CA: State high court upholds post-prison rules for sex offenders

Sex offenders in California who have completed their prison sentences must comply with strict monitoring conditions while on probation, including undergoing lie-detector tests about their conduct and receiving treatment from therapists who can reveal their secrets to a probation officer, the state Supreme Court ruled Monday.

Although offenders must take part in the lie-detector interrogation and therapy, none of their answers can be used to file or prove new criminal charges against them, the court said. The goal, instead, is to monitor the former inmates and prevent future crimes, the justices said.

That requires probation officers to gain “complete and accurate information about a probationer’s prior victims, the probationer’s access to potential new victims and the high-risk behavior unique to that sex offender,” Justice Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar said in the unanimous ruling. Full Article


Related posts

Notify of

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


  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  19. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Yet another big decision based upon this false belief that RSOs are high risk for recidivism. I hope this case makes it to the Supreme Court.

Once again, the high-risk canard…

“…Cuéllar noted that California has 75,000 registered sex offenders..”

“In addition to discussing SB 695, the CASOMB reported that there are now 104,123 registrants on the state’s registry…”

Hey, Justice Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar, YOU’RE AN IDIOT! Get your ass off the bench if you can’t even quote a simple statistic that was released 4 days ago before opening your pie hole!!!

Seriously, can’t we remove judges that are incompetent morons??????

“You want the truth? YOU CAN”T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!”

This should be appealed using the ruling from 10th Circuit, U.S. v. Brian Von Behren (No. 15-1033), and see where it goes. No one can be compelled to answer. In addition, I would also challenge on HIPPA law violation possibility if therapy info is shared vs mandatory reporting if there is nothing to mandatorily report.

” including undergoing lie-detector tests ”

Such a test DOESNT EXIST ! !! Hasnt been invented yet !!! WAKE UP FOOLS AT SHARPER FUTURE !!!

as for them “Polygraphy’s” they dont detect LIES ! Although when I WAS on parole they asked me MANY Questions (california) and I LIED ON ALL OF THEM…. nothing ABNORMAL DETECTED ! ahha
from what I can tell… this Judge, CA STATE PAROLE and SHARPER FUTURE !… all FOOLS believing in fake science, maybe this judge should put his “LIE DETECTOR” on to tv and some FAKE NEWS ahahah

it’s all about keeping the beast fed..high risk of re offense, only the most serious crimes are on public notification….lie lie lie…what why and how can attorneys not challenge these false data they keep spewing from those nasty mouths that go home and kiss their wives and kids with ??? they must transfer evil like a disease…

More response to the frightening and high recidivism falsehood!! They need to forget [s]ex offenders and start applying this to all the gang thugs they keep releasing – such as the ones committing REAL crimes in neighborhoods like mine (not like the make-believe dirty-old-man-in-the-trenchcoat crimes that haunt their overly fertile judicial imaginations!)

I’m so thankful for the polygraphs. They made my time on parole measurably better, including many conditions removed, better report with agents, etc.
I took 5 over my time on parole and passed all 5. At least two times I had containment meetings following a polygraph and was able to get conditions removed as a result.
For example, I had the no contact with minors condition and was seeking to be able to see my niece, who was 2 at the time. Following my first polygraph, not only was I able to see her, but the condition was changed to no contact with 13-17.
I started off with a 10pm curfew and following my first polygraph it changed to midnight. After my second polygraph I was able to get curfew removed altogether.

So, while I don’t support this decision or the logic used to arrive there, I am quite thankful polygraphs were in place while I was on parole, and I dispute any notion that they can only hurt you (which I believe Janice has said on occasion).

Does it amaze anyone that while WE are fighting to get our freedom back that the CA legislature, City of Los Angeles, City of Anaheim, City of San Francisco, etc are going out of their way to give full freedom and no risk of prosecution to the one who have come across the border illegally? The CA legislature and the other mentioned above are spending hours and tax payers dollars (even taxes from US) to defend law breakers and allowing them to be released back on to the streets and into the school yards and libraries with no supervision. WE paid our dues to society and just want to be FREE like THEM. I understand even some sex crimes will not restrict THEM from the same rules WE have to follow.

Regarding the Puedo-Lie Detector Polygraph Inquisition & Interrogation sessions:

Very few people see the True Reality that the Subject will tend to do better after a poor InTerroGation And

No one sees the True Reality that the Subject will tend to do worse after a great Interrogation.

Man’s inAbility to see the Power of “Regression to the Mean” leaves him blind to the True Nature of the world around him.

We are exposed to a lifetime schedule in which we are most often: Rewarded for Punishing others & Punished for rewarding others.

I speak Truth

As Yehovah Lives, so should we