ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459

Monthly Meetings: Nov 21, Dec 19 – Details / Recordings

Emotional Support Group Meetings 2020 (Phone only)

ACSOLAction ItemsCalifornia

Appropriations Committees to Consider AB 558, SB 26 and SB 421

Three bills of great importance to registrants and their loved ones will be heard soon by the relevant Assembly or Senate Appropriations Committees. The Assembly Appropriations Committee is scheduled to consider AB 558 (internet exclusions) on May 10 and the Senate Appropriations Committee is scheduled to consider both SB 26 (school campus visits) and SB 421 (tiered registry) on May 15.

Due to the large number of bills to be considered on each of those dates, the committee hearings will begin at 9 a.m. and could end at 5 p.m. or later.

“The Appropriations Committee process is opaque as compared to the Public Safety Committee process,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci. “It is possible that the bills of interest to us will not be heard, but could be kept in the committee’s suspense file.”

If a bill is kept in the committee’s suspense file on May 10 or May 15, it could be considered on a later date or the committee could refuse to consider it all. The outcome of the Appropriations Committee hearings will be reported on this website as soon as that information is available.

“If any of these bills is approved by an Appropriation Committee, ACSOL will encourage individuals to write letters and make phone calls before the bills are considered on the floor of the Assembly or the Senate,” stated Bellucci.

Join the discussion

  1. Arax

    Let’s hope they will vote NO on AB 558 and SB 26 and a big YES on the tiered registry SB 421

    • Eddie V.

      Listening to the conference call you claimed that the bill if passed would take effect in 2019 wouldn’t It become law in 2018, as Senetor Stone claimed and why would we have to wait an additional year for a law to take effect when all the other bills passed at the same time take affect in 2018

      • Janice Bellucci

        As currently written, SB 421 will become effective on January 1, 2019. The CA Dept. of Justice has claimed that it will take the agency at least a year to meet the requirements of that bill.

        • Harry

          It sure did not take DOJ that long to make us register every years and sent out letters to everyone, telling us to do so.

      • Anonymous Nobody

        Technically the bill would become law on Jan 1, 2018. But there will be no relief for anyone until 2019. So you could say both answers are right.

      • Mr. D

        Does anyone have an update on 558 from today?

  2. deegoh

    Opaque is an interesting word to use; surely I would think that someone has a feel for what the members are thinking. With all that is being said, I am a Christian who was honest about what I have done. My walk with God has allowed me to self-evaluate and correct my ways; I believe strongly that one way or the other, our cause will prevail. Also, are 288 with sub categories expungable? and what is the Static 99? apparently, I have not seen nor taken a SARS examination.

    • Danny Boy

      STATIC 99 is a 10 question sheet that supposedly rates a person’s risk of recidivism for life. The STATIC 99 is definitely the most troubling part of the SB 421. The STATIC 99 is cleverly veiled under the name “SARATSO” in the bill. So if you read SB 421 and come across SARATSO, know that it’s synonymous to the STATIC 99. I could be wrong; but if you’ve never been given a score, you have nothing to worry about. But if you have a high score (six OR greater), you are automatically put into TIER III. It’s a lot of weight to give to a controversial “test” if you ask me. That’s why a few of us have a problem with the STATIC 99, aka SARATSO.

      • David Kennerly, Disinterested Observer & Major Stakeholder

        I’m inclined to flip it on its head: the Static 99 represents a future opportunity to further chisel away the Registry.

        By all means, if you have to have something upon which to base a scoring system (and a simple metric of “crime-free in the community over a period of years” is politically unavailable, as it is) then let it be the Static 99, a system of measurement which is clearly challengeable.

        We need an imperfect step in the right direction and there can be no other, more-perfect, one today.

    • AlexO

      Static-99 is given to those with a direct victim(s) whether or not the crime was contact or non-contact. It is not a test you’re given directly (you’re not asked about it directly but rather court documents and your pre-sentencing interview information us used). If your crime is a 288, you have a Static-99 score, short of some oversight. Here’s the checklist you can look at to see what your score might be.

      I’d also check with a lawyer if your 288 is expungable. The most important thing to qualify for an expungement is that your sentence had to be probation (whether or not you spent time in county) and not prison. Going to prison automatically excludes your from expungement. Other than that, there is wiggle room for just about everything.

      • AJ

        “Static-99 is given to those with a direct victim(s) whether or not the crime was contact or non-contact.”

        I still don’t get how there’s anything but a direct victim in any SO-branded offense. Can someone please explain? I do get the non-contact/contact aspect.


        • AlexO

          A direct victim is someone who was directly impacted by SO’s actions such as touching (contact), chat/texting (non-contact), upskirting (non-contact), etc. All these should get you a Static-99.

          A non-direct victim is possessing child pornography. Possibly a few other things but this is the only one I know for sure. If this was SO’s only crime, they should not have a Static-99. If they did get a score, then they should speak with a lawyer as its not valid.

        • Mot

          How does this affect a ‘sting’ where the police were playing the role of a under 14 yr old and there was not a minor involved in the crime. To the extent that I did not have to pay restitution since there was no one directly harmed?

        • AlexO

          This is legal issue that I’m not clear on. But do keep in mind that for purposes of sentencing, you did have a victim at the time you committed the crime (you can be charged with child endangerment and other points the same if your victim wan’t an undercover officer). It being a sting isn’t relevant to the fact you were committing a crime against someone you thought was underage at the time.

          A lot of the time a lawyer will not bring up finer points like this. In general, your static-99 will not effect things too greatly (obviously new laws like this bill can change that), so the lawyer won’t really consider fighting you getting a score or not when the main battle is keeping you out of prison and possibly registration.

          Hell, I’ve seen some messed up results that you’d think were a no brainer during the court process. For example, one person I knew spent a year in court. He ended up getting a favorable sentence as it could be for the situation. After the conviction he went to see the PO for the first time. During the conversation he mentioned his kids (they were not the victims). The PO freaked out that he was living with children because he’s brand new restrictions had a blanket no contact with miners. Keep in mind his court process was a year long. At no point were CPS called in or any effort was made to keep his kids “safe” from him. But now because the restriction was in black and white, suddenly he was a “danger” to his kids.

          This trail of thought was never brought up by his lawyer or anyone else. And he didn’t think to bring it up himself to make sure an exclusion for his children was made. So he then spent the next 3 years every day walking to his local train station and waiting there for several hours until his wife was off work and could “supervise” him around their kids.

        • Mot

          Thanks for the comments; my crime was 17 years ago and I have been out of prisin for 14 years and there was no Static 99 at that time. I have been clean and registered every year on time, etc. etc. So not sure where I fall in all of this Static 99 stuff.

        • Alex

          If you weren’t given it because it didn’t exist, then you probably don’t have one or get one. Static-99 is usually done during the presentencing report. And from what I understand, it technically no longer applies after 10 years so in your situation it shouldn’t matter one way or the other. But who knows what the bureaucrats will come up with? If you do end up being tiered unfavorably because of the static-99, I’d contact a lawyer that specializes in stuff like this.

      • deegoh

        Thank guys, based on the information that I have read, it is likely that I do have a SARS score. However, my case is just about 20 years old. Also. I had my 288 reduced to a misdemeanor….I was sentenced and served only county time. Five years probation was given and completed. When I was on probation, the officer suggested for me to move to Arizona. I moved there and was placed on the states tiered registry. I was placed in the level 1 category which is the most lenient. Example, if I remain in one location I would not have to register, only when I move; there was no internet notifications or door to door notifications and flyers. The only requirement was to update my drivers license annually. In general, my California misdemeanor should qualify me for the new tier one but I am still working behind the scenes.

    • AJ

      “I am a Christian who was honest about what I have done. My walk with God has allowed me to self-evaluate and correct my ways; I believe strongly that one way or the other, our cause will prevail.”

      Ditto. Given the three possible responses He may give me, so far it’s been “wait.”


    • Tobin's Tools 2.0

      Here are just some of the many deficiencies to the Static 99R (or, as this bill refers to it as, SARATSO):

      1. Even for violent offenders, the Virginia legislature has discredited the Static-99R (not even accounting for its use on non-contact offenders — which this tiered bill intends use it for):$FILE/HD5.pdf

      2. In a *published* medical journal, professors from USC and Duke Medical School have discredited the Static-99R:

      3. In a *published* opinion, the New York Courts have discredited the Static-99R:

      It’s interesting to note that the State of California, CASOMB, and SARATSO rely almost exclusively on an UNPUBLISHED “validation study” that only examines the ostensible effectiveness of the Static 99R for *only five years.* To add insult to injury, the Static 99R is only designed to be used up to 10 years following an offense. So why is the Static 99R going to be used to determine *lifetime* registration under Tier III? Here is a copy of the state’s ‘validation study:’

      Again, note that the ‘study’ only examines SARATSO’s efficacy for a period of five years. SARATSO lumps all types of offenses — whether contact or non-contact — together. Also, if you refer to page 7, the ‘validation study’s’ definition of recidivism includes *all types of crimes*, regardless of whether they are sexual, violent, non-violent, or merely “technical offenses” (such as parole and/or probation violation). Here is an excerpt of how the ‘validation study’ defined ‘recidivism:’

      “Any recidivism included all crimes (sexual, violent, non-violent), as well as all technical offenses (e.g., breach of conditional release), regardless of whether they were sexually motivated.”

      This would, of course, imply exaggerated results of the Static 99R’s recidivism rates in the first place. Furthermore, Karl Hanson is a author of this UNPUBLISHED report. So Hanson is essentially an author in conflict-of-interest — as Hanson is writing a report that boasts the alleged accuracy of his very own instrument.

      It should also be noted that our nation’s highest law enforcement officer, Eric Holder, once spoke out against “risk-assessments” such as the Static 99R. A link is found here:

      “In 2014, Eric Holder, then the U.S. attorney general, articulated the uncertainty swirling around these tools in a speech given to the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers’ 57th Annual Meeting. ‘Although these [risk assessment] measures were crafted with the best of intentions, I am concerned that they may inadvertently undermine our efforts to ensure individualized and equal justice,’ he said. ‘They may exacerbate unwarranted and unjust disparities that are already far too common in our criminal justice system and in our society.’”

      The inherent flaw of the Static 99R is found right in its name: static. Life is not “static.” People learn and change for the better. The Static 99R does *not* even take into account *current age*, nor does the Static 99R take into account years of offense-free behavior while free in the community.

      • Timmr

        That’s what has always bothered me is the crunching together of a diverse group of crimes under one stated motive, which is sexual arousal (or something). What they are saying is all the crimes are just varying degrees of the same underlying motive. It is hard to see how someone streaking across the park has the same things going on in his head as someone who jumps out of the bushes and rapes someone. But there you have it. The Static does not do much to differentiate between crimes. It is popular perception that all sex crimes are basically the same, but for degree of violence. That is the same mistake they made with drugs, lumping casual marijuana users with heroine addicts or crack abusers. One would think a scientist would develop a more nuanced understanding of the various types of crimes thrown is this overly broad category.

        • Greg

          Would the Static 99 scam even meet constitutional muster of what the Supreme Court considers science??

  3. David

    Thank you for this update on the Bills’ collective status.
    ** Fingers crossed & saying prayers.**

  4. TG

    Is anyone going to the AB 558 hearing to oppose it?

    • Janice Bellucci

      Yes, T.G., I will observe the hearing, however, I don’t expect to have an opportunity to testify against it.

  5. USA

    AB 558:

    I believe this basically would ban exclusions? I brkieve the only 2 offenses not requiring exclusion are misdemeanor sexual battery and misdemeanor indecent exposure!

    As noted, I’ve never had the static 99? 21 years ago. Also, as noted, if you have been crime free for 10 years or more, it’s no longer pertinent!

    If u have a felony/county time, contact the public defenders office and get it reduced to a misdemeanor pursuant to 17B!

    I recall the days the Megan’s Law went up! I called (I was on it) and the lady stated I needed to fill out the exclusion (it had been reduced to a misdemeanor). It was removed shortly after! Be proactive

    • ExpatRFSO

      I believe a misdeamenor conviction for CP possession ( prior to 2002 PC311.11 was a misdeamenor) will also still be excluded.

  6. TM


    Hi, just a reminder again that PC 311.11 became chargeable as a felony on Jan. 7, 2006. With such a sensitive subject the information needs to be correct.


    • ExpatRFSO

      Thanks Tim. I wasn’t sure exactly when it became chargable felony. I just knew it was sometime after 2002.

  7. Nondescript

    Got a jury duty summons this week, and wondered if I’d ever be chosen to be on a jury. Surely not a sex offense case. Then It got me thinking why the DA’s might be pushing for a tiered registry. They are probably having to take these cases to full trial a lot more than they used to ( more intensive work for them) .

    I would imagine since the registry requirements and restrictions have become more oppressive over the years, defense attorneys have been “educating” their clients on the wonderful lifelong sentence they will endure once they take a plea bargain, and more of those accused are taking their chances with a trial. By reducing many convictions to 10 yrs on the registry, the State might avoid more time consuming and expensive courtroom dramas.

    I don’t think the Los Angeles DA’s being a proponent of a tiered registry has anything to do with the petitioning process whatsoever.

    • AlexO

      I don’t know about that. Well over 90% of cases in general never go to trial. One reason being is that losing a trial will often result in much harsher punishment than a plea bargain. And a lot of sex offenses are fairly cut and dry. So the lawyers will recommend not going to trial in most cases.

      Also, being selected for jury duty is fairly random. They don’t really bother to check your status before sending out a notice. I received a jury summons a year into my probation. It actually had a check box of “I’m a felon and haven’t yet cleared my felony” as a reason of why I should be dismissed. If they can’t even flag my name for being a felon still on probation, they’re certainly not check to see if you’re a sex offender. All that kind of weeding out happens once you actually get to court.

      A tiered registry in general is needed to save operation costs for the state. California currently has over 100k registered citizens. That means the DOJ (or whatever department) has to at a minimum updated about 300 files every single day for the annual registration. For many people, it’s even more often than that due to them being transient (monthly).

      Then you have all the people who are still on active supervision, with more being added daily while fewer being taken off (either through COR or death). So the list is currently only getting bigger, making actual monitoring and maintaining very expensive and time consuming. So the people that really need monitoring are slipping through the cracks (something like nearly 15k registered citizens are currently out of compliance and California simply doesn’t have enough resources to actually do much about it).

      So in the end what we and the good people at ACSOL see this tired registry as actually helping people and their families, most politicians and law enforcement see it more for financial savings it can provide. Either way, I’ll take it.

  8. JCrsn

    Any available update on the hearing for AB 558 that was scheduled today?

    • Nondescript

      558 was sent to the appropriations suspense file today according to the Gov. website.

    • JCrsn

      AB 558 has been referred to the suspense file that Janice described in the main post.

    • This Guy

      Leginfo had this on their site for May 10:

      In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.

  9. CA

    I checked on AB 558, said placed in “suspense file”?

  10. David

    For “Suspense File”? – read paragraphs 4 and 5 of the article up top here. Writer explains the suspense file.

Leave a Reply

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  • We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  • 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.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • 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.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
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.  

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *