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.

Related posts

Subscribe
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 and a**
  4. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Use person-first language.
  5. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  6. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  7. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  8. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  9. 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 that are not personally identifiable.
  10. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  11. Please do not post in all Caps.
  12. 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.
  13. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  14. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  15. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  16. Please do not solicit funds
  17. No discussions about weapons
  18. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  19. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  20. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  21. 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.
  22. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
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.  
 

39 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

TM

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.

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

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

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