Court strikes down sex registration requirement

A California appellate court has again struck down a requirement that ____ ____ ____, a well-known Redding man who often ran for elected office and who was sentenced to prison in 2013 for stalking a woman, register as a sex offender for life.

In its June 30 ruling, the Third District Court of Appeal, which once again upheld his stalking conviction, reversed ____ ____ ____’s sex offender registrant requirement. Full Article

Opinion

2015 Opinion

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.  
 

24 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

So he has a history of doing this to multiple WOMEN and served time in prison, but I’m the one who gets to miss out on all my nephews milestones in school and can’t travel after doing 60 days in county and probation. That’s a fine system there, Lou. The fact that registration is this fought over, sure as hell shows how much of a damn punishment it is.

When the hell is SCOTUS, or at least any other federal court, going to reevaluate the whole damn thing? I’m tried of living in constant fear of losing my job or worse when I’m now a “free” man.

Sorry for the language, but I think everything has the same frustration with all of this.

“The defense attorney has argued the sex offender registration requirement was not justified because the defendant never threatened or made any sexual advances toward the woman.”

I wish that was the minimum standard that had to be proven during trial.

finally a judge that didn’t cave to anything sex-offender

How stupid these laws are. The law says if he was stalking her with intent to merely mug or murder or scare the heck out of her, there is no need for him to be on a list to be watched, no matter how compulsive the behavior is or how frightened it makes the victim. The law shows an extreme sexophobia bias, and sends the message that harassing women is not that bad as long as no sexual urge is proven.

Sex is a sin and you’ll all have a GPS strapped to your pecker soon. get a boner and go to jail.

290.006 is one of the most stupid parts of the sex offender law itself. Why not just SPECIFY exact penal codes that require registration?

oh I guess the ole intent crap was not good enough , it was good enough to get me put away for 5 years on a 9 year beef , there was no attempt or anything like that in my case , just the prosecutor saying why I was there , the sign said For RENT , not someone still lives here , oh well maybe sometime I will run it all down . but after this many years I am sick of telling how stupid I am ,

I am serious here if an individual is hooked up to one of the mentioned pecker checkers to see if he is excited to photos of minors does it work if the person has severe ED. Just because his machine is out of order does not mean the person still could be a sexual criminal . He might be old but the guy ain’t dead .