ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (10/16 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings

We have emailed a link to the conference videos to all attendees and those who purchased the videos. If you haven’t received it and it is not in your spam folder, email

conference at all4consolaws dot org



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  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.

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.
  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
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.  
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Hard to say which news sounds best: The downfall of SB26 or the progress of SB 421?
Thanks for the updates.

I hope the change this a bit to make it easier to get off the list.

I’m happy but also apprehensive. It not being automatic is a huge concern. The process to get off seems very similar to the COR which is very costly and difficult. It also seems unclear how people will be categorized into tiers. It looks like “high risk” (Static-99 score of 6+) is automatically in T3, but T2 is more of a mystery. Hopefully a persons score can be written out of the final document given how poor the science behind it is.

I concur with deep concerns behind the Static 99 being in this bill. Behind the Static 99 lies the same fallacy behind our current registry itself: the Static 99 lumps all type of sex offenses, whether non-contact or violent, in the same “instrument,” “tool,” “actuarial,” or whatever else label SARATSO and CASOMB decides to give it.

And while it’s in the hands of judges and DAs, I’m hopeful but at the same time hesitant to let myself get too hopeful. It needs to be automatic and taken out of the hands of people who may still have motives to keep us on there.

I got no score…. blank….

Either you were sentenced before they were doing the Static-99 or your conviction didn’t involve a direct victim, likely child pornography? If it was more recent and did involve a direct victim, then you should have a score, barring some big oversight.

Thank you for calling it a COR. They actually wrote the standards for a COR into this bill. A COR is all this is, and we already have that. And Tier 1 people can already get out from under registration via a COR — although for some of the tier 1, they can now get out form under registration in 7 years, not 10 as this bill will change it to. All this bill does is extend that relief via a “COR” that they call a “tier” to those in Tier 2. Except for one minor detail — nearly no one can get a COR, they are routinely denied for fantasy reasons, excuses. And there is no reason to think prosecutors, or judges, will handle it any different under this bill, since they don’t have to fight us for the COR either. The prosecutors put those standards for this into the bill because they intend to use them just as they do now for a COR.

Yes, in the first year, the overload flood will make it so they have to let many off. But after that, all hell resumes.

In all my negativity, I never could have imagined a bill as bad as this one. The point you make here now is on the mark, but a huge list of other points about it are just as bad or worse. And we have not even offered an alternative.

As I keep saying, this bill is a hate-mongering prosecutor’s dream.

And, it does not fix 70 years of wrong. Until 20 years ago, we had a MUCH better, yet completely still unacceptable, system than this bill. This only tinkers some with the hell of the past 20 years, not 70. Up until 20 years ago, you could stop registering at the end of probation, or if you did not get probation, you could go for the COR at a much earlier time frame than this bill proves, and everyone could get off if they got a COR, they did not need to get the pardon. Its only for the past 20 years that matters have been what they are now. Until 20 years ago, lifetime was rarely lifetime.

This bill is actually taking away the relief people in recent years might have gotten buy a COR — this bill says a COR will not protect you against having to register. So any COR you might have no linger will get you that relief, you will now have to go through this tier process and hope. This is the third time they have retroactively taken relief away from people by changing the standard — and we are supporting that.

This is very good news.
And I’m so glad they killed the unnecessary and vindictive Leyva Bill!

Here we go! I just hope at some point when it goes trough some adjusting and finalizing, that they drop the petition to remove one’s self and or rather have those folks with one time conviction for things like indecent exposure just drop off the registry. Why have those folks cost more money in the courts when the idea is to save money and focus more on the most violent or those currently on probation.

Yea! Great day! Today’s my birthday and this couldn’t be a better present! I can contact my representatives…but do we know when it will be heard yet??? Do you need us there???

ValueGirl, thanks for calling your Senator, as Janice’s Action Alert today told us.

Trust her email alerts to know when to take action. She always uses them to let everyone know the best thing we can do for our freedom, including when to show up, when to write, etc.

ACSOL will NOT physically come to view the vote on the Senate floor, and for a few reasons ACSOL recommends that no one else come:

First, non-legislators may not even be allowed in the Senate chambers then, so you would waste a trip. Even if you were allowed, you would have to be very quiet in the balcony.

Second, you can watch it live in the comfort of your home. To do this:
(1) Go to
(2) Click on Calendar in the top right
(3) Look through the lists of bills that will be heard on a particular day
(4) When SB 421 pops up, come back to on that day
(5) Click on the Listen link on the far right side of the page under Today’s Events in the Senate Session. It even works on my iPhone. Or can also watch it on your designated Comcast channel.

Third, and most importantly, Senator Weiner and his team will be doing their best to pass the bill using the strategy he developed. That’s pretty cool. Other than calling our local Senators, it’s all we can do at the moment, so let’s relax a little and watch the action online.

Thanks Roger! Have been there from the start so was hoping to be there to see it through but if ACSOL isn’t supporting it then I’m good with that. Thanks for the feedback.

Happy birthday! I hope you’re having a good day 🙂

Thanks Alex! I’m not fond of my birthday but it was a very nice day and knowing that SB421 made it through was all I was really hoping for. Always nice when a wish comes true!

Serendipity has just smiled down upon us.

This is VERY encouraging!!! Good bill advances; evil bill doesn’t!
Thank you, Janice, Chance, and all for your hard work!

Now it’s time for us to get on the phone!

I just made my call. It literally took less than 30 seconds. Just do it ASAP!

Does anybody know what happened with
Ab 558?

I feel very hopeful. So faith plus action, I am getting on the phone to my senator.

Good, though I certainly share belief that STATIC 99R/SARATSO has no business in this bill. As it is, STATIC 99R’s foundation is not very strong. Giving STATIC 99/SARATRO the sole power to place someone into T3 is troubling, given the fact Karl Hanson and company claim 10 questions alone determines one’s future. I am of the belief the STATIC tests hang on the verge of junk science. It certainly shouldn’t be used to determine tiers alone! “Risk assessment” my a**!!!!

The Static 99 is useless, ridiculous and absolutely outdated. First off, it is static, meaning that the answers will remain the same for the rest of your life. Even for those who will get off the registry after 17 years, technically, the Static 99 answers still would have not changed. So, they deem those who have been on the registry for 17 years rehabilitated, but they would still score the same on this ridiculous test. That makes no sense at all whatsoever.

Yup. It’s very frustrating, especially the first question about age. I have a score of 4. Had I been 3 years older when I was sentenced, my score would have been 3. That one little number is what’s currently preventing me from getting off the net as its explicitly stated on the exclusion app that scores above 3 need not apply. The same would apply had I’ve been sentenced a day before my 35th birthday. Because those few years or even that one day really make that big of a difference in whether or not I’ll relapse.

I’m also concerned that my score of 4 may put me into T2 (I can’t tell if the score will have any impact on tier placement outside of T3). If that does happen, that means me being 3 years too young will result in 10+ years of remaining on the registry. What sense does that make?

Thank Janice and everyone. I have sent my senator, whom is a Republican on a contact message, to vote in favor of it and support better legislations base on facts, prevention, treatment and re-integration and get his eyes off the >90% that never re-offended with proven law abiding history. I will make my call, Tuesday.

I got to say the SARATSO and Static 99R parts worry me too. I definetely hope and pray Janice will do something to prevent and curtail the damage SARATSO will do by placing people into the 3rd lifetime tier. Like what some say: the Static 99 is a scam.

SARATSO and Static 99R maybe something could/should be challenge, independently. To my understanding, it appears, it is not designed to used after 10 years.

It definitely isn’t supposed to be used after 10 years! What we should be careful is SARATSO is seemingly scrubbing its website clean of any such evidence:

Thankfully, Google caches this type of info for a few months:

This SARATSO presentation, cached above, clearly reads: “Statute currently requires us to score all 290’s, but coding rules preclude coding on Registrant with offense free time in community for 10 years.” But even without this PowerPoint, you can read the Coding Rules itself and derive the fact the Static 99R is not to be used for an offender who has remained 10 years offense-free in the community.

The big question, then, is why is this bill going to allow the SARATSO/Static 99R to classify someone into the LIFETIME Tier 3?

Interesting, too, that SARATSO recently revamped its website, while stating:

“The study examined sexual re-offense rates of sex offenders on parole or probation, five years after release from custody. The 2016 study concluded that the Static-99R is an effective measure of the risk of sexual re-offense used with the ethnically diverse California sex offender population.”

They don’t even post a copy to the validation study (or even provide citation). Mind you, this so called “validation study” is an UNPUBLISHED paper with Karl Hanson as a co-author. Can you say conflict-of-interest? Here is a copy of this so called study:

Note on page 7, how SARATSO and CASOMB defines “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.”

So all types of crimes lumped, even if they aren’t necessarily “sexual” in nature, are factored into the state’s definition of recidivism. So what this so called study does is exaggerate the Static figures to begin with.

To summarize:

1. Static 99R only good for 10 years offense free, yet it is going to be used as one factor to determine a LIFETIME Tier 3 classification.

2. Static 99R has only been “studied” for a period of 5 years in California, yet it is going to be used as one factor to determine a LIFETIME Tier 3 classification.

There are countless other flaws with the Static 99R!! But they are far too many to list here.

A few other things I found on the official site:

“Static-99R does not measure all relevant risk factors and Mr. XXXX’s recidivism risk may be higher or lower than that indicated by Static-99R based on factors not included in this risk tool.”

Yet they presume to use it as if it does cover everything.

Also point 10 here:

“It is possible to use the Static-99 for sexual offenders who were released into the community following an index sexual offence during the past 10 years, although if more than 2 years has passed since the offender was released following the index, the evaluator should consider how this might affect the predicted recidivism rates”

How exactly does waiting two years to administer something that uses static facts change after two years? Why is that you have to adjust your conclusion if applying 2+ years after release yet not readjust the conclusion if the score was applied at release?

It seems to be all over the place. Complete junk.

Great news! I was literally shouting with glee when I got the text message today.

I have seen/heard two different timelines for implementation. The media, some legislators and Mark Klaas have said it would allow RC’s off starting in 2018. But I keep hearing reading here it wouldn’t be until 2019. Who is right?

Definitely not Mark Klaas

As currently written, the Tiered Registry Bill will go into effect in 2019.

“The bill would require the offender to file a petition at the expiration of his or her minimum registration period and would authorize the district attorney to request a hearing on the petition if the petitioner has not fulfilled the requirement of successful tier completion, as specified.”

Am I reading that correctly? The DA can only request a hearing if the “petitioner has not fulfilled the requirement of successful tier completion”?

You are half correct. As SB 421 is currently written, in regards to a petition for removal of the duty to register: “…The district attorney may request a hearing on the petition if the petitioner has not fulfilled the requirement described in subdivision (e) of Section 290, or if community safety would be significantly enhanced by the person’s continued registration.”

Check the bills proposed changes to Section 290.5 for further details.

That’s how I’ve read it as well. I’m not sure when that was written in, but it didn’t sound familiar when I read it yesterday. That at least makes me hope that it will be a much smoother process. Did you dot all the I’s and cross all the T’s? You’re good to go when filling. If not, then you may have an argument on your hands. Hopefully that’s how it will work.

As the bill is currently written, District Attorneys may also object to a petition if “community safety would be significantly enhanced by the person’s continued registration”. That is broad language and could be used in counties like Orange County to slow down or stop all petitions if a judge agrees with them.

OC is troublesome as the DAs and OC judges such as Judge Fitzgerald does not bother with what a defense attorney says or claims when that attorney is representing a SO. And this judge is not shy of his opinion at all. Fitzgerald doesn’t believe any SOs should have a second chance and doesn’t even want to see actual evidence….regardless if it is offered in his chambers or in his courtroom. Whether this law passes or not it will most likely still be an uphill battle in the OC. But with time that hopefully will change too.

Here is a standard definition of ‘Community Safety” .

“An aspect of ‘quality of life’ in which people, individually and collectively, are protected as far as possible, from hazards or threats that result from the criminal or anti-social behaviour of others. It should enable them to pursue, and obtain fullest benefits from, their social and economic lives without fear or hindrance from crime and disorder”

So……if people who have been registering for 30 years or more in tier 2 will automatically obtain relief without having to file a petition because it is presumed they no longer pose a threat solely based on the passage of time, why then aren’t tier 1 registrants afforded the same relief if they have been registering for 20 -29 years already? It is a equal protection problem that I see.

Thank you most kindly for your leadership and efforts. You are a real-life hero! I agree the online posting isn’t affected until July of 2019. But from what I read you can start petitioning for relief from registration in 2018 if you meet the minimum registration period. Am I misreading this?
“290.5. (a) (1) A person who is required to register pursuant to Section 290 and who is a tier one or tier two offender may file a petition in the superior court in the county in which he or she is registered for termination from the sex offender registry at the expiration of his or her mandated minimum registration period. period, except that petitions filed in 2018 and 2019 shall not be filed until on or after the person’s birthday following the expiration of the mandated minimum registration period. The petition shall contain proof of the person’s current registration as a sex offender.”

Janice is too 🙂

I called Senator Holly Mitchell. They just asked for my name and zip code.

thats how I read it js. it also states that exclusion from the internet with a doj form will take you off the internet if you meet that requirement for T2 which is simply registering for ten years with out any reoffenses of a sexual crime..We will have to see what happens but like it was said it’s incredible that the evil bill got killed while the mostly positive bill moved forward. Thanks Janice and team because if it wasn’t for them we would probably went the way of the oppressive regime in the third would country aka Floriduh…

The way I read that portion was that you had to be 10 years offense free AND you had to be a relative of the victim. Otherwise its a no go. It’s more narrow than the current requirements when petitioning to get off the net.

Where are you guys reading this? Janice is this a new direction in the bill?

Me and my family called senator Richard Roth and and said we are in favor of of sb421

Thank you, Stephen, for calling your senator!

Third world countries do not have registries! ;^) Floriduh does… Come on vacation and leave on probation!

Thanks to all those who do not cower in the face of adversity, to stand up and fight one battle at a time knowing not all will be won. Makes me proud to participate and contribute to the cause of the ACSOL and all the unseen heroes who dedicate their energy, time and money to supporting registered citizens everywhere. Just read that Milwaukee is fighting their residency restrictions with success. Every affected registered citizen needs to do something to participate because “We are all in this together!”

Great news!

My only question is how will they Tier people? What if your initial offense embassy’s reduced to a misdemeanor pursuant to 17B? What if your offense was expunged? Can you really put a person on Tier 2,with an expunged offense and summary probation?

Seems like it. Its seems like an engagement in some cases is almost meaningless. I’m an example of that. I can get an expungement (going to go for it soon) and a reduction. But even if I get both, they in no way seemingly effect my application for internet exclusion because I have a Static-99 score of 4 (the app states scores above 3 need not apply). So that means while my criminal record will show an expungement, Megan’s Law and all those damn 3rd party websites will still show me and my convictions for the world to see. So what’s the point, then, when a Google search will reveal more information (and inaccurately due to an expungement being granted) than an actual background check?

I have an important question… this is great news that we may have a chance to get off of the State registry, but it is also just as important to get off of the Federal registry. It is the Federal registry that stops us from passing a background check for employment. All background checks check the Federal registry, not the State registry. My question is… assuming SB 421 is signed into law does anyone have a detailed answer of how to follow up to get off of the Federal registry as well?

To my knowledge and recollection, there is no “federal registry” per se. The Feds merely suck up the data from the states. If that’s the case, I would think once you disappear from the State’s registry, you should disappear federally too. (All bets off regarding IML, though!)


@AJ Thanx. I don’t have a past copy of my background check in front of me at the moment but I believe they check the NSOPW.GOV which is the National Sex Offender registry and yes I do believe this registry just compiles all of its info from each state but it’s unclear whether we will automatically drop off of it once we are removed from the State registry or will we have to petition this National site as well?

Thank you Janice and team for your hard work and dedication with out you guys this would not be possible

I’ll call my CA Senator today. Here’s the message I just sent my Senator:

SB-421 Tiered Sex Offender Registry

“Dear Senator _________________,
Please support and vote in favor of SB-421establishing a Tiered Sex Offender Registry in California.
I am listed on the Registry for an offense that occurred more than 20 years ago. It’s been 20 years of public shaming supported by mob hysteria and NO evidence of high recidivism or danger to the public. The resources of law enforcement are spread too thin, wasting their time monitoring individuals like me who do not pose any greater threat to the public than anyone else. Our State of California is one of only four states that continue to require lifelong registration for ALL offenders regardless of offense or time passed since offense occurred. Please support a tiered registry that will increase public safety and will allowing non-dangerous individuals the freedom to move on and successfully rebuild their lives.
Thank you for your attention and consideration of my message.”

And I have contacted family and friends so they too will call and send emails.

Well i know one republican Senator will vote for it. Just had a heart to heart with him. That is if his fellow republicans dont push the issue… hmmm John has voted against party lines before when it made good sense.

It’s after 12, is there any update on the hearing today for AB 558?

Here is an impt question. If ie: convicted in LA of a wobbler etc, you must go back to that county in order to obtain a 17B and expungement.

If you apply for a Certificate of Rehabilitation, you must apply in the county you reside.

If you apply to get removed from the registry, what’s the process?

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!

It’s being discussed because SB 421 specifically cites SARATSO as sole and/or part of consideration for placing a person into a particular tier. A “well above average” score (this currently means 6+) is currently alone enough to place someone into T3. And it seems like a score can be a consideration for placement into T2 as well (this part isn’t too clear).

Also, the “not valid after 10 years” portion of Static-99 documentation has been removed recently. I recall reading this just a few days ago and now I can’t find it anymore.

Yeah really drop the Static 99 and SARATSO obsession already

Concerns with the STATIC 99 is not so much an “obsession” (as you claim), but more of what this tiered registry is REALLY about. CA SOMB, Nancy O’Malley, and their SARATSO component are getting the public to focus on gathering negative emotion against “high risk” offenders. But beneath the “risk” quantum lie a cheap actuarial instrument, the STATIC 99, that is not even dynamic. Even the 99R is not dynamic! Sure, it includes an age risk factor; but the point additions are for “age at release,” NOT CURRENT AGE. One point in the STATIC 99 scam can mean the difference in being a Tier I vs Tier III, or even being able to exclude oneself from the website. So I got to disagree. Call our concerns whatever you want. But remember the slippery slope this bill creates when our government begins to use junk science to play fortune teller while creating a misleading path in praising “risk” based registries. The dubious, 10 question science behind the STATIC tests is no justified way to quantify ‘risk.’

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!

Oops. I quoted the wrong section.

“(c) On or before January July 1, 2019, with respect to a person who has been convicted of the commission or the attempted commission of any of the offenses listed in, or who is otherwise described in, paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 290 and who is a tier two offender, as described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 290, and with respect to a person who has been convicted of the commission or the attempted commission of Section 647.6, the Department of Justice shall make available to the public via the Internet Web site his or her name and known aliases, a photograph, a physical description, including gender and race, date of birth, criminal history, the community of residence and ZIP Code in which the person resides or the county in which the person is registered as a transient, and any other information that the Department of Justice deems relevant, but not the information excluded pursuant to subdivision (a) or the address at which the person resides. resides, except that information about persons required to register as a result of an adjudication as a ward of the juvenile court pursuant to Section 290.008 shall not be made available on the Internet Web site.”

Does anyone know the answer to this??
Will 647.6 misdemeanors be publicly published under the new tiered registry?

Seems like it. When it makes a difference they refer to the code as misdemeanor or felony. When its just the code, it’s all inclusive. So you annoying the person is just as bad as you molesting them, apparently.

Someone please help clarify…with respect to this paragraph posted by AlexO, is it only referring to tier 2 offenders with a 647.6? Does it mean if you’re tier 1 with a 647.6, you can still be excluded from the megans law site? It’s difficult understanding some of this legal stuff. Thanks.

Please provide a link for this information.

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 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.

There are restrictions to the current exclusion form. The biggest one is those with Static-99 score of 4+ cannot file for exclusion. Then a few of the convictions have certain stipulations to qualify. It’s not nearly automatic.

Mike r…… offense free for 10 years? Does that mean offenses relating to subsequent sex crimes or all crimes. Kindly help clarify if you will. Thanks

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.

647.6 was always part of T1. They’ve actually now expanded 647.6 to potentially put you into T2 if you have multiple convictions for it at separate times. It also looks like they added 647.6 to the list to prevent T1’s from being excluded from the internet. It basically looks like they rolled SB558 into this bill in that regard.

So one or two positive changes and also more negative ones. I am currently being negatively impacted by this change (looks like my info will remain public despite seemingly being a T1 because of my misdemeanor 647.6)

Can Janice or ACSOL please give a definitive answer to this? Will 647.6 misdemeanors be published under the new Tiered registry regardless of whether it’s Tier One?

“It basically looks like they rolled SB558 into this bill in that regard”

I think you are right.

Yes. It does appear that multiple misdemeanor convictions for 647.6 tried separately will land a person in tier 2 and placed on the website. The way I read it though, if you have 1 conviction for for 647.6 you will be in tier 1 but the wording is not entirely clear as to whether it would be subject to the website.

Tier 2 –
“Section 647.6 if it is a second or subsequent conviction for that offense that was brought and tried separately”

Criteria for being on the website-
“Anyone convicted of an offense in Section 290 AND who is a tier two offender, as described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 290, AND with respect to a person who has been convicted of the commission or the attempted commission of Section 647.6

Those “AND” in the wording indicates that that you must fulfill all 3 criteria; convicted of a sex offense, be categorized in tier 2 and be convicted of 647.6. Otherwise it would have been written “OR with respect to a person who has been convicted of the commission or the attempted commission of Section 647.6″

However if you look at how Bill 558 is only targeting 647.6 convictions now ( since all of the modifications) it does seem like they are trying to appease the opponents of this bill who are banging the drum about child ” molestors” . I’m sure Janice could clarify better than I could.

In addition, it looks like tier 3 has been modified as well. The bill now states that a tier 3 registrant can petition to get off the registry completely after 20 years( not just be moved down to tier 2) if their placement in tier 3 is because of a high SARATSO score and would have otherwise been placed in tier 1 or 2 based on penal code offense. However this does not apply to anyone convicted of 288 with an above average SARATSO score.

It should be at 10 years, *not* 20 years.

If the Static 99R can only be used for up to 10 years after release (assuming no subsequent reoffense), why do those put into Tier 3 solely because of the Saratso/Static 99R score have to wait 20 years? Logically, it should be 10 years.

Makes no sense.

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.

Because that’s how politics work. Everyone wants to get a reach-around. That provision was likely added as a stipulation of the bill’s release and consideration for the vote. One of those “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few” things. It just seems so needless, particularly for those who we’re given it as a misdemeanor.

You need to calm down. Website publication is for those who have multiple (and separate) convictions for this code. If you only have one conviction (which has subsequently been expunged), then you’re not on the website.

Multiple convictions of 647.6 is a new clause that can land you into tier 2 (single conviction is tier 1). The internet exclusion is under tier 2 section where it states anyone in tier 2 will have info on the web as well as those convicted of 647.6.

Though now that you said what you said, I can see it being read that way as well. As in if you have multiple convictions of 647.6, you’re now in tier 2. Then the tier 2 section on the internet repeats this point.

Hopefully Janice or one of her people can clarify this point. I have a feeling its the bad one 🙁

Did you read the bill? If you’re tier 1 you’re not on the site.

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?

Good question. Are we on that forever?

The National Public S.O. Website is not a separate entity- it is simply an amalgamation of the State registries .If you have an exclusion from, have obtained an injunction allowing relief from, or taken off by tier restructuring from your States public website, you will no longer be listed on the National one, which is basically just a main portal linking to all the different States.

Federal website has your name ONLY as long as you are on at least one state’s website.

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?


@Mot … I also have an attempted 288(a) … spoke with chance Oberstein … the bill has still not passed so everything is fluid but it is likely our offense will be tier 2 possibly tier 1. Likely will have to fight for tier 1.

With an attempted 288(a) you can get at 1203.4, and also apply for a COR … neither will relieve us of having to register but if/when laws change having those can only help when trying to get removed from the registry.

interest party: Have you been successful in getting 1203.4 and a COR? If so can you recommend a lawyer? The ones I have talked to said I cannot get either?


Chance Oberstein is a lawyer who has successfully earned a COR. So he knows first hand how to earn a COR.

As for 1203.4, if you complete probation successfully as well as paid all of your fines, then by law you are granted the 1203.4. It’s essentially a “check-the-box” thing for 1203.4, provided your offense qualifies for it.

If you’re that unsure, then call Chance. He’s also ACSOL’s President.

Mot: yes I did get my 1203.4. It took a long time to find a lawyer with the knowledge to know that with an attempted 288(a) you can get it. I am now working with chance on trying for the COR. The 1203.4 is mandated by law but the COR is a matter of discretion for the judge will let you know how it goes. In hindsight call chance first or call the bar in your community and find a lawyer with expertise in post conviction sex offender law.

MOT ~ We are in the process of filing a 1203.4 and 17b. The 17b will reduce the felony to a misdemeanor first before getting the expungement, which is better since you will have an expunged misdemeanor rather than a dismissed felony. It will restore your gun rights and if charged in the future, it will show only a misdemeanor. If a felony is a wobbler, it can be reduced first. Certain offenses are excluded from getting an expungement and you would need to file for a COR. We went through record gone and they will evaluate your case and let you know if it is eligible. There is also a law firm called Fresh Start in Rancho Santa Margarita, and they also offer a 100% money back guarantee (minus the filing fees). Don’t take the online eligibility test but call them instead. They are really nice and helpful. When we did the eligibility test, we would not qualify, but when we called them, they said we were. They do both expungement and COR.

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 knew nothing about this bill before going to your site. I am totally stoked/scared about it.
On Friday I emailed my Senator about “Yes on SB421” and this morning called his office. A man answered asked me my last name and verified my message asking my Senator to vote yes on SB421.
Today was just half a session, tomorrow is a full day. The bill is #171 on the list. I think they got to 90 today.
Probably vote on it Wednesday afternoon.
There is still time to contact your Senator. The link is:
You must enter your address. Senator McGuire Sacto office is (916) 651-4002

There is a live stream of the sessions. after lunch check out:

Good on you mate.

It’s Item #88 on today’s Agenda, per The Daily File.

In addition I posit The 5-27-17 Bill Analysis:

Office of Senate Floor Analyses
(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478

SB 421
Bill No: SB 421
Author: Wiener (D) and Anderson (R), et al.
Amended: 5/26/17
Vote: 21

AYES: Skinner, Anderson, Bradford, Jackson, Mitchell, Wiener
NOES: Stone

AYES: Lara, Beall, Bradford, Hill, Wiener
NOES: Bates, Nielsen

SUBJECT: Sex offenders: registration: criminal offender record information
Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office
Sex Offender Management Board

DIGEST: This bill creates a tiered registry for sex offenses so that people will be
required to register for 10 years, 20 years, or lifetime depending on the conviction
Existing law:
1) Requires persons convicted of specified sex offenses to register for life, or
reregister if the person has been previously registered, upon release from
incarceration, placement, commitment, or release on probation. States that the
registration shall consist of all of the following:

SB 421
Page 2
a) A statement signed in writing by the person, giving information as shall be
required by the Department of Justice and giving the name and address of
the person’s employer, and the address of the person’s place of employment,
if different from the employer’s main address;
b) Fingerprints and a current photograph taken by the registering official;
c) The license plate number of any vehicle owned by, regularly driven by or
registered in the name of the registrant;
d) Notice to the person that he or she may have a duty to register in any other
state where he or she may relocate; and,
e) Copies of adequate proof of residence, such as a California driver’s license
or identification card, recent rent or utility receipt or any other information
that the registering official believes is reliable. (Penal Code Section
2) States every person who is required to register, as specified, who is living as a
transient shall be required to register for the rest of his or her life as specified.
(Penal Code § 290.011(a) to (d).)
3) Provides that willful violation of any part of the registration requirements
constitutes a misdemeanor if the offense requiring registration was a
misdemeanor, and constitutes a felony of the offense requiring registration was
a felony or if the person has a prior conviction of failing to register. (Penal
Code § 290.018(a)(b).)
4) Provides that within three days thereafter, the registering law enforcement
agency or agencies shall forward the statement, fingerprints, photograph, and
vehicle license plate number, if any, to the DOJ. (Penal Code § 290.015(b).)
5) States that a misdemeanor failure to register shall be punishable by
imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, and a felony failure to
register shall be punishable in the state prison for 16 months, 2 or 3 years.
(Penal Code Section 290.018(a)(b).)
6) Requires DOJ to make information about registered sex offenders available to
the public via an Internet Web site, as specified. (Penal Code § 290.46.)
Requires people who are registered sex offender registrants to disclose this

SB 421
Page 3
status to the licensee of a community care facility before becoming a client of
that facility. (Health and Safety Code § 1522.01.)
7) Imposes specified restrictions on persons registered as sex offenders with
respect to employment in certain areas.
8) Provides that the “Department of Corrections shall develop and, at the
discretion of the director, and subject to an appropriation of the necessary
funds, may implement a plan for the implementation of relapse prevention
treatment programs, and the provision of other services deemed necessary by
the department, in conjunction with intensive and specialized parole
supervision, to reduce the recidivism of high-risk sex offenders.” (Id.)
9) Provides that “(n)otwithstanding any other law, an inmate who is released on
parole for any violation of Section 288or 288.5 shall not be placed or reside,
for the duration of his or her period of parole, within one-quarter mile of any
school including any public or private school including any or all of
kindergarten and grades 1 to 8, inclusive.” (Penal Code § 3003(g) (emphasis
10) Creates the Sex Offender Management board to address any issue, concerns and
problem related to the community management of adult sex offenders. (Penal
Code § 9000 et seq)
This bill:
1) Creates three tiers of sex offender registration; a person will be required to
register for 10 years, 20 years or life.
2) Provides that a person convicted of the specified misdemeanor and non-violent
offenses shall be required to register for 10 years or 5 years if they were
adjudicated as a juvenile.
3) Provides that a person convicted of more serious specified sex offenses,shall be
required to register for 20 years or 10 years if they were adjudicated as a
4) Provides that a person convicted of the most serious sex offenses shall be
required to register for life

SB 421
Page 4
5) Provides that out of state offenders, with an offense which is equivalent to a
California registerable offense will be placed in the corresponding tier to that
offense and if there is no equivalent California offense, the person will be
placed in tier two (20 years.).
6) Provides that a person shall register as a tier one offender for a period of ten
years unless the court states on the record reasons for requiring tier two or tier
three registration.
7) Provides the list of factors that the court must consider in determining whether
to require tier two or tier three registration including, age and number of
victims; whether the victim was a stranger and whether the person has
previously been arrested or convicted of a sexually motivated offense.
8) Provides that included in information disseminated to the public regarding a
registered sex offender should also include the person’s current risk of sexual or
violent re-offense, including but not limited to their static dynamic violence risk
levels on the SARATSO risk tools.
9) Provides that all tier three registrants will be posted on a public Web site with
full address. All tier two registrants, except for juvenile offenders, will be
posted on the public Web site with the ZIP Code for the registered address
displayed. If a tier two registrant successfully completes the first 10 years of
the 20-year tier and has not been convicted of a registerable offense or a serious
or violent offense during the tiering period, he or she may petition the DOJ for
exclusion from the public Web site for the last 10 years of the tier.
10) Retains the current ability for specified registrants who received probation for
an offense against a specified family member to apply for exclusion for the
Web site. The person must be assessed as below average risk or very low risk
to reoffend in order to be excluded from the public Web site.
11) Provides that persons who were previously granted exclusion for offenses but
will no longer qualify for exclusion shall receive 30 days notice from DOJ
before being re-posted on the public Megan’s Law Web site.
12) Sets for a procedure for a registrant who is either in tier one or tier two to
petition to be removed from the sex offender registry following the expiration
of his or her tier.

SB 421
Page 5
13) Sets up a procedure for a tier three registrant to be removed from the
requirement of registration after 20 years under specified circumstances.
14) Provides that it will automatically clear the registry of offenders who would
have been placed in tier one or two, but whose convictions are 30 years or
older, who have never reoffended and who has registered for at least 10 years.
California is one of the few states that requires lifetime registration with no
discernment for the type of offense. Florida, South Carolina and Alabama are the
only other states without some form of tiering. While this allows the public to see a
majority of offenders, the public and local law enforcement have no way of
differentiating between higher and lower risk sex offenders.
Sex offender registry counts for some larger states as of March 31, 2016:
California 84,315; Florida 68,845; Illinois 23,755; Michigan 38,753; New Jersey
15,645; New York 30,968; Ohio 17,683; Oregon 28,736; Pennsylvania 19,257;
Texas 87,149; and, Virginia 22,299. (
In a 2010 report, the California Sex Offender Management Board made the
following recommendations regarding a tiered registration system in California:
“Recommended Changes to California Law on Sex Offender Registration and
Internet Notification. It’s recommended that California amend its law on duration
of registration, which should depend on individual risk assessment, history of
violent convictions, and sex offense recidivism. The proposed changes to
California law take into consideration the seriousness of the offender’s criminal
history, the empirically assessed risk level of the offender, and whether the
offender is a recidivist or has violated California’s sex offender registration law.
Duration of registration would range from ten (10) years to lifetime (10/20/life).
For purposes of the tiering scheme.” (<
20Report%20Jan%202010_Final%20Report. pdf .)
This bill creates a tiered registry in California. Sex offenders will be required to
register for 10 years, 20 years, or for life or 5 or 10 years for juvenile offenders,
depending on their offense.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No

SB 421
Page 6
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
 DOJ: Major one-time costs, in the range of $10 million (General Fund) over a
three-year period, for major IT changes to existing data bases, as well as
automated and manual record review. Significant ongoing costs, in the range of
$1 million (General Fund).
 Local law enforcement: Minor to moderate cost savings, potentially in the tens
of thousands of dollars (local funds) to local law enforcement agencies
completing monthly and annual paperwork for less people as people in tier one
and tier two would be eligible to be removed from the registry.
 State incarceration: Potential unknown out-year savings (General Fund) in the
realignment from state prison to county jail of any person who was on the
registry but is removed and later is convicted for committing a realigned felony
offense. If one person who would have served time in state prison because of
the lifetime registry serves the sentence at the local level, the state would save
over $75,000 annually in detention costs.
SUPPORT: (Verified 5/25/17)
CALCASA (co-source)
Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office (co-source)
Sex Offender Management Board (co-source)
Alameda County District Attorney
Alameda County Board of Supervisors
Alliance for Constitutional Sex Offense Laws
American Civil Liberties Union of California
Asian American Drug Abuse Program, Inc.
Association of Deputy District Attorneys
California Association of Code Enforcement Officers
California College and University Police Chiefs Association
California State Association of Counties
California Police Chiefs Association
California Narcotic Officers Association
California Public Defenders Association
California State Association of Counties
Courage Campaign
East Bay Community Law Center
Equality California
Family Safety Foundation

SB 421
Page 7
Friends Committee on Legislation of California
Legal Services for Prisoners with Children
Immigrant Legal Resource Center
Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area
Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association
Los Angeles Police Protective League
National Employment Law Project
National Housing Law Project
Returning Home Foundation
Root & Rebound; Rubicon Programs
Voices for Progress Education Fund
A number of Individuals

OPPOSITION: (Verified 5/25/17)
None received
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the Los Angeles District Attorney’s
Based on a survey of several municipal law enforcement agencies in
California, it is estimated that local law enforcement agencies spend
between 60-66% of their resources dedicated for sex offender
supervision on monthly or annual registration paperwork because of
the large numbers of registered sex offenders on our registry. If we
can remove low risk offenders from the registry it will free up law
enforcement officers to monitor the high risk offenders living in our
communities. Law enforcement cannot protect the community
effectively when they are in the office doing monthly or annual
paperwork for low risk offenders, when they could be out in the
community monitoring high risk offenders.
Furthermore, the public is overwhelmed by the number of offenders
displayed online in each neighborhood and do not know which
offenders are considered low risk and which offenders are considered
high risk and therefore truly dangerous.
In order to address these issues with California’s Sex Offender
Registry, SB 421 would abolish California’s mandatory lifetime
registration and replace it with a system in which registrants are
placed into one of three tiers based on the seriousness of the

SB 421
Page 8

underlying offense. The lowest tier, Tier One, would require the
offender to register for a minimum of 10 years; Tier Two would
require registration for a minimum of 20 years; and Tier Three would
still require lifetime registration. Sexually Violent Predators (see
Welf. & Inst. Code §§ 6600 et seq.) would also be required to register
for life.

The tiers that would be created by SB 421 are based on seriousness of
crime, risk of sexual reoffending, and criminal history. Tier One is
comprised of registrants convicted of a misdemeanor or non-serious,
non-violent felony (exception: all high risk offenders are Tier 3). Tier
Two is comprised of registrants convicted of a serious or violent sex
offense (exception: all high risk offenders are Tier 3). Tier Three is
comprised of registrants ever found to be a sexually violent predator,
habitual sexual offender, repeat violent offender, or if convicted of
murder or kidnap with intent to commit a sexual offense, designated
forcible sexual offenses, any sex offense requiring a life term, or two
child molest convictions brought and tried separately, or if the
person’s score on the static risk assessment instrument for sex
offenders is high risk.

Under SB 421, the minimum registration periods would begin to run
upon release from custody, and would be tolled during any periods of
subsequent incarceration, and restart after any subsequent conviction
for failing to register, or a strike offense, or after committing a new
sex offense.

Prepared by: Mary Kennedy / PUB. S. /
5/27/17 15:28:44
**** END ****

I speak a True Song

As Yehovah Lives, so should we

If under SB 421 the registration begins at the release of custody I would be under the assumption what Law Enforcement and DAs wil do is continue to add on charges and ensure they are able to get as much time, if not more time, added to the alleged SO which would bring about more time behind bars and keep them on the registry as long as possible. Even if they are in a low tier. I was lead to believe a SOs clock started at time of conviction. Whether or not you were incarcerated or out?

The “time clock” has always started the first time one registers at a sheriff or police station. No one is actively registered while incarcerated ( unless previously registered and it is under 30 days in jail)

It’s at the time of “release”. Release means not under confined supervision such as jail or group home where you’re constantly monitored directly. So if you got probation, your clock starts ticking after you did whatever continues county time you may have received or immediately if you were sentenced to weekends and/or community service.

If you received a prison sentenced and it wasn’t commuted, your clock starts ticking on when you leave the prison and officially enter parole status.

Hear, hear!!!

24 Y 10 N

Bill 421 is Passed the Senate

Wiener spoke very Convincingly & Persuasively.

I Speak a True Song

As Yehovah Lives, so should we

SB 421 is on today’s agenda as item 88. Wednesday 5-31-2017

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.

@ Lake County:
Maybe he has the new super duper caller id, or Maybe he’s Santa Claus?

@ Lake County, I sent him an email. I’ll try calling him as well. Do you have the phone number you called?

Does anyone know if the California Senate is voting on sb421 today

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.

Wow, really? I’d file a report with your PO and your local sheriffs office. That sounds like harassment.

Or just ask them if you’re being detained, or if you are free to go. WHEN they say you’re not being detained, close the door on them. Unless you’re in a positive ID state, you don’t even have to tell them who you are. This is all assuming you made the mistake of answering the door.


David, So sorry about the check today. Those things are awful. Let’s hope we make it all the way through and it changes the future for so many who are deserving! For today, let’s rejoice in knowing your hard work is paying off! Hang in there!

David ~ The so called compliance checks are nowhere written in any law or mandated. This is simply a policy that the police department made up internally. If you are not on probation or parole, you know that you don’t have to answer the door or any of their questions. Unless, you are in an ID state, meaning that you have to provide ID or your name when stopped by police. I still don’t think, coming to your house is legitimate regardless. You can file a complaint if they bang on your door and shout police, etc, alarming the neighbors. This is harassment. They can knock, wait and leave if nobody answers, just like with any other person. If they have no reason to be at your house, it is not necessary to knock on your door. If you are not out of compliance, haven’t broken any law, and there is no crime they are investigating in the area, they have absolutely no business at your door unless they knock on everybody’s door. You are only required to update your information at your annual registration. Unbelievable!

It is unbelievable. Like Registry Terrorists said (sort of), it is like poking a tiger with a stick. It may not seem like much to some, but it’s like one small act piled on all the rest of the abuse that can make it unbearable. What do they want? To manufacture an incident? Clearly they sometimes come all geared up with assault outfits, prepared to create an incident. How smart is that?

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.

I wish I wasn’t this nervous. Do you know if there was a clarification to the 647.6 clause under Tier 2 internet exclusion part of SB 421?

(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.

4:18 p.m.: It’s being read/presented now.

Popeye, thanks for the link so I could watch the vote on the Senate Floor…

Damned interesting debate and comments before the vote…

This was, I think, a fairly substantial yes vote…which is good.

Though many of us still don’t entirely know how this will affect us…it is, I think, a substantial first step.

I pray for all of us.

Best Wishes, James

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

Amazing and wonderful!! Thank you, Janice and ACSOL!!
Where does the Bill go now?

Terrific news! A long ways to go still but keep the faith everyone.

On a sidenote I watched the proceedings online this afternoon. I have to say the Jeff Stone is an individual with a very shallow and closed mind. I feel very sorry for the folks in his district that he represents.

Congratulations to you Janice…you deserve all the grateful applause possible.

Thanks…I sometimes think I would be lost without you and ACSOL. This website alone is invaluable to all of us.

Kudos to you, Janice, I am overwhelmed that this has been accomplished. There is more to go I know, but still this is…just great.


I just watched the presentation and vote. Pinch me I must be dreaming!
I have been on the registry for 31 years and never had any hope of ever getting off of it.
Now there is a way forward! So grateful to everyone that made this happen.

Thank you very much for all your work, Janice!

Are you able to provide clarification regarding 647.6 under tier 2 internet exclusion? It sounds a lot like AB 558 🙁

Thanks to you Janice and acsol members for your hard work and persistence for all of us and more to come down that road of prejudice. I’am sure glad frank gave you that book!

Thank you Janice and all those who wrote and called and went to Sacramento

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.

If your only charge was possession of CP (and no production), then you shouldn’t have a Static-99 score. I’d contact a lawyer. You should be in tier one.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x