Tiered Registry Bill Released from Senate Appropriations Committee

Today the Senate Appropriations Committee released the Tiered Registry Bill (SB 421) from its Suspense File.  As a result, the bill’s author — Senator Scott Wiener — will take the bill to the floor of the Senate no later than Friday, June 2.  While on the Senate floor, every senator will have an opportunity to vote for or against the Tiered Registry Bill.

“It’s time to Show Up, Stand Up and Speak Up,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci.  “This is the time for registrants, family members and supporters to call the state senator who represents them and ask that senator to vote in favor of SB 421.”

It’s easy to identify your senator online at senate.ca.gov.  Please call your Senator’s office in Sacramento (not the district office) and ask them to support the Tiered Registry Bill (SB 421).  When you call the office, be prepared to give them your name and home address which won’t be recorded.  That information is used for statistical purposes only. 

“With the support of the members of our community, we will succeed in helping the State of California end a 70-year mistake, that is, requiring everyone convicted of a sex offense to register for a lifetime,” stated ACSOL President Chance Oberstein.      

The Senate Appropriations Committee, in a vote of 5 to 2, decided to release the Tiered Registry Bill (SB 421) from its Suspense File.  As a result, the bill will move on to the Senate floor for consideration by all Senate members next week.

 Also during today’s hearing, the Senate Appropriations Committee stopped Senate Bill 26, authored by Sen. Connie Leyva, from further consideration until at least 2019.  If passed, that bill would have prohibited most registrants from visiting school campuses.

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

Confused: Why are you guys still discussing Static 99 and SARATSO?

As noted, if you have been crime free etc for 10 years or more, these tests are invalid!

why would you believe static 99 doesn’t matter? I’ve been crime free for over 14 years I still have a statc score. it’s a 2 just because stranger and non contact which goes beyond apprehension why that would be a point. and Alex the current system for exclusion from the internet is that they have to be related not this bill…

It looks like several new revisions were done to the bill today.

I just noticed what I believe is one of these new revisions in regards to making information available to public. Before, I believe all T1 registrants were going to be excluded from the public data base. Now, I believe a T1 registrants will be included on the public registry if one of their offenses was 647.6.

Am I interpreting the below correctly?

“(2) (A) A tier two offender is subject to registration for a minimum of 20 years. 10 years if adjudicated a ward of the juvenile court or 20 years if convicted as an adult. A person is a tier two offender if the person was convicted of is required to register for conviction of, or adjudicated for, an offense described in subdivision (c) that is also described in subdivision (c) of Section 667.5 or subdivision (c) of Section 1192.7, or that is an a felony offense described in subdivision (a) or (d) of Section 243.4, Section 285, subdivision (f), (g), (h), or (i) of Section 286, subdivision (c) of Section 288, subdivision (f), (g), (h), or (i) of Section 288a, subdivision (b), (d), or (e) of Section 289, Section 647.6 if it is a second or subsequent conviction for that offense that was brought and tried separately, or subdivision (c) of Section 653f.”

If I’m right, that’s very frustrating. Mine was a non-contact crime and my 647.6 is a misdemeanor. To a layman the difference between “annoy” and “molest” are huge! Yet both are lumped together under this code. So basically for the purpose of the registry, my misdemeanor of annoying my victim is being treated the same as someones felony of molestation. Ugh!

unless there has been a change in the bill’s language then any t2 will be removed from the internet if you have registered for 10years and offense free by filling out exclusion form provided by the registering agency and mailing it to DOJ. you simply have to show you have regjstered and have been offense free and they have to exclude you.now at that time you can petition the court ti be removed from the registry entirely if your victim was a relative and you meet the other standards as well. that’s what I read in the bill.

The bill has just been further amended today May 26th . Penal code 243.4(a) must be a felony in order to be placed in tier 2 ( otherwise it will be placed in tier 1) . This is good for those who obtained 17bs. Additionally, penal code 647.6 will be placed in tier 1 now if only convicted once for it.
These are beneficial changes and will affect a lot of people.

This bill is now going to destroy my life as well as many others. How can anyone be in favor of a bill that is making situations worse on us? I will go from never having been exposed on the Internet to being exposed. I’ll be a level 1 and eligible immediately for removal, yet exposed on the megans law site. That means, I’ll be exposed until at least 2019, and then hope that I’m granted my petition to drop off. All for a misdemeanor 647.6 that happened 20 years ago. This will essentially cause me to lose my 6 figure job and inevitably my home as it will be near impossible to get hired once I’m listed. Also having been granted an expungement, I’ll be listed for a crime that no longer even exists on my record.

Excuse my ignorance but how does someone like Senator Wiener, who is supposed to be helping us, allow such a change to this bill?

Janice and Chance…is there a suit to be filed here for people like me who will be given additional punishment that didn’t even exist at the time of my plea? My crime happened well before megans law and I’ve never been listed, but now will be…how can that be allowed without it violating my rights?

By far, the worst news I’ve recieved since becoming a registrant 20 years ago.

So what happens if you were convicted of a misdemeanor requiring registration in California but you live in a state that doesn’t require you to register? This bill states that you have to provide proof of current registration to petition and file in the jurisdiction you are currently registered in.

This is important because, while my current state doesn’t require me to register, many other states would until I was no longer required to register in California.

@Janice Bellucci

QUESTION: the NSOPW part of the DOJ is the National Sex Offender Registry which even though California law says when filling out a job application employers can only go back on your criminal record no more than 7 years, the loop hole in the background check to permanently bar sex offenders from any job forever is they also check this NSOPW registry which has all of our names and pictures in it with no regard to how long ago the offense was. My case is 20 years old, I clear all criminal background checks squeaky clean but on a separate page they check this NSOPW which always ends any possibility for further consideration of employment. After SB 421 is signed into law how do we get off this National SO site?

Can someone answer about what will happen to me; in that I have a 288(a) which was an attempt since it was a police sting and no real person was on the other end of the emails? I would think that when this tiered goes into effect they will look deeper into what happened vs. that the Penal Code calls it?


Just called the Capital number for Kevin de León

I left a voicemail, no one picked up.

Please call your senators people.

We can succeed!

I called Senator McGuire and left my support of SB 421. Quick as always, didn’t even take 20 seconds. Kinda scary that as soon as I gave him my last name, he already knew my first name and address.

Had a compliance check today. Hate that sh#t and the jackholes doing them. The smartass kept repeating, “It’s for life. It’s for life.” Let’s hope this passes and Jerry Brown sign it into law.

2:20 pm, looks like the Senate’s afternoon session will be starting soon. SB 421 is near last on the schedule at #88. I’ll report here as soon as they vote on it.

(It’s 3:55 p.m., and they just voted on item #80.
The Tiered Registry Bill (SB421) is item #88. So it will probably not be heard/ discussed/ voted on for 20 minutes at the earliest. They’re moving pretty fast. )
Im listening to the live stream.

The Senate just passed the Tiered Registry Bill by a vote of 24 to 10!!! More details to come.

Yeah! SB421 passed the Senate vote by a good measure.


On to the Assembly now!

SB 421 just passed the California Senate by a vote of 24 to 10

Senate Passes Tiered Registry Bill (SB 421)

The Senate today, in a vote of 24 to 10, passed the Tiered Registry Bill (SB 421). Prior to the vote, the bill’s author — Sen. Scott Wiener — explained why a tiered registry is necessary. His views were supported by Sen. Nancy Skinner, Chair of the Public Safety Committee, co-author Sen. Joel Anderson and others.

During his presentation, Sen. Wiener described the current registry as broken and outdated. He added that the registry, which includes more than 100,000 people, is so large that it is useless.

Sen. Anderson subsequently stated that there are too many people on the registry today and as a result those who pose a current danger are camouflaged by those who don’t. Sen. Skinner talked about the significant adverse impact that the registry has upon both registrants and members of their families. She said that registrants often suffer from public humiliation, stigma, unemployment, homelessness and even vigilante violence.

Sen. Ben Allen praised Sen. Wiener for his courage to serve as author of SB 421. He added that the bill is necessary in order to fix the state’s registry that currently includes individuals who urinated in public decades ago.

“Today we saw courage in action as senators on both sides of the aisle — Democrat and Republican — voted in support of a tiered registry,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci. “We thank the 24 senators who voted in support of SB 421 as well as many co-sponsors of the bill, including Equality California, the CA Sex Offender Management Board and the victims rights group CalCASA.”

In order to become law, SB 421 must be passed by the Assembly where it will be considered by the Public Safety and Appropriations Committees prior to a floor vote no later than September 15, 2017. If the Assembly passes the bill, it must be signed by the Governor no later than October 15, 2017.

Congratulations to all of you in California! I am hoping that at some point the same type of registry is setup in Florida. Ms. Bellucci, do you know that Florida is a great place to live?? ;^) Out of topic question and I apologize, but being that the appeal to IML was dismissed on March, where can we find more information on what is to come? Thanks and congrats again!

I was convicted in another state over ten years ago for child pornography possession (CA 311.11 — Tier 1?). Can I move to California, register, and then petition to be removed from the CA registry.

Does anyone know the answer to this…The coding rules for the Static99R say is should not be used with offenders who have only Category “B” Offenses (which mine is). Plus, in my case of CP, the victim(s) were believed to be over 16 but not identifiable and it was Federal. So, I’m trying to figure out if the Static99R isn’t supposed to be used and the victims can’t even be identified; how will the new “Tier” system work for these kinds of situations? Kind of sounds like we don’t fit in? And, if it can only be used for 10 years…then what? I’m happy to read it in the Bill if someone can point it out. I’m just a bit confused by it all and not sure how the new bill is going to perceive my situation.