The Tiered Registry Bill (Senate Bill 421) was passed today by the Assembly’s Public Safety Committee. The final vote on the bill was 5 in favor (Chairman Jones Sawyer as well as committee members Rubio, Quirk, Santiago and Gonzalez-Fletcher), one opposed (Lackey) and one who did not vote (Flora).
During deliberations on the bill, the bill’s author (Senator Scott Wiener) stated the reform of the state’s sex offender registry “is long overdue”. He added that the registry was originally meant to be a tool of law enforcement. Law enforcement now believes that this tool is no longer effective because it includes too many people. Sen. Wiener also noted that there is a broad coalition of support, including law enforcement and district attorneys, for reformation of the registry. Further, Sen. Wiener stated that the registry has resulted in significant negative impacts upon both registrants and their families on issues such as housing and employment.
Two district attorneys testified in support of SB 421. Nancy O’Malley, the Alameda County DA, stated that SB 421 is a “very strong public safety bill” and urged members of the committee to vote in its favor. Jackie Lacey, the L.A. County DA, thanked Sen. Wiener for his leadership as author of the bill. She noted that the Tiered Registry Bill will help law enforcement keep better track of sexual predators.
Following the testimony of the two district attorneys, more than 75 people spoke in favor of the Tiered Registry Bill. Most of those individuals were registrants or family members of registrants.
“This is a significant victory for registrants and their loved ones,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci. “We are now very close to obtaining freedom from the registry for many people who do not pose a current danger.”
The Tiered Registry Bill will next be heard by the Appropriations Committee and if the bill is passed by that committee, it will be voted on by members of the Assembly between September 5 and September 15.
Does anyone know how it will work if this passes? Some people such as myself were labeled a SVP automatically due to the age of the alleged victim based off SORNA. The charge itself was a 290, but the fact the article said that SVP’s will have to register for life leaves me unsure where I’d fit in. Would we get a review to determine if we should be labeled SVP’s?
Congrats!
Another good post
http://dennismichaellynch.com/police-union-speaks-sex-offender-bill/
Such wonderful news!!!
That’s great news, but don’t relax on this, gotta keep pushing, gotta keep moving, you gotta keep fighting no matter what to disprove the falsehoods, and fallacies that are being spread about registrants and to make continuous changes to these SOR laws and if possible push to end the public notifications due to public misuse, and vigilantism and let law enforcement deal with notifications, and if that doesn’t work then the public notifications gotta to end once and for all.
Thanks to all of you who shared the exciting experience of seeing how laws are made in the real-world, stepping away from our computers for a day and making the jaws of legislators drop when 75+ of us stated our support one by one.
I hope more of you will join us next time. It is a great feeling to see a bill we support move forward, knowing we had a part in that.
you guys are talking about whos in tier 1 2 and 3 and what gets reported on the internet. first off one of the reasons for a tiered registration is so they can keep a better eye on the predators so correct me if im wrong isnt most registrants but not all but a majority 288(a)? if thats the case it will accomplish nothing. second question is what dwtermine 10 registration and 20 year registration. if tier 3 cant be reduced to tier 2 is tier 3 still life time? has anyone actually read the bill theyre voting on?
Janice et alia, please let us know if and when we need to send letters and make phone calls to the Assembly’s Appropriations Committee members.
(I am assuming that it is too early to lobby our district Assembly members in advance of a floor vote.) ✉ ☎
And a zillion thanks for all that you do!!! 👍
Great work everyone. Another step. If this really happens, then we will learn what steps to take individually I understand. We each will need representation, right? Nothing will be automatic? Do I understand this correctly?
What do they gain by trying to put people who are 288(a) in tier 3 if the whole point is getting people off the registry
Hi everyone,
I participated yesterday, and it was an amazing feeling and rush being part of a historical movement.
Yet , I’m a little confused on the tier placements.
Not seeking legal advice, but if someone can tell me if PC 288(c)1 is or could be considered a tier 1 or 2?
If anyone can dare some guidance or point of view.
Thank you all!!! Let’s keep this movement going.
Great news! A little worried though to what tier I’ll be placed at. I don’t have a subdivision c (specified) offense; but rather, I was required to register per 290.006. First time offense, but I score 6 on the Static 99. The way I read the bill and the way it amends 290.006, am I placed in Tier I since a Court must specify Tier II or III placement? Or does the 6 Static score supercede? Just worried right now.
Which tier would be this code ( “664 P 288.A” with charge of “attempt” ) by this bill? No any other records. Thanks
maybe there are some smarter than i that can aswer this question. i found a static 99r sample questions. out of 10 questions i only answered yes to one. do you start at 0 on the static 99r? or a minus? plus? next question it asks how old were you at time of conviction is it better to be younger or older? i was approximately 28 . where is the line drawn at on the static 99r score to go from 1 to 2 or 2 to 3? thank you very much janice. this wouldnt be possible if not for your hard work! thanks in advance
Out of curiosity. A level 1 offender who is able after 10 years to be removed from the registry – does this do anything to allow expungement of the record? My concern is wanting to be able to pass a background check to obtain new employment. As is I can’t seem to pass a background check. I believe this is due to two things – my record comes up and the registration. If this only removes the registration portion wouldn’t it still be a situation where my record still shows and I still cannot pass a background check? Or does SB421 also become a way of expungement? My crime was pc 311.11(a) misdemeanor after January 1st 2014. (Which seems to say I cannot get this expunged due to the law change as of that date)
This will have no effect on expungement or background checks. It will, however, reduce the period of time that registration will appear on a background check. There are 2 types of background check: the more common credit bureau check (that is limited to 7-years of reporting of the event) and the fingerprint type (for only certain jobs and that is not limited to 7-years).
Does anyone know that, if this bill becomes official and that I will someday no longer be on the California registry, will I still be on the NATIONAL registry?
I think this is wonderful news. I strongly support the bill and I believe it will pass. I have an expunged misdemeanor battery and it’s been 20-22 years. I need to remind people it’s hope and much better than today’s laws! Best of luck
The bill published an amended version in case anyone was wondering if any changes were made. Obviously, it could keep changing but this may look like one of the final changes.
This language in SB421 concerning 647.6 is unsettling:
“(c) On or before 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, 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”
Does ANYONE know conclusively if this means that ANY 647.6(a) regardless of whether it’s a misdemeanor will be made public on the site?
I was convicted in 2001 of misdemeanor possession of CP. I think that would place me in tier 1.
But my conviction was in Michigan. I have lived in California since my conviction.
So the way I read 421, since my conviction was from out of state, I would be in tier 2, despite the charge for which I was convicted.
What do you guys think? What do you think 421 says about out-of-state convictions?
TG ~ What is the California Penal Code for your offense?
im curious if all this is gonna retroactive? if my offense was in 1997 if in 2018 ill no longer have to register!! i guess time will tell!
It’s impossible not to speculate on which tier our convictions put us. I’m so technology dependent that when I go to Ralph’s and can’t immediately spot what I want among the shelves, my instinct is to hit Control +F and my search results will stand out in highlighter yellow.
Likewise, I long for an app into which I can plug the penal codes and date of my conviction. Animated lights flash as the results are calculated:
CONGRATULATIONS!
You’re Off the Registry!
Or not so great:
SORRY (sad trombone)
Tier 3.
You’re a Life Time Registrant.
The app could be sponsored by law firms specializing in registry relief and peripheral organizations such as Reputation Defender.
On a related note, I receive regular direct mail offering registry relief from various law firms. The last one actually creates a sense of urgency with the headline, “Tired registry about to become law. Will you be ready? Call today!”
Glad to see the legal community is aware and gearing up.
I was revisiting the Static-99R’s [new] Coding Rules and found something interesting, but yet troubling, on page 13:
“Our research has found that, in general, for every five years the offender is in the community without a new sex offence, their risk for recidivism roughly halves (Hanson, Harris, Helmus, & Thornton, 2014). Consequently, we recommend that for offenders with two years or more sex offence free in the community since release from the index offence, the time they have been sex offence free in the community should be considered in the overall evaluation of risk.”
Then here is the kicker:
“Static risk assessments estimate the likelihood of recidivism at the time of release and we expect they would be valid for approximately two years.”
VALID FOR APPROXIMATELY TWO YEARS?? Then why the hell is California going to use the Static-99R to label people for LIFETIME registration?? This sh** is bogus!
Take a look at this bull**** for yourself (page 13):
http://www.static99.org/pdfdocs/Coding_manual_2016_v2.pdf