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
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB421
http://calchannel.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=7&clip_id=4440
Related Media
http://www.kesq.com/news/new-sex-offender-registration-bill-passes-committee/463017795
http://www.ebar.com/news/article.php?sec=news&article=72553
https://all4consolaws.org/2015/02/tier-it-up/
This is great news! Not only should we give thanks those who stood up there today, and Janice B. But those who cast their vote, for they have done a great thing to start change from this oppressive registry. I too, like the 80 year old mentioned, got the same charge one time in my 20’s and now almost 30 years later I still have to register! I have lived a healthy life with my wife and kids and have never been in any other trouble. My driving record is perfect too! Why have I been subjected to this humiliation for so long. 🙁
Now is the time to start writing letters to your district’s legislatures and more urgently, the members of the Senate Appropriations Committee. The Chair of Appropriations is the tiered registry’s original author, Sen. Lara, and the current author, Sen. Wiener, is also on this committee.
Senator Ricardo Lara (Chair)
STATE CAPITOL, ROOM 5050
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814
PHONE: (916) 651-4033
FAX: (916) 651-4933
Senator Patricia Bates (Vice Chair)
State Capitol, Room 305
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916.651.4036
Fax: 916.651.4936
Senator Jim Beall
State Capitol, Room 5066
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4015
Fax: (916) 651-4915
Senator Steven Bradford
State Capitol, Room 4085
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4035
Fax: (916) 651-4935
Senator Jerry Hill
State Capitol, Room 5035
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4013
Fax: (916) 651-4913
Senator Jim Nielsen
State Capitol, Room 2068
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916.651.4004
Fax: 916.651.4904
Senator Scott Wiener
STATE CAPITOL, ROOM 4066
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814-4900
PHONE: (916) 651-4011
Thank you to everyone who helped make this happen today. I think California is soon going to join the rest of the country and can only hope those other lifetime States follow suit.
A little odd that the bills co- author senator Stone back peddled. Thankfully his cognitive dissonance didn’t have much of an impact. An online news article quoted him as saying ,
“”I regret that I have trouble with this bill, especially the retroactive provisions of this bill that would allow a large percentage of tier one and tier two registrants to be taken off the registry as soon as 2018,” he said.”
Yeah, well Mr Stone, we aren’t too fond of retroactive bills either. Seems retroactivity is only good when it oppresses, not enhances liberty.
I’m confused. An article posted on this website yesterday stated this in its first sentence: “Support for the Tiered Registry Bill (SB 421) is growing both in the form of letters of support as well as a new co-author, Republican Senator Jeff Stone of San Diego.” And yet today, this article mentions that Senator Stone voted against the bill. Anyone able to explain what’s up with Senator Stone? Did he in fact co-author SB421?
Perhaps the best way to try and understand what happened with Senator Stone, is to accept the fact that our logic is not perfect. In fact, there were those who warned us not to trust Senator Stone on the website. A person, or in this case Senator Stone, had given the impression that he was in favor of this bill. The fact that he changed his mind is something we must always take into consideration…the unknown factor. His reasoning given was predicated on the testimony of a person testifying in opposition on behalf of a loved one who was a victim of murder. While hearing testimony from a family member of a victim testifying in opposition to any relief proposed for those on the registry is always gut-wrenching and painful, after awhile, such as in the case of Marc Klass spewing repetitious vitriolic sentiments lacking in truth, becomes predictable, rhetorical, boring and loses its impact. Now what we may never really know is Senator Stone’s true intentions. Perhaps there was some nefarious reason we will come to know later. This is just my opinion. So look on the bright side where four others came forward to support and co-author this bill.
Fact is that the class of offender that KILLED Mark Klaas and Mika Moulton children are not same people that are on the registry. Yet, they keep on USING their dead kids for something that have no relationship.
I was impressed by the quality and thoughtfulness of the speakers at the debate: it renewed my faith in government and the legal process. I was moved by the statements of Chairwoman Skinner, who takes a lot of risk in not only supporting this bill, but also in revealing that she was the victim of sexual abuse. As Skinner stated, this issue has two sides: a logical side and an emotional side. Typically, the emotional reaction is to punish offenders as much as possible. Skinner made a very moving speech that the current system does not protect children–in fact, it obfuscates the real issues.
As supporters of the bill, I think that our best strategy is not to focus on ourselves but rather families–particularly children. It’s clear that the top priority is to prevent sexual abuse of children at any cost, as it should be. What advocates of the bill stated is that the current system does not help children; rather, it makes it more difficult to catch real predators and threats to children’s welfare and safety. You can bet that the support from law enforcement and public defenders comes from the heart: they want to do a better job protecting children, and this law will make it possible to do that better.
The bottom line is that if you want to protect children, you will support this bill. If you oppose it, it may make you feel good in the short run, but it will harm children in the long run. The question we need to ask ourselves is what is best for children, not for ourselves.
-Dave
Do any others feel that after further amendments, we could easily end up with a “tiered” registry that we regret? I think the people that want this bill should be careful to watch what more is put into the bill and how crimes will be elevated to higher tiers. I don’t want to seem like a Debbie Downer, but as I was driving back home last night it started to hit me to whether ACSOL’s resources would have been best battling existing law in the courts, rather than “lobbying” elected politicians and teaming up with law enforcement (Can we REALLY trust them to be fair?) to enact a balanced replacement to our current system. Something doesn’t sit right with me.
”
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.”
”
It is this concrete statement is why there should be a civil suit b/c it negates the right to pursue and obtain privacy as it is an inalienable California Constitutional right. There is no way to regain privacy as the law stands, which is contrary to what a California citizen’s has rights to have.
All registration is is the exploitation of one’s privacy. But being on the registry now encompasses several conditions, punishments, disabilities, prohibitions, and banishment restrictions. This DA says there is no way off the registry b/c you are registered for life.
This is the exact argument against any lifetime registration in this tiered proposal as well. Or do we not follow the rule of law any more in California nor does its own Constitution mean any thing, considering it’s the first statute in the California Constitution?
This is for Janice: I think it is important that the appropriations committee understands the
cost of keeping Megans Law up and running around $25,000,000 annually, or over $100,000,000 every
four years!! These numbers were from the 2014 CASOMB report.
So glad SB 421 has passed this first hurdle! I have read through the bill several times but can’t decipher how this will impact the 20% or so registrants who have NEVER been shown on the Megan’s Law Website. I am hoping Janice, Chance, or someone with better knowledge can chime in on this particular issue regarding the bill. I’m sure I’m not the only one wondering about it. The bill mentions rescinding exclusions that were previously granted, but makes no mention of those of us who did not apply for exclusion, but were automatically excluded. The bill APPEARS to require listing EVERYONE on the website for the minimum period. This is, of course, a great concern to those if us that have rebuilt our lives. If this is indeed the case, it will need to be carefully addressed with the authors as it would not only hurt individuals and families, it would largely negate the benefits of termination for those offenders who never appeared on the site.
You know this is just a casual observance, but I haven’t seen any part of the bill that mentions how often tier two and three offenders would have to register with the police departments. I know in other states tier three offenders register quarterly. Have I missed something?
I think the Senate Committee should be commended! Great work. My only concern is:
-how should the Static 99/SARATSO affect those 10 years or more crime free? (The Megan’s Law Website states it’s no longer applicable for those living a 10 or more year crime free life)
-what Tier do you put those with expunged offenses?
-we have 2 -3 current offenses that aren’t shown on the Megans Law Website (misdemeanor battery/indecent exposure). Will that change?
-should people just fall off the registry? I think the courts are overburdened already
people need to read the supporting docs from the police chiefs and the los Angeles DA and others and see the real reason they are supporting this bill….the following is why not out of the goodness of theirhearts but out of self interest and survivability of their scheme and all the money that goeswith it..they stated it perfectly in one of their supporting docs as follows…
“the courts have been invalidating many of the local ordinances and restrictions and threaten to judicially abolish or severely restrict California’s sex offender registry which would be detrimental to public safety ”
That is verbatim and is exactly what I’ve been saying.. I think this bill is great and will help a lot of people but also has the potential to hurt a lot of people too. its like we have this world champion boxer on the ropes ready to drop with one more blow but were backing off and letting him regroup instead of finishing it….this bill is really better than whats in place now thats without a doubt so I understand bith sides. I think we should throw the final blow using someone like Frank Lindsey in a real suit and force them to revamp the entire scheme and make it constitutionally sound by forcing the government to prove in a court of law on the record with the clear and convincing evidence standards that a person is a credible threat to public safety instead of this over cautious unconstitutional assumption without any evidence that an individual is a threat without any due process of law and even if the burden of proof was put onto the person, (which it is sulposed to be the governments job to prove the fact), there isn’t even any mechanism or avenue to contest the governments so called pre-cognitive abilities to determine such facts.Just saying…other then that the bills way better then what we currently have and for those that it helps or are ready to concede and except what the emperor is offering then its great….
For those concerned about a DA potentially denying a petition, I don’t think you have a lot to worry about.
I could be wrong, but here’s my reasoning:
I’m no lawyer but DA’s, it seems to me, live in a world of evidence and proof. So it seems to me they would need to show some sort of evidence or proof that the person still poses a public threat. Being convicted of another sex offense– regardless of the seriousness of the crime– would definitely do it. What if you were arrested for another offense, but not actually charged? Would that be enough? I don’t think so. That shows there’s wasn’t enough evidence or proof for the DA to file a case.
So, think about it: What else would cause them to deny?
A DUI? I don’t think so. There are tens and tens of thousands of people driving right now with DUI’s. Clearly, they aren’t viewed as a big enough public threat to subject them to a registration scheme like RC’s because non exists. And besides, a DUI has nothing to do whatsoever with a crime that is sexual in nature (unless you were sexting while drunk, perhaps). What about any other felony offense? Very possibly. What about a misdemeanor offense? As long as it’s not a sex offense or something violent in nature, it probably wouldn’t be a showstopper. If I’m not mistaken, I believe traffic tickets are a misdemeanor. I doubt seriously that your petition would be denied because ten years ago you were caught turning left on a red.
What other factors might persuade a DA to deny? Maybe public pressure? I don’t think so. If this tiered bill actually passes, there are so many “insurance policies” (as it was described in the senate hearing), that all of this will have been very carefully vetted and thought through with the opportunity for public comment, there will be a well-defined process, and it will be the law. Plus, I believe many DA’s actually support the bill. Could the DA deny you because he thinks you’re ugly, or because he thinks your offense was especially henious? I don’t think so. Unless I’ misundertand it, this is not about DA’s “scoring” the crime you committed, or about judging the kind of person he thinks you are. Chances are, he’ll have absolutely NO idea who you are.
We have a lot of smart people in this group, and I’d be interested in hearing your thoughts. Did I miss something big, another possible legitimate reason that your petition might be denied? What I am trying to identify here are factors that are outside the process. I would argue that the bar for denial will be set pretty high, and that the huge majority of applicants– practically anyone who hasn’t committed another felony– should have nothing to worry about.
A couple questions from an out of state registrant:
1. Does the time one is registered while on probation time count toward toe 10 year minimum requirement?
2. Can an out of state registrant petition without residing in California to be exempt from registration in California, or does one have to be register in CA?
I will be off the Washington State registry in 4 more years (10 years automatic removal for misdemeanor), but time here starts when you first register, which you do when you are out in probation.
Mark Klass was there to speak in opposition to the bill. The Klass family has my most profound sympathy. They endured the most horrible and tragic fate possible with their daughter being kidnapped and murdered. But the one inconsistency in that case is that the man convicted, R.A.D. had been stopped and questioned by the police and he had no wants or warrants. He was not a convicted SO. A registry would not have mattered. What was significant is that the man displayed severe sighs of being a sociopath, and totally lacked empathy, demonstrated pathological behavior in the court room, and was so pathetic that the judge said he had no problem giving him the death sentence. So it appears that this mentally deranged man had been loose in society and was never questioned. I’m sure he had red flags galore but no system is in place to monitor such cases. This seems to be a grave area in America, people can display any manner of antisocial behavior, but until they have a victim or do a crime it is hands off. We can spend three trillion dollars deposing a dictator in a foreign country but we don’t have a dime for mental health care. I was a teacher for 10 years and believe me, I had red flags flying all around me. I called CPS many times and got the same response. They can’t do anything until something happens.
Much love to Janice B is all i have to say ..she’s a very strong Brave courageous woman and it was an honour to meet her for the first time within the last five-years she’s done so much for alot of people she is truly God sent
Hoping for hope: great comments
Just one thing. If your arrested and charged: arrest
If your arrested and not charged: detainment
FYI
Jeff Stone is a Scientology nutcase, its true, look it up. He also has called for CA to leave the US! This guy is a total nutter. I guess that is the type of person who votes against this type of bill.
I’m sorry if this is a repeat question… When this goes into law, when will people be allowed to petition the DA for removal? (Example for tier 1): is it ten years after conviction? Ten years after release from jail? Or is it ten years after completion of probation? I was convicted March of 2010, released from inarceration in August 2010, but finished probation 2015. Am I waiting until 2020, or 2025?
*Regarding Internet Exclusions*:
So bill 558 has been once again amended on April 26th. The language about ” loopholes” has been scraped, and it looks like many of the offenses for which the original bill was trying to ban internet exclusions are now allowed to have their exclusions back including felony pc243 and pc311.( if sentenced to probation)
I think this may have something to do with the bill in its original form being in conflict with the tiered registry bill.
At the hearing, as I watched the amazing and sudden change in attitude by the police and DAs in supporting a tiered registry, I was filled with hope that this indicates the anti-registrant pendulum is about to swing the other way.
Since police and DAs are supporting this, we heard some strong law-and-order language in the hearing, focusing on saving time and money, and keeping tier 3’s on for life.
That’s ok. It’s part of the political game of getting this bill through the legislature. Going from a life registry since 1947 to a tiered registry like most other states may not seem like a big thing, but it is a HUGE thing for the largest and most influential state in the U.S. Having ANY change after so many years requires a major shift in attitudes by the legislature.
You may see things about the bill that you don’t like, and you want to oppose it for specific reasons.
But consider this analogy: we are stranded on an island. Hardly ANY of us are getting off the island now. A ship comes by the island, sees us, and sends out rescue boats. Do we complain that not all of us will fit on the ship, or that the ship is not going exactly where we want? Of course not! We take what we can get, even if it is far from perfect. More ships can be sent by those who leave.
We have to get lots of tier 1 and 2 people off the registry to PROVE to society that there will NOT be a huge crime wave by releasing registrants. That lessens their fear of registrants, which will make them open to allowing more of us off the registry, incrementally working toward freedom for us all.
As a tier 3, I won’t benefit from this bill. But I am looking AT THE BIG PICTURE, not just the parts I don’t like.
And that gives me hope! I may not get off for a number of years, but this bill gives a starting point to hope for change.
Even if there are element’s of Janice’s strategy you don’t agree with, please support her, because she is uniquely qualified to develop a long-term strategy to freedom. After all, she has done an awesome job so far! Without her, we would have presence restrictions, residency restrictions, GPS ankle bands, and many other terrible restrictions.
United we have hope!
I might be repeating myself I’m not entirely sure however this is extremely IMPORTANT , the CALIFORNIA SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT BOARD SAID THAT IF A REGISTRANT HAS NOT BEEN CONVICTED OF ANOTHER SEX CRIME IN 17 years they are the same risk as someone who has never been convicted of a sex crime! WE NEED TO NOTIFY THE AUTHORS OF THIS BILL TO REMIND THEM TO MENTION THIS TO THE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE!! Extremely IMPORTANT! THIS MESSAGE IS MOST IMPORTANTLY FOR JANICE THANK YOU!
Please anybody who can give this information to the right people do it! God bless
Great job!
I do have a few questions:
– how will those with expunged offenses be tiered?
-presently, I believe only misdemeanor sexual battery and indecent exposure aren’t placed on the Megan’s Website. Will that change?
-I think we cleared up the Static 99 question