one law struck down—and we do—2 more appear.

That is why the ONLY PRACTICAL WAY OF ACHIEVING LONG TERM CIVIL RIGHTS FOR RC’S IS to INCREMENTALLY CHANGE THE PUBLIC’S PERCEPTION of us. And that incremental change starts with the foundation of a three-tiered registry, however imperfect.


We can and will continue to take action in the courts, but here is the harsh fact: The courts are not going to be our knights in shining armor that will save us because they have the same prejudices, as you can see by their justification of harsh decisions based on politician fear mongering and a bad Psychology Today opinion from long ago. Yes, there is an occasional judge that sides with us, but that is a recent development. We can wish and complain and wait forever for that Perfect lawsuit that will save us, but it will not happen as long as they believe we are dangerous and will never change.

Dramatic court wins for us are rare and can be overturned, as we see with the transgender decision reversed in the Supreme Court. We need solid legislation.


Senate Bill 695 may not seem like a big leap in how RC’s are perceived by California politicians, but it is a HUGE leap for a politician to make! Allowing tier 3’rs to get off the registry is too giant a leap of a change in attitude for politicians and the public to take right now. Contrary to what some RC’s seem to blieve, ACSOL is not writing this bill. The two politicians who did this did have tremendous courage. They face being accused by their fellow politicians as being soft on RC’s.

It has taken YEARS of ACSOL members going to Sacramento and writing letters, telling politicians our stories and showing them the facts and statistics to come to the point where there might be enough politicians that are willing to risk their political skin to vote for this bill. BUT…

HARD FACT: Without the support of law enforcement, progressive RC legislation will NOT pass! Politicians have to slowly be walked out of that corner of fear of RC’s incrementally. A key requirement is they need political cover to be able to walk out of that corner, so they must have law enforcement backing this bill to make them politically safe.

The bill is based on the CASOMB (Calif. Sex Offender Mgmt Board) recommendations. Even though California politicians created the CASOMB, it has taken years for them to listen to it!

There are many conservative agencies represented in CASOMB, including lots of law enforcement. Even they can see our current registry is an unwieldly mess.

HUGE SIDE-BENEFIT OF SB 695: it can slow down the torrent of anti-RC bills because it will define how we are treated. Right now, politicians can treat us anyway they want by proposing whimsical bills. The structure built into the tiered registry will make that harder.

HOW INCREMENTAL CHANGE USING THIS BILL WILL HELP THREE-ER’S: As more RC’s are released from the registry, politicians will see that there is no huge increase in sex crimes, and that will assuage their fears enough to allow incremental improvements to the registry.

HARD FACT: if this bill fails, ALL RC’s will be stuck on the registry for at least a couple of additional years, and we will lose 2 years working to make it possible for tier-3’s to get off.

Changing perceptions takes time. Look how many decades it took for the increase in media attention on the damage that anti-RC laws have done.

I’M WRITING A LETTER as soon as I submit this comment. ACSOL’s fight to reform the California registry frozen glacier is hitting full steam during the next few weeks. Will you help your friends and family write those letters and make those calls ASAP?

United we can accomplish great things.


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 as 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 prosecutor can argue that you remain a danger and should have to continue registering, regardless of your lack of reoffense 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 parole, 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 that 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 test of time shows the issue has been resolved, California registration or not.

This net appears to be designed also 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 – they are approaching this as a matter of you must serve your sentence and under our screws.

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 old-case 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 Bill Clinton took registration national in the mid-1990s. 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. I would bet you none or nearly none of the legislators have any idea this happened.

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 better, just use this opportunity to drop misdemeanors 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 relief, 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 than 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 the previous relief they earned and got.

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.


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.

Does anyone one know what tier 261.5c/261.5d would be set in?