UPDATE 3/27: AB 558 hearing has been postponed indefinitely.
Update: AB 558 is scheduled for hearing by the Assembly Public Safety Committee on March 28.
Public Safety Committee contact info below.
Update 3/15: The hearing scheduled for March 21 has been postponed indefinitely.
Update 3/10: March 21 at 9 a.m. in Room 126 of the State Capitol. Please join us to speak in opposition to the bill. Plan to spend the entire morning there as it is one of many bills to be considered that morning.
Assembly Bill 558, which would significantly reduce the number of people who quality for exemptions from the Megan’s Law website, is expected to be considered by the Public Safety Committee later this month. Therefore, it is time to send letters and make phone calls to the members of that committee. Attached are a letter sent to Committee Chairman Jones-Sawyer about AB 558 as well as a list of committee members that includes mailing addresses and phone numbers. Please send your letters no later than March 17 if possible.
Sample Letter in Opposition to AB 558 (pdf)
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billStatusClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB558
Assembly Public Safety Committee
| Reginald B. Jones-Sawyer, Sr. (Chair) Dem – 59 |
Contact Assembly Member Reginald B. Jones-Sawyer, Sr. Capitol Office, Room 2117 P.O. Box 942849, Sacramento, CA 94249-0059; (916) 319-2059 |
| Tom Lackey (Vice Chair) Rep – 36 |
Contact Assembly Member Tom Lackey Capitol Office, Room 2174 P.O. Box 942849, Sacramento, CA 94249-0036; (916) 319-2036 |
| Jordan Cunningham Rep – 35 |
Contact Assembly Member Jordan Cunningham Capitol Office, Room 4102 P.O. Box 942849, Sacramento, CA 94249-0035; (916) 319-2035 |
| Lorena S. Gonzalez Fletcher Dem – 80 |
Contact Assembly Member Lorena S. Gonzalez Fletcher Capitol Office, Room 2114 P.O. Box 942849, Sacramento, CA 94249-0080; (916) 319-2080 |
| Bill Quirk Dem – 20 |
Contact Assembly Member Bill Quirk Capitol Office, Room 2163 P.O. Box 942849, Sacramento, CA 94249-0020; (916) 319-2020 |
| Blanca E. Rubio Dem – 48 |
Contact Assembly Member Blanca E. Rubio Capitol Office, Room 5175 P.O. Box 942849, Sacramento, CA 94249-0048; (916) 319-2048 |
| Miguel Santiago Dem – 53 |
Contact Assembly Member Miguel Santiago Capitol Office, Room 6027 P.O. Box 942849, Sacramento, CA 94249-0053; (916) 319-2053 |
Related
Bill Would Eliminate Exclusions from Megan’s Law Website (AB 558)
Can we get the main post update so that people know to make their calls, letters, and opposition votes on the Committee Member’s websites?
BILL HAS BEEN CANCELED. OFFICIALLY.
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billHistoryClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB558
BUT SB-26 is back on!
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billHistoryClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB26
When we lobbied this week, it was encouraging to see how none of the legislator’s staffs reacted positively to this bill. That is a nice change in attitude!
As KM mentioned, it was cancelled during our lobbying. Coincidence? Maybe, but the attitude change we saw was real, and our long-term efforts no doubt contributed strongly to that.
The Bill has been AMENDED which leaves related victims to still be eligible for exclusion however all other prior exclusions such as 647.6(a) misdemeanor, which I have, are still being threatened to lose the exclusion.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billCompareClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB558
I am terrified of this Bill and now it seems a step closer to being passed through due to these changes.
What can be done?
The Internet exclusion has been the only thing allowing me to have lived as close to a normal life as possible with being a registrant. 19 years since my misdemeanor, isolated, offense. No jail, successful probation, no offenses prior or after…yet I’m now going to be exposed, despite living a crime free life outside of the one exception for which I paid my debt to society.
How can this be retro active? If this passes, which I’m fearful that it will, will a lawsuit follow to stop it it? Like with the Internet identifiers bill from a few years ago, how a suit was filed and the bill was blocked from being inacted, can the same be done for this.
Janice, can you please let us know if anything will be done to stop this if it passes? I realize this only affects some of us, as many are already included on the site. However, this is life changing for those of us who have never been included/exposed on the site before. Our lives will be ruined. Please let us know if there’s any hope to put a hold on it if it passes. Thank you.
When possible can we get the main post updated so people know to voice their opposition?
I too was granted an exclusion, for a misdomeanor 311.11 (a) had four picture files of a sixteen year old on my computer that was found. Its been eighteen years now, no trouble before or since, just a speeding ticket like 10 years agao.
It says in the bill that only felony 311.11 are to be included, am a reading this right?
I suspect that we all will be exposed, then they wil just say am sorry we made a mistake, but once on the internet forever on the internet.
This is gonna ruin and end the lives of many.
Why now? is it just about votes
Can we PLEASE get this main post UPDATED so people know to make calls and emails? Today is the deadline to do so!
Please make your calls and send emails to help oppose Bill 558!
I just made my calls and it’s the easiest thing, you just call and state your opposition to AB 558 and give them your zip code. This took 5 minutes, so if you can please spare five minutes of your day to help oppose this bill!
Does anyone one know what tier 261.5c/261.5d would be set in?
J
I read your comment regarding the exclusion. The Megan’s website mistakenly put me on the web for 1 day (misdemeanor expunged/I’m deemed an other). I literally called the number they provide, immediately got a hold of someone and it was removed. If I recall, I faxed or emailed the info regarding my 17 B and expungement. I hope this helps
If this law passes, how could they possibly make this retroactive?
If we look at the Declaration of this law it states:
“Registered sex offenders have used this loophole to avoid being on California’s Megan’s Law Internet Web site, therefore barring the public from knowing if and when a registered sex offender has moved into their communities”
Ehm, ” loophole”? The law was written and provided for exclusions. The intent was clear. End of .
Here is the very next and last line in the Declaration:
(b) It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this act to require disclosure of these registered sex offenders on the department’s Megan’s Law Internet Web site”
” It IS the intent” implies a new intent. It has been ruled that a law can only be made retroactive if amendments are passed to clarify the intent of the original law. If substantive changes are made, they must apply the new law prospectively. ( thousands of registrants having their past convictions suddenly exposed on a website that is translated into every language spoken on the planet is, well, pretty “substantive”.)
The fact that they have hurriedly made amendments to this bill is worrisome.
P
Are you referring to this section Timmr?:
5) If the department determines that a person who was granted an exclusion under a former version of this subdivision would not qualify for an exclusion under the current version of this subdivision, the department shall rescind the exclusion, make a reasonable effort to provide notification to the person that the exclusion has been rescinded.
It states “under THE current version” ( as it was written back in 2004 or 2005- not sure the year)
It does not state ” under A current version” or ” under A NEW version”
And they are deceitfully describing exemptions that were codified into the original law, now as “a loophole”. A loophole in the law is a law that was written with ambiguity in the first place.
@ONE DAY AT A TIME
Yes, well that’s what happens when we let another species take over our planet and have their minions disregard our supreme laws.
They are not human.( not sarcasm)
I hope that people show up to show their support in opposition to AB 558 on March 28th this Tuesday in Sacramento!
Janice and her team have shown us all time and time again that we CAN make a difference even if its just step by step! In order to do this we MUST show our support, we MUST give faces to these Committee members in order to get out of the heavy weight of the label that so horribly misrepresents the majority of us.
The more we do this the more effective our voices will become.
Please come out on Tuesday, March 28th in Sacramento at 9AM and voice your opposition to AB558!
We really can make a difference when we work together.
For anyone who has previously shown up at one of these Committee Hearings can you give a brief description of what the standard protocol is?
Do you merely wait in the Conference room until the Committee calls for those to speak their opposition to the Bill and then you simply just give your name and state that you oppose the bill?
Do the doors close once the hearing begins preventing any late comers?
Considering the way AB 2569 went, it is VERY likely the Committee will pass this Bill since they will not feel compelled to do otherwise unless others choose to stand up and oppose it.
If those who aren’t directly affected by this Bill choose not show support how can support be expected for you in a similar scenario? Please SHOW up and voice your support!
I made my phone calls opposing both AB558 and SB26, today. I will be there in prayer.
So… what’s going on? It’s postponed again? The Bill Status page doesn’t seem to have any new info?
WOW…this has turned into a game of Whack-A-Mole!
This is probably why it was canceled.
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billAnalysisClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB558#
I called the Public Safety office today.
The guy said the author pulled it because she “wanted more time with it.”
That’s pretty scary.
@Son of Liberty Child of Freedom
Thank you for directing us to the bill analysis statement of opposition. I never even knew there was one.
I always suspected that the people who committed offenses that got automatic internet exclusions were those that were eligible for a COR and the people who committed offenses for which you could apply for internet exclusions where for those that were convicted of “wobblers” that had an eventual legal path to COR. There was a good reason that this assembly lady doesn’t grasp. The LA District of Attorneys office opposes this bill. That is quite a clue.
She”ll either try to tweak it again or has been told by her masters to abandon the effort. Probably the latter.
Ok, everyone:
I contacted the guy in Quirk-Silva’s office who is working on the bill. I asked him what’s going on with it. He wrote back the following:
“At this time Asm. Quirk-Silva is working on getting enough votes to continue to move the bill forward. We will keep everyone informed how we proceed next.”
For whatever it’s worth.
The Bill Status page now has the Committee placeholder date for April 18th, most likely Quirk-Silva will make further amendments in her attempt to get it passed.
We must remain vigilant.