AB 558 Released from Suspense File

Today the Assembly Appropriations Committee released AB 558 from its Suspense File.  As a result, the bill will be voted upon by all members of the Assembly on or before June 2.

“The committee’s decision is a significant blow to the rights of registrants who were convicted of misdemeanors and other low level offenses,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci.  “In the past, the state legislature wisely decided not to post this information on a public website and that wisdom should be continued.”

As currently written, AB 558 would eliminate exemptions given to thousands of registrants from inclusion on the CA Megan’s Law website. 

“The posting of this information on the state’s public website will harm both victims and registrants,” stated ACSOL President Chance Oberstein.  “If passed into law, the bill could result in thousands of registrants losing their jobs, their housing or both.”

If AB 558 is approved by the Assembly, the bill will be considered by at least two Senate committees.

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

So Janice, now what should we do? Contact our assembly person?

Hello Janice. Maybe you can enlighten me on a question I had for some time.

647.6 states “annoy or molest”. Are these terms interchangeable? If not, why are both being lumped in together under one section when to a layman the two words are miles apart? AB 558 specifically refers to it as “molestation”.

My crime was non-contact and included a misdemeanor 647.6. Its very disheartening to be seemingly rolled into this as well as today’s amendment of SB 421 in regards to internet exclusion.

Thank you for your work in all these matters and maintaining this website.

Shocking, we’re only allowed 1 day of a little joy around here…you know the routine

Can you be excluded as a family member for this misdemeanor conviction if its your only one?

This is politics at it’s best. Legislators: while we are creating a tiered registry to let people exit we are closing a loophole to add more people so we don’t appear “too soft” on crime.

This is disgusting!!! This bill “spits in the face” of the tiered registry movement and all who support it including law enforcement, district attorneys, the CASOMB, etc. We need folks from these agencies to step up and squash this piece-of-garbage legislation!!!! Does not the CA Assembly listen to what so many community leaders are saying???? It’s one thing if it was just registrants. But it’s not. Passage of this bill even by the Assembly would be extremely imprudent!!! I hope it falls onto its face!!!

The one thing for sure that politicians are not the sharpest pencil in the draw and often like a pen that do not write, plan worthless.

Although this does seem like a huge step backwards, there does seem to be a lot of positive traction happening lately. I’m very thankful for Janice and all of her efforts. The best we can do is stay informed, call upon our senators when necessary, and continue to support each other.

Another emotionally charged and politically motivated bill. Where is the evidence that this group of exempted registrants are causing harm and the need for public notification?
Another colossal waste of timeand dollars. And it will just cause more harm.

Anyone know how this is able to be pushed out retroactively to registrants who took deals before the website scheme even existed? Seems that with all the recent victories in other states, the courts are starting to rule that laws like this cannot be retroactive. Is California just different and able to get away with this nonsense or is it ripe for a lawsuit such as what Idaho or wherever that 134 member suit is from? Seems that this should be considered additional punishment…or am I missing something?

What should we do? Everything! whatever is possible to do is what we shall do. I suggest that we pray first and foremost. In terms of our actions, we should do all of the research that we can regarding the wordings, phrases, and codes relating to our cases. Find those things that can possibly be challenged and fight.

My suggestions are not just the rhetoric but research. I am proof that the system does not care about us;I am also proof that you can work within the boundaries and language of the system. I was able to have a 288 reduced to a misdemeanor when told by a public defender that it was not possible. and as a result of the reduced sentence, I had a bogus failure to register dropped from a felony to a misdemeanor to being dismissed all together.

Recently, I believe that I found language in the expungement and COR requirements that may allow me to have my 288 misdemeanor expunged, which qualifies for a COR and pardon. People, I encourage all of you to first, have faith in the Lord Jesus and pray for this registry to be abolished, and second, do your own research…if you are concerned about lawyers and fees, I am unemployed and paid nothing. I did the work.

I plead guilty to a 288[a] 1988 riv county I was 18 on the date crime occurred victim was 13 …wat tier would I b if registry passes ?

NPS, I have a 288(a) from 1988, was granted a 1203.4 after completion of probation. When you say cannot be reduced, from a felony to a misdemeanor, do you mean something other than a 1203.4? I’m not saying your wrong, I just hope they didn’t make a mistake in my case!

Bill 558 is not attempting to make something retroactive per say, but trying to create a new law to take an individual right away- the right of privacy.
There is something called the Acquired-Rights Doctrine
This doctrine says that once a right has been vested, then it may not be altered or reduced by a subsequent legislation. Similar to the grandfather clause it’s not a law per say but a powerful legal tool used by defendants in court and subsequently conceded to by law makers and their minion enforcers initially before their unconstitutional laws get trounced. If this bill or the tiered one adds people to the public website who “earned” their right of privacy by way of the completion of their probation ( and any other conditions that were stipulated in the law at the time) it will be a violation of their acquired rights.

rso,s god bless you all. this is my first time posting.i pled no contest to a 288c in 1999 on my attorneys advice. yes it has been a roller coaster ride but you have to keep on pushing forward. i have been gainfully employed and with gods blessing still have my home and family. i live 1000 feet from a park and my neighbors are fully aware although they dont speak to me. ( only a few ). my charge was reduced per 1203.4 and the best is yet to come. i understand most of us are innocent but, many of us are not. we all deserve to be forgiven and many of us have been. live a good and honest life try and maintain a good relationship with jesus christ and he will help you become free. freedom comes in many ways. true repentance will invite the grace of god into your life. if any of you are still using drugs or drinking you have to cease that type of behavior and attain a clear and sound mind. get your mind right first and even if you never get off the registry gods peace will supercede it all. ( speaking from experience) been there done that. love you all including janice and the staff.


I want to the last senate hearing on SB421 the tiered registry and I can say that based on the way the public safety committee spoke, there is very little chance this will pass IF we all write, email and call. It was mentioned that the amount of feedback on SB421 was a factor in moving it forward.

I don’t see why they are even pushing this through. It’s in the tiered bill already I believe..

Looks like AB 558 passed today but Janice expected it to and will focusing on killing it in the next step.

Just read the text from AB-558 and could not find any new information regarding a misdemeanor 314. Does anyone know that since it wasn’t listed, will it still be excluded?