Senate Committee Passes Tiered Registry Bill (SB 421)

The Senate Public Safety Committee passed the Tiered Registry Bill (Senate Bill 421) in a hearing during which three members of the Committee agreed to co-author the bill.  The bill is now co-authored by Committee Chair Sen. Nancy Skinner as well as Committee Members Holly Mitchell and Joel Anderson.

During the hearing, a total of 47 people spoke in favor the Tiered Registry Bill including representatives from the ACLU, Equality California, Root & Rebound and the Friends Committee.

“Today’s victory is based in large part upon the registrants and family members who spoke today in support of the Tiered Registry Bill,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci.

Prior to the vote, Sen. Scott Wiener noted that a “broad coalition of law enforcement enthusiastically support a tiered registry.”  He also added that the state’s sex offender registry has had “a huge negative impact on the LGBT community.”

Sen. Mitchell noted during the hearing that no individual or organization had spoken in opposition to the Tiered Registry Bill prior to the hearing despite the fact that the language of the bill has been available since February.  She added that “now is the time for a tiered registry bill” to be passed.

Also during the hearing, the Committee Chair revealed that she is the survivor of sexual abuse.  Sen. Skinner added that the Tiered Registry Bill provides a type of reform that is “greatly needed.”

Two people spoke in opposition to the bill — Mark Klaas and Mika Moulton — by arguing that the Tiered Registry Bill would help registrants, but harm victims.  Both Klaas and Moulton are parents of young children who were murdered.

Alameda District Nancy O’Malley, who also chairs the CA Sex Offender Management Board, testified in favor SB 421.  She spoke of an 80-year-old man who exposed himself when he was 19 years old and has never re-offended.  “He asked me to help him get off the registry, but I had to tell him that although I am the District Attorney, I could not help him because state law currently requires him to register for the rest of his life.”

Five of the Committee members voted in favor of SB 421 — Skinner, Wiener, Mitchell, Jackson and Bradford.  Sen. Jeff Stone was the only committee member to vote in opposition of the bill while Sen. Joel Anderson was absent when the vote was taken.

The Senate Appropriations Committee is expected to consider SB 421 next month.

Bill / Hearing Info

Related Media

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

hello my question is as follows , I was pled no contest to a 288a riv county 1989 given six months wkns an 3 years probation l violated my probationin 1992 then was given 3 years stats prison of which I did 20 months….my age at time of crime 18 victim 13 no force fear or sex,, no other convictions since this crime .. where do I fall in tiered registry tier 2,3 ???? AS IT IS WRITTEN

So let’s say a person (example) is eligible and has been on registry for 23 years (tier 2) would that individual also be taken off the *iml* (international megans law) as well?? well not so much taken off but would not need to notify the authorities? would that particular individuals picture also be removed from the data base online?

So having read the proposed amendments of the bill, it reads that some of us will once again be eligible for a Certificate of rehabilitation and a governor’s pardon as it reads as amended below:

4852.01. (a) A person convicted of a felony who is committed to a state prison or other institution or agency, including commitment to a county jail pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170, may file a petition for a certificate of rehabilitation and pardon pursuant to the provisions of this chapter.
(b) A person convicted of a felony or a person who is convicted of a misdemeanor violation of any sex offense specified in Section 290, the accusatory pleading of which has been dismissed pursuant to Section 1203.4, may file a petition for certificate of rehabilitation and pardon pursuant to the provisions of this chapter if the petitioner has not been incarcerated in a prison, jail, detention facility, or other penal institution or agency since the dismissal of the accusatory pleading, is not on probation for the commission of any other felony, and the petitioner presents satisfactory evidence of five years’ residence in this state prior to the filing of the petition.
(c) This chapter does not apply to persons serving a mandatory life parole, persons committed under death sentences, persons convicted of a violation of Section 269, subdivision (c) of Section 286, Section 288, subdivision (c) of Section 288a, Section 288.5, Section 288.7, or subdivision (j) of Section 289, or persons in military service.
(d)Notwithstanding any other law, the Governor has the right to pardon a person convicted of a violation of Section 269, subdivision (c) of Section 286, Section 288, subdivision (c) of Section 288a, Section 288.5, Section 288.7, or subdivision (j) of Section 289, if there are extraordinary circumstances.

section (c) has been revised to read as follows:

(c) This chapter does not apply to persons serving a mandatory life parole, persons committed under death sentences, or persons in military service.

So my question is will this make a 1203.4 expungement available again for 269, 286, 288, 288a, 288.5 288.7, and 289 as well?

I am not sure how this will even benefit me, but like what a previous poster said, we won’t know until it passes. My crimes unfortunately requires the president’s pardon since it happened in the military. But good news is good news, and I hope this passes for everyone’s sakes

This is interesting. It really does seem like they want to trim the registry down.

“The bill would REQUIRE the offender to file a petition at the expiration of his or her minimum registration period and would AUTHORIZE the district attorney to request a hearing on the petition if the petitioner has not fulfilled the requirement of successful tier completion, as specified. The bill would also AUTHORIZE a tier three offender who meets specified criteria to petition the court for placement in tier two, as specified”

Authorizing someone to do something generally means to empower them or grant them permission.
Sounds like once a registrant hits their 10 or 20 year expiration date, it is an actual requirement that they file the paperwork so they can be booted off the registry. Hmm, I wonder if there will be a penalty if they don’t .

Let’s stay positive:

I do think:
-Static 99 needs to be addressed (10 year rule)

-how will expunged offenses be handled?

-presently, the only 2 offenses not showing on the Megan’s Law Website are misdemeanor Sexual Battery and Indecent Exposure (will thus remain)?

-exclusion (Tier 2) how will the process occur to request exclusion?

-how will Tier 1 & 2 finally get excluded from registration? Let’s face it, the court system is breaking st the seams! Do they really have time for this? There should be a checklist to determine if the individual has fulfilled the requirements? (Ie: crime free? Time since arrest/or release?)

DA’s tend to manipulate the truth and unfortunately aren’t always honest (they can call you whatever they desire and their immune here in Ca)!